Control/Dimming - Control Techniques

[jsusfrk100]

I was randomly thinking of new ways to control lighting, and thought wouldn't it be cool to synchronize L.E.D. pars to a kick drum using DMX? Anyone have any ideas?

[DuckJordan]

Already been done,I know of several consoles that support syncing movements with sound. Not to mention sync audio cues with lighting cues through MIDI.

[derekleffew]

Didn't we once have a discussion of using a WII remote, or the PlayStation EyeCamera technology, so dancers could control their own lighting?

I can talk to my TV, "Hi TV, channel up." "Cancel." It also supports gestures, but not very dependably, and I get tired of waving at the blasted thing like a fool.

I'm waiting for a lighting console that can be controlled via brain waves. "Sit down and relax, Mr. LD, just let me attach these electrodes to your temples..."


For something more presently feasible, see this video in this post: Linkin Park LX FOH .

[Cooperhodges]

I use Luminair, an iOS app, for iPad to control lights in a performing arts center I work for. I personally like my faders on our ETC SmartFade, but the iPad app is great for patching and pointing lights instead of having to go back to the board.

I've actually tried out what I call "live spectrum lighting". We tried out a couple of ETC Selador D60's and hooked them up to my iMac using MIDI and had them changing colors with the beat of the music. A few years ago, we used choir mics hanging from our catwalk to use as a music track, and had the 100+ ETC Source Four ParNels, which we use for audience lights, "dancing" as well. My dream is to do that for one of the concerts we have, and let the band have fun with it. Haven't gotten around to it yet, but there's a ton of possibilities out there.

[essentials]

[Mod. note: This post moved here from another location.]

There is a fair chance that my collegues and I might raise enough funds to start R&D of a top-end entertainment systems (lighting, media and stage technology) control station from scratch. Why would we do such a stupidity? There is great, complex and highly functional GrandMA2 for stadium concerts, neat and friendly Eos for theatre, there is Strand with their Palette, PRG and their Virtuoso... Well, the thing is that all of them are based on principles that are literally hundred years old - it all comes down to legacy of lever-controlled lights. Current cue fades into pending cue, submaster is brought up and then overriden by another submaster, effect is started and runs in cycles. Jands Vista is so far the only control product that introduced something new - timeline editing, which we know from audio multitrack editors, are familiar with and yet scared when this flashy modern thinking intrudes and changes thinking and workflow we were taught by our grandfathers.

Enough mourningm let´s jump to my question. Forget everything that makes you know something is impossible and free your imagination. As a Lighting Designer, Programmer, Board Op, Projectionist etc. what would YOU like your work-tool be capable of? Both in terms of functionality and UI.

How does your personal future of lighting and media look like?

[chausman]

One thing that I think would be interesting, would be a solution similar to GAM's Plexis, would be programming based on an fixtures physical location within a venue or on stage, not a channel/dimmer/circuit. Also designing based on how the stage actually looked, not based on a channel being at a certain percentage, which then equated to intensity on stage.

Which...after typing sounds like a good way to never have to do any thought to design/run a show...

[millamber]

Check out my alma mater's submission for the ETC giveaway. Using pixel mapping to track a dancer across stage.

[JChenault]

This is a topic that I have given a lot of thought. Here are the things in our product ( GAM Plexus ) that are somewhat unique.

• Embrace a Magic Sheet. Rows and columns for display make it hard to tell what is going on. Let me set up the display to mimic my magic sheet.
• GUI interface. Point and click is easier than a command line interface for new users. Command line interface can be faster for experienced users for some things. Give me both, not just a command line interface.
• Give me easy ways to control groups of fixtures after the cue is written. Let me be able to just grab a 'group' and adjust the live look on stage up or down from a cue. But still let me have intensities at different levels in the group.
• Give me the ability to set times and delays easily for a cue. Don't make me deal with part cues - give me an easier way.
• Let me call my fixtures by whatever name I want to, not just a number.
• Give me an easy and flexible way to do dark moves ( move in black or whatever ) without having to do the kludge of mark cues.

Some of the things we don't do but are working on:

• Give me a way to adjust times the way I want to. Let me take all of the times in a cue and increase them by one count. Let me take times from multiple cues and set them to some level, or increment / decrement them.
• Same thing for intensities. Let me be able to go into my system and say 'For cues 20 thru 80, take the cyc up 10 points from whatever it is.
• Give me really good and easy ways to select and find my fixtures in my cues. Big spreadsheets are less than wonderful.
• Give me a way to interact with the console via voice so I never have to look down away from the stage. ( assuming you don't have a board op here)

And some things that we have talked about but really don't know how to do yet - or if they make sense.

• Fix the color problem. Make it easy to pick colors, and have colors match from fixture to fixture between manufactures - and over time.
• There must be an easier way to focus and handle movers. Maybe a kinect or wii.
• How about an interactive magic sheet where we show you where on stage the mover is pointing and what it is doing.
• give me the ability to have a group of 'Red' lights - where the definition of Red is based on the current gel string or RGB or CMY color selected.

For those really interested in this, try to get to LDI and listen to Rob Halliday talk. Rob is a programmer who has done a lot of thinking about what features he could use to make his job easier. Some of the items above are a crib from my notes on his talks. [Note by DL: Link to discussion about Rob's 2010 presentation.]

That's from the top of my head. I would be fascinated to hear what others think. The art of console design has (IMHO) been very stagnant for the past 30 years (ever since the original Strand-Century Light Palette) with the exception of Jands Vista and (I would like to suggest) Plexus. (Not sure how I fit the rock and roll consoles in there like Hog and MA--I have not thought enough about how they think about the world.)

[cbrandt]

I always want to be able to customize my interface. Let me use the same software, but use whatever interface makes the most sense for what I'm doing. That includes hardware as well as software. There are piles of cheap and useful midi, osc, and dmx interfaces out there, why can't I use any/all of them? That dovetails into digital labelling. If my board knows what a fader or button is/does, my hardware interface should as well, and should self label. If I've got 10 faders, and 100 pages, I shouldn't need 100 pieces of tape to keep them all straight.

[SamUpdike]

I think a voice control is something that could be very interesting for a console. You'll still need a programmer for more advanced features on most consoles, but imagine a world where the designer just says "Channel 1 thru 5 at full, record cue one" and the console listens to you and just does it.

[express]

Sorta a nit picky thing, but one that I know has come up here in the past and one thing I wish I could have probably more often then anything else...

If/And Macros.

[JChenault]

Sorta a nit picky thing, but one that I know has come up here in the past and one thing I wish I could have probably more often then anything else...

If/And Macros.

I'm confused

The traditional definition of a macro in this context is to record then replay a list of button pushes. If/And implies a scripting language. (by the way I believe the current strand product supports scripting languages).

Do you reall want a scripting language, or am I not understanding?

[express]

If/Else... take your pick.

And yes, it is a bit out of the traditional context of a macro, yet something I think would be helpful none-the-less. So maybe not actually a macro, but something along the lines of one which can utilize the if/else statement.

[essentials]

give me the ability to have a group of 'Red' lights - where the definition of Red is based on the current gel string or RGB or CMY color selected.

I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

That dovetails into digital labelling. If my board knows what a fader or button is/does, my hardware interface should as well, and should self label. If I've got 10 faders, and 100 pages, I shouldn't need 100 pieces of tape to keep them all straight.

So... you are looking for something like ETC's faderwing, right?

I think a voice control is something that could be very interesting for a console.

While this might be fun when one talks with his iPhone, full and thoughrough semantic and contextual recognition of any language is definitely not there yet. It would be a great thing though.

If/Else macros

GrandMA2 has If statement and you can always reach Else with another If with negated condition.


I personally do entertain Rob Halliday's suggestions on building blocks. However, actual implementation would be very tricky - you either drown a programmer with bunch of new filters he would have to learn, lots of annoying pop-ups asking wheter and how would he like to store his groupings, or you have to come up with seriously well-thought engine that would create and organize them without storing too much and lay them in an intuitive way.

Another interesting topic is interactive 3D model as a way to make life easier when dealing with moving lights. Focus position changing problem, arched path on live move, etc.

[derekleffew]

give me the ability to have a group of 'Red' lights - where the definition of Red is based on the current gel string or RGB or CMY color selected.

I don't understand. What do you mean by this?

Most modern consoles have a method to accomplish this. Although the syntax varies greatly, it's often something like [Active]['Red' Palette] selects all of the appropriate units into the programmer, where one can then change the color, intensity, or whatever.

[JChenault]

Most modern consoles have a method to accomplish this. Although the syntax varies greatly, it's often something like [Active]['Red' Palette] selects all of the appropriate units into the programmer, where one can then change the color, intensity, or whatever.

If I am understanding what your are saying, this is not what I mean. ( and I am channeling for Rob Halliday and Stan Pressner here. I have talked to both of them, but I am not sure I believe in what they are asking for ).

Let's say I have a rig with a lot of moving lights, and some conventional lights. I would like a group that would be the 'Blue' lights. Now it could be blue because it has a L201 gel in it, or it could be an LED fixture that looks mostly blue, or it could have a scroler which has one of 6 colors that seem 'Bluish' We are not talking about picking from a preset palette of 'Night-time blue' - we are talking about the computer being smart enough to understand the idea of what 'Blue' means - and knowing enough about the current state of the rig to select those lights which are putting 'Blue' on the stage.

A similar desire would be to have a group automagically created for 'Downstage lights'. The membership of a moving light in this group would change as it is pointed to various places on the stage. ( again - don't try to do this focus with a preset focus, as there is no single 'Downstage ' focus - AND I want to be able to just put a light down center without having to write a preset focus.

[JChenault]

I think a voice control is something that could be very interesting for a console.
[\quote]

While this might be fun when one talks with his iPhone, full and thoughrough semantic and contextual recognition of any language is definitely not there yet. It would be a great thing though.

But you don't need full semantic analysis for this task. I believe you could make a limited, but powerful grammar to adjust levels, record cues, and perhaps select colors. I've been reading the Nuance documents but am having trouble groking how to set up the grammer.

building blocks[/URL]. However, actual implementation would be very tricky - you either drown a programmer with bunch of new filters he would have to learn, lots of annoying pop-ups asking wheter and how would he like to store his groupings, or you have to come up with seriously well-thought engine that would create and organize them without storing too much and lay them in an intuitive way.

I don't like Rob's suggested implemtation, but I do embrace his idea of make easy ways to adjust the look of things on stage later using groups that interact appropriately. We worked hard to get that feature into Plexus ( optional LTP groups where the sub faders have levels, and a group can contain other groups). We have found that that methodology works very well to easily tweak the look of things later..

[derekleffew]

( and I am channeling for Rob Halliday and Stan Pressner here. I have talked to both of them, but I am not sure I believe in what they are asking for )...

Yeah...I'm not sure I believe in that either. I've seen enough sci-fi stories to know what happens when one relinquishes too much control to robots.

AND I want to be able to just put a light down center without having to write a preset focus.

Hence the reason automated/moving lights should never be called "intelligent" lights. HOW is the light supposed to figure out, on its own by itself, where "down center" is? A few hours ago, it was resting comfortably in its roadcase on a truck from PRG. Then some surly, burly men in black yanked it out, slapped clamps on it, probably dropped it on its nose once or twice, hung it on a truss, and flew it 30' in the air. It's the perfect stagehand/automaton--it will do exactly as it's told, every time, but not an iota more, or less.

"I don't want intelligent lights; I want obedient lights. I'll do all the thinking, thank you very much."

[chausman]

Hence the reason automated/moving lights should never be called "intelligent" lights. HOW is the light supposed to figure out, on its own by itself, where "down center" is? A few hours ago, it was resting comfortably in its roadcase on a truck from PRG. Then some surly, burly men in black yanked it out, slapped clamps on it, probably dropped it on its nose once or twice, hung it on a truss, and flew it 30' in the air. It's the perfect stagehand/automaton--it will do exactly as it's told, every time, but not an iota more, or less.

You can't expect it to know where it's at instantly, but you'd probably want to have some way to visualize the space, so you'd have a way to mark what you considered "Downstage". That same system could be used to tell the console where certain locations are for each fixture, and where and how the fixture was hung.

[essentials]

But you don't need full semantic analysis for this task. I believe you could make a limited, but powerful grammar to adjust levels, record cues, and perhaps select colors. I've been reading the Nuance documents but am having trouble groking how to set up the grammer.

How is learning a spoken constructed language different than learning typed constructed language?

[chausman]

How is learning a spoken constructed language different than learning typed constructed language?

I can only type [Channel] [1] [Thru] [12] [Focus Palette] [7] [@] [7][5] [Enter] a few ways, and get the same results, because I have a limited number of words to make up my command or sentence.

I can say "Channels one through twelve at focus palette 7, at 75 percent", "Put channels one through 12 on focus palette 7 with an intensity of 75", or even "Select the first electric moving heads, and put them at focus palette 7, with an intensity of 75 percent", and each of those phrases should be able to achieve the same results.

That's a big thing with Nuances technology. Not just translating the audio into something the computer can understand, but also using that to interpret the intention.

In my opinion, something like this would have to be able to interpret things either when said as if you were typing into a command line, or speaking normally. At least to a certain extent.

[MNicolai]

Basically what you're talking about is combining the framework for a visualizer with the control software. So you'd draft your 3D plot with any pertinent architectural elements (floor, walls, platform risers, curtains) and then show a graphical 2D plan view or an isometric view of the stage, select a group of fixtures, click the location on the stage floor, scenery, what-have-you, and all of the selected fixtures move to that point (with the console automatically calculating their respective PTZ values.

The greatest complications to that would be:
+ Controls manufacturers generally don't build their own visualizers, nor do do visualizer developers dabble in controls (yet)
+ The whole system would have to be fairly proprietary in the control software, the visualizer, and the bi-directional between the two.
+ Touring shows would have to move lighting positions around in the visualizers on-the-fly to correct for differences in XYZ coordinates of each of the positions venue-to-venue.
+ If you click on one point on the stage, how does the system know if you're lighting someone who's 4' tall or 6'8", because you're probably not trying to light floors as much as you are people, so height off of the floor to someone's head matters.

It's not impossible, but for the next few years not particularly practical. A lot of dominoes would have to fall into place for any controls manufacturers to develop this kind of feature set. Not to mention how long it would take them to come up with the UI -- should a person be able to key in what they want or at some point do they have to grab a mouse or trackball and click on a 3D stage plot or press their finger to a touchscreen?

The hardest question to answer is whether or not for all of that work, there would be enough value in that feature:

1) To cover the cost of developing a console that inherently for the first few years the market will be very cautious and resistant towards purchasing.
2) That people will be willing to pay at least a few thousands dollars more per console for a feature they may only use sparingly.
a) AND, will be a feature that to get any use out of, means spending more time on the front end of a show getting the 3D plot set up.


...of course -- there is always the route of doing a wireless wonderland setup where you toss up a handful of antennas around the room and wireless transceivers attached to each fixture communicate with the system to triangulate their positions automatically -- no 3D plot or measuring lighting position XYZ coordinates necessary.

And...I mean...

...what could possibly go wrong?

[SamUpdike]

Perhaps initially you'll have to learn to speak like the board following a rigid structure

Although with the exception of saying "first electric moving heads" (Which would probably be a group) each of your statements has the following lines "channels one through twelve", "focus palette 7" and then a number at the end. Does the board really need to "listen" too all the different ways you're telling it what to do?

Channels one through twelve at focus palette 7 at 75 percent.
Put Channels one through twelve on Focus palette 7 with an intensity of 75.
Select the first electric moving heads, and out them at Focus Palette 7 with an Intensity of 75 percent.

With the exception of the last one, the board can still have the key information from what you've said. This may not speed up programming by a whole lot (And for sure it won't if you're doing anything more than setting levels), but I could see this speeding up a focus/channel check/smaller shows where the designer might also be the programmer.

[MNicolai]

Perhaps initially you'll have to learn to speak like the board following a rigid structure

Although with the exception of saying "first electric moving heads" (Which would probably be a group) each of your statements has the following lines "channels one through twelve", "focus palette 7" and then a number at the end. Does the board really need to "listen" too all the different ways you're telling it what to do?

Channels one through twelve at focus palette 7 at 75 percent.
Put Channels one through twelve on Focus palette 7 with an intensity of 75.
Select the first electric moving heads, and out them at Focus Palette 7 with an Intensity of 75 percent.

With the exception of the last one, the board can still have the key information from what you've said. This may not speed up programming by a whole lot (And for sure it won't if you're doing anything more than setting levels), but I could see this speeding up a focus/channel check/smaller shows where the designer might also be the programmer.

I hope the stage manager and lighting designer don't mind the programmer talking to the console all the time and ignoring them on headset.

[JChenault]

I hope the stage manager and lighting designer don't mind the programmer talking to the console all the time and ignoring them on headset.

Not sure if your toungue was in your cheek or not, but I think voice recognition only makes sense where you do not have a dedicated programmer.

[MNicolai]

Not sure if your toungue was in your cheek or not, but I think voice recognition only makes sense where you do not have a dedicated programmer.

Interesting idea. Think we'll ever reach a point where the programmer becomes irrelevant?

[JChenault]

Interesting idea. Think we'll ever reach a point where the programmer becomes irrelevant?

35 years ago every middle manager had a secretary who would take dictation, type it up, accept red pen corrections and retype. When computers appeared there were adds and training courses about how to become a highly paid word proscessor.

Today that middle manager types his own messages. VIce Presidents have admistrative assistants to make their life easier but the VP does most of his own typing. CEOs have folks to help them polish their first drafts and perhaps do some typing

I expect in 20 years there will still be a programmer / assistant position for high end professional productions where we can justify spending another salary to shave 2% off the production time. Other places, not so much.

[SamUpdike]

I've envisioned voice recognition used in scenarios where an RFR would normally be used- woulden't replace a programmer, it's just another tool to get the job done.

I feel a programmer's biggest asset is being able to hear the designer say "Hey take those lights over there and make them do loop-di-loops in like a blue-ish color, and maybe make them flash back and forth kinda fast", and translate that into what the LD actually wants to happen, then know enough about the board to make it happen. I don't see light boards anytime soon be able to discern what "those lights" or "loop di loops" or exactly how fast "kinda fast" is