New control desk for controlling intelligent lighting fixtures

[stuartglen]

it is csi here's the link

http://www.aclighting.com/bargains/view.asp?ref=1339

 

do you reackon theis would do me and what power requirements would it need?

[Andrew C]

it is csi here's the link

http://www.aclighting.com/bargains/view.asp?ref=1339

 

do you reackon theis would do me and what power requirements would it need?

Far, far better than any mover! Certainly bright enough, you will need a decent stand and think about, although you might not "need" a colour changer. It'll run from a 13A socket; bear in mind it will not dim!

[stuartglen]

could it be mounted to the scaf tower using a standard clamp and what would happen if you ran the ballast through a DMX dimmer?

[Andrew C]

I wrote "bear in mind it will not dim!" How from that do you get to "what would happen if you ran the ballast through a DMX dimmer?" You will stuff it up, possibly your dimmer too, whether DMX or not!

 

As to clamping it on the tower; you need to reach both ends of a followspot to work it, so if you clamp on the 'side' of the tower it might work. It would be difficult if you clamp it on the 'front'. I wouldn't use a standard clamp, it will wobble too much, and if your tower is light ali, this may accentuate the wobble.

[stuartglen]

so you would advise using a tripod?

[the kid]

I've used both clamping at the front is really more hassle than its worth because the clamp eventually swings around the bar so you have to fix up a extravagant jig to stop that.

 

Tripod is the way to go.

[stuartglen]

would ac lighting be able to service the act 6 dimmers?

[Andrew C]

Unless you have sufficient tower to build it 7' higher than th operators platform and hang it from a piece of steel tube. Ensure it can't unscrew from the clamp...

[stuartglen]

the tower reaches to the top of the hall so the followspot could be mounted that high, would that be better than a tripod?

[paulears]

There probably isn't much point adding to this thread anymore, but dweeks is confusing professional lighting with school lighting. Ever since the late '60s, when lighting was first starting to creep into schools, there was a two tiered need. Strand. at the time marketed a nice little kit of Patt.23s, on a stand, with a local dimmer with real rotary knob. Their marketing people realised that contrast and colour stimulated imagination. The fact that in many cases what the viewer actually saw was a backlit mess didn't matter - it could be pointed (not focussed) and coloured, and turned on and off simply. Using moving head or mirrors is just the modern way of doing the same thing, but better.

 

The quality of the kit is totally irrelevant. It has a years guarantee. That is enough. The reality is that if it goes wrong after this time, there is not going to be any budget to get it fixed, other than what can be done by the technician. So, a 2 grand Martin just gets put in the cupboard because there isn't £200 available to fix it. This may seem crazy, but education equipment nowadays is normally bid for - everybody has a wish list, normally totalling far more than is available. Then everyone stresses how important their bid is and there are winners and losers. Nothing put aside for replacement, or repairs. So - buying cheap kit and wearing it out in a year is fine - AND maybe you get more. I'd rather have 4 cheap ones, than 2 expensive ones. Outside education these rules don't work, so dweek is making good sense there, but inside education, he is way off track.

 

The idea of a mover as a followspot is (as covered in other threads) flawed from a pro viewpoint, but may be fine in a drama studio. The real issue here is not how well it can be moved, but if you can get the beam size wide enough at close range. Moving the fixture further away just makes it really lurchy.

 

Before everyone starts to kick off, with the inevitable result that a mod locks it, can't we just agree to disagree. I see both points of view - but education lighting has an entirely different requirement. In some cases, the idea that either students or staff actually touch the lights is totally out of the question. The stock phrase from the caretakers that "they were tested, coloured and pointed last year, and that was perfectly ok" is typical - along with the inference that you don't know what you are doing suggesting different colours and focusses and as for moving them - forget it! Just remember that most schools don't teach lighting, they teach drama - and many do it under flu tube lighting. Follow spots are useful - but in fairness again, a wide angle one is the most useful.

[stuartglen]

so would you advise getting cheap scanners or a followspot and lots of parcans and repairing the dimmers?

[paulears]

Well I'm guessing Stuartglen is a student at the school - so we have no idea what the 'powers that be' think. Common sense says that repairing the defective installation should be first priority, but there may be reasons why this is not possible. As I mentioned in my last rather dull post, kits comes from one funding source, but repairs from another - probably the same one that has to pay for broken windows and computer network repairs. These, as might be guessed have priority over fixing a few lights. If the school has applied for special status, there may well be a pot of money that can be spent on new kit but NOT repairs.

 

So what I'm trying to say is that only a chat with the senior managers will make answering the question possible. If it was a local drama club or small theatre we could apply logic - we just can't. The heirachy in a school or college is also very difficult to navigate. A very keen, knowledgable and intelligent student has no chance whatsoever of convincing the powers that be, it has to come up a chain of totally non-technical people. Very often there is a two year lead time - so when the money actually arrives, the student who instigated it has left!

 

Sliping an order in for a couple of cheap scanners from CPC may well sneak through, repairing old kit won't, and asking for expensive new stuff certainly gets put under a very large microscope. If the drama teacher (maybe a newly qualified teacher) doesn't have enough pips to jump ahead of the aged chemistry teacher who needs some computerised bunsen burners then everything grinds to a halt.

[stuartglen]

my understanding is that the drama dept gets £250 a year (this years was spent on getting a replacement dmux). The drama dept is applying for some money to get new lights, in the way we intended to spend it was 10 parcans and 4 dico scanners. There is an anual school play from which around £350-500 is taken (for renting lights but I may get them to buy a followspot and lots of parcan's instead

[Dweeks]

There probably isn't much point adding to this thread anymore, but dweeks is confusing professional lighting with school lighting. Ever since the late '60s, when lighting was first starting to creep into schools, there was a two tiered need. Strand. at the time marketed a nice little kit of Patt.23s, on a stand, with a local dimmer with real rotary knob. Their marketing people realised that contrast and colour stimulated imagination. The fact that in many cases what the viewer actually saw was a backlit mess didn't matter - it could be pointed (not focussed) and coloured, and turned on and off simply. Using moving head or mirrors is just the modern way of doing the same thing, but better.

 

Agreed and disagreed; the principle behind that idea of the Patt 23 with a local dimmer was that it was simple and thus perfect for schools; if a dimmer breaks, you plug in a new dimmer. Blow the lamp, easy, new lamp. But its a totally different aspect for intelligent lighting which is so much more complex; cleaning, general maintainance, servicing, all these things normally need doing by people with more than a basic nounce of knowledge. Compare this with a set of parcans; only 3 things can go wrong; blown lamp, damaged lampholder or plug fault. All easily replacable. Don't get me wrong, if a school can maintain the kit correctly then full marks to them for looking to the future, and investing in decent kit. However, in this case, the fact that the school hasn't even installed some basic dimmers properly suggests that they don't have skilled staff with a knowledge of lighting. Therefore, in this way, I feel that a more simplistic, generics based rig would be far better, in maintainance terms at the very least.

 

The quality of the kit is totally irrelevant. It has a years guarantee. That is enough. The reality is that if it goes wrong after this time, there is not going to be any budget to get it fixed, other than what can be done by the technician. So, a 2 grand Martin just gets put in the cupboard because there isn't £200 available to fix it. This may seem crazy, but education equipment nowadays is normally bid for - everybody has a wish list, normally totalling far more than is available. Then everyone stresses how important their bid is and there are winners and losers. Nothing put aside for replacement, or repairs. So - buying cheap kit and wearing it out in a year is fine - AND maybe you get more. I'd rather have 4 cheap ones, than 2 expensive ones. Outside education these rules don't work, so dweek is making good sense there, but inside education, he is way off track.

 

Ok, valid point regarding the fact that you'd prefer to bin a cheap 250w scan than a pricey decent mover; but what is the point in paying £250 for a scan that may only last a year, maybe 2 with TLC? They could hire some scanners for when they need them, which will be well maintained, without all the running costs of lamps, mirrors etc for far less than this. Trust me, I know well how frustrating it is to try and get spares for gear at schools; for this reason I think there is far more chance of the OP succeeding in his request, if he asks for gear that will last a long time (e.g. some S4 pars), and some spares, and still have change - as opposed to asking for some cheap disco scans and a daft desk!

 

 

The idea of a mover as a followspot is (as covered in other threads) flawed from a pro viewpoint, but may be fine in a drama studio. The real issue here is not how well it can be moved, but if you can get the beam size wide enough at close range. Moving the fixture further away just makes it really lurchy.

 

Fair play, it may work better in a close environment, but I still think its a rather flawed reason for buying one; it's like buying a Tractor to drive to town in - it'll do it, but it won't look pretty and its unneccesarily expensive!

 

Before everyone starts to kick off, with the inevitable result that a mod locks it, can't we just agree to disagree. I see both points of view - but education lighting has an entirely different requirement. In some cases, the idea that either students or staff actually touch the lights is totally out of the question. The stock phrase from the caretakers that "they were tested, coloured and pointed last year, and that was perfectly ok" is typical - along with the inference that you don't know what you are doing suggesting different colours and focusses and as for moving them - forget it! Just remember that most schools don't teach lighting, they teach drama - and many do it under flu tube lighting. Follow spots are useful - but in fairness again, a wide angle one is the most useful.

 

Absolutely, I agree it would be stupid for the mods to close the thread, and wouldn't help the cause whatsoever.

 

Of course, in a way anything is better than nothing, but I fail to see the point in spending money on equipment that won't last a respectable amount of time in the wrong hands. Hiring may be a far more sensible option, plus it gives the OP the opportunity to hire alternative format lighting (as I said earlier, how about a strobe? Or a moving wash? Nope, sorry you've blown your budget on two cheap scans)

 

See my point? If a school can't repair some basic dimmers, what chance have intelligents got? Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the money on more worthwhile projects? Assuming he even gets the money... as you yourself said, Schools give money to the best argument, and I doubt requesting two scanners will be high on the list of priorities.

 

my understanding is that the drama dept gets £250 a year (this years was spent on getting a replacement dmux). The drama dept is applying for some money to get new lights, in the way we intended to spend it was 10 parcans and 4 dico scanners. There is an anual school play from which around £350-500 is taken (for renting lights but I may get them to buy a followspot and lots of parcan's instead

 

Thank you, you're listening at last. Look at the alternatives, something that could be more useful! Well done!

[stuartglen]

how difficult is a followspot to maintain?