BillConnerFASTC
Well-Known Member
Could we use a 1K T12 on an autotransformer as the basis please?
When I was first starting out with theater lighting and I heard someone call a fixture a "LEKO" I thought it was a nickname based on the amount of light leaking out through the vents. It was quite a while before I learned that LEKO was what some people call an ERS. (Perhaps the fixture was a genuine LEKO, I don't know.)You could also read a newspaper with the light leaks - I think the most noticeable difference - but they soon fixed that.
Not to insult anyone, but just to spread some historical context, its a leko because it was invented by Joseph Levy and Edward Kook - LEvy and KOok - of Century lighting in like 1933? It was a significant step forward from what was available before that, and the basis for today's Source 4, which I still occasionally and inevitably refer to as a leko, or a Source 4 leko when feeling snarky.When I was first starting out with theater lighting and I heard someone call a fixture a "LEKO" I thought it was a nickname based on the amount of light leaking out through the vents. It was quite a while before I learned that LEKO was what some people call an ERS. (Perhaps the fixture was a genuine LEKO, I don't know.)
Interesting, since I thought the greater flatness of the S4 when introduced was unfortunate and that LEDs greater flatness is an even more unfortunate development. But then I like 5K a Dynabeam. (Dynabeam should be in the wiki.)The most interesting thing to me from the video is how much more even the field is on the S4WRD. It's not hugely different, but it was noticeable. And depending on the lens barrel and throw it could be a big deal. I was really surprised to see that, and IMO that is a huge bonus for the LED retrofit.
The deal with having an even field is that it's much easier to adjust an even field to being uneven -- ie, fuzzing out the edges -- than the inverse.
I wonder how templates look with the 4WRD. Every once in a while I hit on a template that doesn't look great in a Lustr, due to the LED matrix and how certain color LEDs are distributed in the fixture. Usually resolvable by rotating the template, although that's not always desirable either.
Well, I have never considered evenness across the field to be the same as sharpness of focus - shutter curs and templates, etc. I like the natural hotspot towards the center of the pre S4 ers. Beam angles to centers gave a very even wash across the stage very easily, not to mention actors hit the hot spots as intended.The deal with having an even field is that it's much easier to adjust an even field to being uneven -- ie, fuzzing out the edges -- than the inverse.
I wonder how templates look with the 4WRD. Every once in a while I hit on a template that doesn't look great in a Lustr, due to the LED matrix and how certain color LEDs are distributed in the fixture. Usually resolvable by rotating the template, although that's not always desirable either.
Blending S4s is much harder than older ERSs. Is that a bug or a feature?
The S4WRD still has the field adjustment knob on the back (see PDF page 11 of the manual) I didn't think to try it out at the demo, but I would think it would have at least as much range as a regular HPL S4.Sometimes I have found myself wanting a really strong hot spot. So I certainly understand that thinking. But I've usually been able to get close enough by lamp adjustments. I would say that if one of the theaters I work with was going to get a bunch of these I would keep around a few of the regular S4s just for cases like that.
Long post made short, I can relate to what you are saying Bill.
I think that these days you almost always have to take cameras into consideration. You may not be recording video, but someone will be taking selfies and other pictures to post on social media. If your doing straight theater maybe you don't care though. I don't like pictures of shows and events that I'm lighting being posted all over the internet and looking bad.
I think this was more of a response to perceived light vs actualAnd flatter fields or not flatter make them look not bad?
I find it fascinating how meters matter for Film & TV, but don't matter one iota for Theatre or live events. So for a camera, yes- the data on the meter matters. For Live events meters are USELESS in determining what is brighter. For live events, the only thing that matters is audience perception. Back in grad school myself and three other grads. tried to switch from FELs in our ERS fixtures over to GLCs/FLKs. Our professor's argument was that because the FEL put out so much more lumens, it was not a comparable switch. Our argument was that because the FLK/GLC operated at 115V (thereby having a higher CCT when operated at 120V) and had a more compact coil design (allowing it to be collected more efficiently in the reflector), that they put out as much or more PERCEIVED light. So we did a shoot-out. We put two fixtures side by side, and we all agreed the one on the left (with the 575W lamp) was visually brighter to the eye than the one on the right with the FEL-- however our professor metered the two, and the one with the FEL put out more ACTUAL lux. Our argument was-- perception always trumps reality when talking about light. Unless the audience is sitting on stage and all holding light meters, the fact that the meter registered more was 100% moot. It's what the EYE sees and interprets that matters. (At least for LIVE events.)
So for theatre use, I guess my point is, who cares what the meter says? If it looks as bright, then it IS as bright. Perception > reality in the realm of light.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.