Global differences in types of lighting instruments

[gafftaper]

This month's Stage Directions Magazine has a great article on how the favorite choice of lighting instrument is very different in the US vs. the rest of the world. Here's the story.


Fixed focus ERS rules!!

Let the debate begin...

[gafftapegreenia]

The conventional instrument debate again! WOOT

So, what rules the world? I'm going to have to say the S4......for now. It seems tha the majority of lighting rigs are S4 and PAR. Why? It's economical, so rigs can be standardized for both parts and fixtures. Makes weight easier to manage as well as maintenance. It's also familiar. Everyone has experience with them.

While many touring rigs have become standard, many, many theatres all the way from high schools to new york will continue to have a mix of old, new and everything in between. The consensus has been this allows the most flexibility and creativity in lighting design, when the differences in a Strand SL really do matter compared to a S4. The best lighting designers know how to both achieve their vision when they have a very few available fixtures or just a few styles, while also being able to be completely creative when they can and use very specific fixtures for very specific purposes instead of just using a basic rig to cover their tail. Flexibility and knowledge are key here. One should never get hung up with what an instrument is "supposed to" be used for. "Fresnels are just for overhead,etc etc etc."

As for me personally, my vote for most flexible instrument is the Fresnel. Everything from 40 seat black boxes to broadway stages can be lit with them. Any little company with no budget can easily do more with an inventory built upon Fresnels than Lekos. I'm not saying they shouldn't have Lekos, just what will work best for the space. IMHO.

[Pie4Weebl]

Originally Posted by gafftapegreenia

As for me personally, my vote for most flexible instrument is the Fresnel. Everything from 40 seat black boxes to broadway stages can be lit with them. Any little company with no budget can easily do more with an inventory built upon Fresnels than Lekos. I'm not saying they shouldn't have Lekos, just what will work best for the space. IMHO.

I bet you I can get a better wash with my leko than you can hard shuttered edge with your fresnel.

[Logos]

And the source 4 might be the most economical choice in the US for a rig but not necesarily here. and I prefer a fresnel wash to a PAR wash any day. What is important is to get a mixed rig to do the jobs you need to do on a daily basis and hire in your special requirements for the biggies. I reckon that is trye everywhere.

[stantonsound]

I agree that it depends on what you have. A recent theatre that I worked in only had 6 leko's, but 30+ fresnels and 20+ scoops. I had never worked with scoops, but was forced to. They just used the leko's for gobos and that is it. It was challenging as I am a "source four" and "par" man myself, but you use what you have.

If I had my way, for theatre I would use about 70% source four ers's (fixed), 10% source four pars, 10% fresnels, and 10% cyc strips. (Actually, I would throw in about 30-50% movers, but no show that I work on has the budget for that!)

[Charc]

Wow what a great read, thanks gaff.

I have too little experience to jump into the fray, but it sounds like an interesting debate.

[DarSax]

The vast majority of my instruments are zoom lekos, but I have experience with the fixed source 4's. From what I've done, I've found that fixed-focus s4's are just fine for front lighting; a zoom will get you almost "perfect" of what you want, but having just guessed which beam angles I wanted, everything worked out great, almost-unbelievably.

At the same time, though, I don't think anything in the world is better than a zoom leko for a special, especially in a hazed situation. Provided your floor and set pieces aren't overly reflective, you can somewhat fudge a fixed-focus front light. With haze though, you want that single-light special to look perfectly formed--meaning, you want a zoom.

[icewolf08]

Originally Posted by DarSax

At the same time, though, I don't think anything in the world is better than a zoom leko for a special, especially in a hazed situation. Provided your floor and set pieces aren't overly reflective, you can somewhat fudge a fixed-focus front light. With haze though, you want that single-light special to look perfectly formed--meaning, you want a zoom.

First off, this really is not completely true. I can only speak from the perspective of being in the US, but given the nature of Americans, the Zoom is kind of the lazy-man's unit. If you are willing to do a little math and some worksheets (or lighting elevations, or whatever you might call it) you can usually find a fixed focal length unit that will fit your needs. We have 10 Source 4 15˚-30˚ in our inventory, and really the only reason is that when they were purchased they filled the gap in field angles between the 19˚ and the 10˚. It is really a matter of knowing what each unit in your inventory is capable of. Need a pool slightly smaller than your 19˚ special, use an iris.

Most of the Zoom fixtures available are big and heavy. The Source 4 15˚-30˚ zoom is a 35-40 pound beast, and if you hang it on an electric over the stage you generally need to either trim your electric out farther or your borders in closer which may foil some of your backlight systems sharing the same batten. Sure, zooms are useful for some things, like aligning templates that are supposed to match across a stage.

[gafftaper]

Originally Posted by charcoaldabs

Wow what a great read, thanks gaff. I have too little experience to jump into the fray, but it sounds like an interesting debate.

Hijacking my own thread...

Hey Charc (and any other students reading this thread),
Stage Directions who published this article is one of the many free industry magazines, but you have to be someone who spends money in the industry in order to get it. They have to show their advertisers that the people reading the magazine are people who are likely to spend money in order to pay for the magazine. So they aren't likely to send you, a student, a magazine... of course who knows if they every check up on you and see if your theater really exists...

Of all the magazines S.D. is the one that seems the most likely to have articles like this that you can really learn from. Most of the other magazines do write ups about the latest concert tours, broadway shows, and theater rennovations... while those articles are interesting and you can find out a lot about the latest gear and design techniques, they don't have teaching you something new as a goal. Anyway, the point is as a student it would be well worth your time to spend a little time on the Stage Directions website once in a while. They post all their magazine articles on the website so you can get all the content without getting the paper subscription.

Back to the discussion...

[Logos]

Don't get me wrong, I love the source 4 as an instrument and the fixed focal lengths are perfect for a lot of use. For gobo use where you have versatility in placement of your instrument they are second to none. I know the zoom is bigger and heavier (i've recently been wrestling with some ancient CCT 1k Silhouette zooms they are about 3 feet long and god only knows what they weigh) but it is more versatile when you are limited in where you can place lanterns. I do a lot of work in black box situations with limited fixed grids.
I still like my fresnels and PC's and here I am talking more about the newer pebble convex rather than the classic plano convex. I like the wash. I always feel I get hotspots with PARS no matter what I do. I hate hot spots.