Source 4 or Shakespeare

[jyenish]

I have a question for the community,

As far as I can tell the Source 4 and the Shakespeare luminaries are pretty much the same light. The Shakespeare is more expensive for some reason, can anyone tell me why? What about the Shakespeare makes it worth the cost over the source 4?

[moojoe]

as someone who owns both of them, there is no reason why the shakespeare is more expensive.
infact, the shakespeare, compaired to the S4, sucks majorly.

• Its heavier
  it can be a ***** to focus
  getting the **** gel clip open is hell
  getting the **** lens barrel out is hell
  the shutters piss me off
  its not as easy to get a sharp image
  i dont like the lamp
  the reflector isnt as good
  did i mention that its freeking heavier?!
  its more expensive
  its not as widely used thus parts are slightly harder to get
  they have this great tendincy to kinda drop a few cm. especially during focus
  Altman customer service has nothing on ETC
  i think, though froget, that theyre slightly bigger

the only thing that the shakespeare has over the S4 is that the accessory slot has thumbscrews compaired to actual screws, making it a lot easier to drop a glass gobo or iris into the unit while in the air.

[JP12687]

I just did some work with the Strand SL series, and was actually pretty impressed, mostly because of the fact that the entire unit can rotate, not just the barrel.

[propmonkey]

the newer s4 have grips on the screws of iris cover so you dont need a screw driver to losen them. i just dotn make them really tight so i can losen them with my fingers

[moojoe]

ah, did not know that. nice feature. then the shakespeare has nothing over the S4. also, i dont think i mentioned this, the lamp is cheaper for S4s, and you can dimmer double.

[jonhirsh]

this is just a guess but i think the reason there cheeper is because they are not as widely excepted so they havent sold as many units and when you make a product buying materials in bulk makes the end price cheeper. thus if they sold more of them it might be cheeper to make thus cheeper to buy.

JH

[moojoe]

wait, you said that the cheeper product isnt as widely excepted, was this a typo?

[jonhirsh]

ok here is my corection


cheeper = wideley excepted because materials are bought in bulk.


more expensive = less excepted because they cannot buy as much of the materials.

[ship]

Lamps being cheaper is also something of a it all depends question.

Have to agree with the concept of more S-4 fixtures being sold thus their cost. I'm yet to use a Shakespehere so I can't comment on it being better or worse.

On the other hand, there is more lamps available for a Shakesphere than for a S-4 (dimmer duplexing lamps excepted). The most modern lamps that can be used in a Shakespehere kick the rear over that of a HPL for output and efficiency.

Given I have not used the fixture, I can not say what the fixture can do with these lamps. They are also standardized lamps as can be also used on the SL line of fixture. (Given the SL is only rated for 575w if I remember correctly which seriously limits them.) This standard type of lamp in crossing brands, along with Gel Frames etc. are selling points for the Altman line.

Other than that, the S-4 at this point is for the most part a industry standard. Given this, it's normally wise to get something that everyone else is buying or expectating to see.

[kingfisher1]

i heard somewherre that Altman lost a patent battle to ETC because the shakespere was very similar to the Source 4, now altman pays ETC a couple bucks for every Shakespere sold. that could acount for the extra expensive. now this could be totally inacurate, i'm jsut repeating what some one said to me once.