Control/Dimming Control Techniques

[chausman]

Re: Lighting Control Future

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]

Re: Lighting Control Future

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]

Re: Lighting Control Future

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]

Re: Lighting Control Future

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]

Re: Lighting Control Future

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