Ynot Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Well. I'm not much of a follower of the X-Factor but I was told today to watch the playback of Cheryl Coles' performance last weekend. No - NOT to see for myself whether or not she was miming, because in the words of her actual song title, I Don't Care about that. What I was pointed at was the use of a single fixture (OK, 160 of the same fixture as it happens) to provide her backdrop. 160 A-LEDA B eye movers in two 10 x 8 grids behind her with some quite breath-taking effects show what a simply fantastic unit this is, and how a decent designer with time to spend programming can make a huge difference to how a song LOOKS when it's performed. Oh - and mimed or not, the song isn't all that bad... There's certainly a lot worse out there (even if the 'explicit' version does use the F word a few times... :) )
Mystic Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 yes it is really nice... I'd be curious to find out how the programming was done and how long it took. On a side note : 10k£ per fixture, list price... mmm we're talking one million and a half pounds of lighting there.... ok let's think that clay make made a price.. just million pound of gear... whoa... I'm sure with that amount of money you can make things look good (or even pay a CGI artist to simulate the background :)
Don Allen Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 What impresses me is the programmer/designer has kept the intensity low for most of the song so you can see the effect without blinding the audience. This made the high intensity punchy bits more effective when used in moderation. There is a lot of effects waves being used on each row, so clever programming. The tv director is helping with the star lens effects on some shots. The looks were relevant with different passages of the song, including the universe reference. Whover came up with LTP has made life easier with design like this.
indyld Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 For intensity (and possibly colour), pixel mapping and simple media content is the quickest way to many of those effects, although modern FX gens will get you a lot of the way there pretty fast too. For all you MagicQ users on here, set up a grid and try out the FX gen and experiment with spreads, parts etc. The looks were nice and I assume all synced via time code.
jonathanhill Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Oh - and mimed or not, the song isn't all that bad... Right at the end of the clip, when talking to the host, she removes her in-ears. Maybe for show, maybe because she was singing live. The look of the piece was stunning, I especially liked the effect where just a couple of LED's are flashing on each unit, with a PT effect running. I presume that it was programmed on MA, can anyone confirm?
lxdad Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 I presume that it was programmed on MA, can anyone confirm? Yes it was.
Dave m Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Although she might be wearing IEM's just as ear defence from a loud PA?Even miming needs fold back
Young Johnstone Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 Very clever programming, I'm sat here working out how some of it was done! I guess some of the looks will have been very simple things with delay timings etc.. How many universes will that be using though. Hats off to the LD!
bigclive Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 But should we really be encouraging the use of video walls with at least four motors per pixel cluster (excluding fans)? Did look good though, and must have taken a fair amount of programming.
Ynot Posted November 8, 2014 Author Posted November 8, 2014 She said something about "I brought them from Vegas" so I'm assuming it's part of a bigger show over there...
indyld Posted November 8, 2014 Posted November 8, 2014 As part of a demo for students on using an FX generator, I put together a show file with a page worth of intensity only effects that are solely created with a combination of spreads, parts etc. in MagicQ. I may make my guys a video on it sometime, but in the meantime, I share the show file for BR MagicQ users. The Tri Window layout shows Groups, Grid and Programmer. To see and play with the settings on the FX, INCLUDE the playback. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/gmtpmguarxjtxxk/AADk-6e9A8lfct7CFCRety-3a?dl=0 This is obviously intensity only, but similar principles apply to movement FX etc. and combinations of different attributes running together as per the video. (Yes, I know the show was programmed on an MA, but the principles are the same across pro consoles.) (Edit: I didn't bother checking the layout in the visualiser, the output grid is the mimic for these purposes)
Young Johnstone Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 When I'm giving console training, I ask people to create intensity or colour effects without using the fx engine, and keep it under three cues! It quite often makes them think really hard about how to achieve it. Why do so many people jump to the fx engine first??
indyld Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 When I'm giving console training, I ask people to create intensity or colour effects without using the fx engine, and keep it under three cues! It quite often makes them think really hard about how to achieve it. Why do so many people jump to the fx engine first?? Because it's there. These kind of effects took a lot more effort 15-20 years ago and I kinda agree to a point on getting people to break down effects and use the ol skool tools to achieve some stunning things. It helps people learn to think in steps and delays and use tracking to their advantage. However, there is a balance to be struck as we also no longer teach people how to run shows with a 96 way, 3 group, 3 preset desk for a good reason : it is no longer how shows are run. Ultimately, it comes down to what people need / want to learn. I think the hardest thing for new programmers these days is to use FX engines in original ways and move past the basic 'run an effect, record' because, short of the sheer 'power' of a shedful of fixtures all a-wagglin' and a a-flashin, it isn't really THAT interesting as it's so ubiquitous. Once you've seen a bucketful of Sharpys or whatever, you've seen them. Similarly, projection mapping is both an interesting technological phenomenon and already old hat at the same time. Edit to add: The programming in the video has FX gen all over it. There are key details that make the looks coherent and make use of multiple attributes running well together and certainly creating a slick piece like that requires time in the pre-programming suite (even just to get the timecode right). I am merely pointing out the tools that make these things as 'easy' as they are today. (It took me 15 mins to patch up the fixtures, set up the screens and create 10 intensity effects, rather the longer process of analysing and breaking down those FX into cue lists, tracking changes and delay timings and recording the elements. The modern difference between each effect is only the setting of 4 encoders on a dim chase and the odd reordering of the fixture selection).
Roderick Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 For me the title of the song really summed it up.
Smiffy Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 We're running a number of K-20's on Sheeran at the moment, and I'm liking them a lot. In raw form, they are a bit channel hungry however with their shape mode they're a much more sensible 37 channels (or thereabouts) a lot of the effects used there for Ms Coles performance were the on-board macro effects which are very well thought out and with some nice on-board tools for manipulating them a bit so they don't look like every other show. Anyone else get the feeling that the lighting budget may have been so big for that song because the song itself was so dull? Turd Polished. etc
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.