Designing a photo and video studio using theatre setups

[CWPS]

I've join Control Booth to explore the pros and cons of redoing a photography studio, borrowing ideas considerably from theater rigging and lighting.

I imagine that most people subscribed to Control Booth can envisage how a photo studio is equipped. In short, mono-lights on stands and roll-down backdrops. The more complex the scene one wants to create the more congested the set becomes.

In my niche photo studios are in the early stage of morphing into also being video studios. But I'm wondering what the evolving studio learn from theatre setups. I suspect quite a lot.

For example:
why not attach lights and backdrops to a rectangular truss that can be raised/lowered on demand instead of grip people climbing ladders to make changes;

why not use continuous lighting instead of only strobes that are attached to pantograph arms, which are hung from sliders on rails attached to a truss, so that lights could be moved to any position;

why not manage everything from a console that can be rolled around the studio?

The 2 initial categories I'd like to discuss are rigging and lighting. My engineering knowledge isn't deep and I know little about light fixtures, even though I've watched many youtube videos. I know how to light scenes with strobes and I understand color.

I'll try to explain how I envisage rigging to get the ball rolling. In simple terms, I'd erect a 25'x25' truss and stand it on (truss) legs so that it's 15' high. At one end I'd mount a line-shaft hoist or a powered clew winch and through a configuration of pulleys create a 4-point lift to raise a 24'x24' truss to a max height of 14'

To the truss that's raised/lowered, I'd attach say 6-8 lighter weight cross beams and attach rails and rollers to them. To the rollers I would attach pantograph devices and attach light fixtures to them. I'd also attach roll-down seamless paper and backdrops.

Hope to hear from anyone interested in helping me spec such a project. I'll get to lighting later on.
Thank you.

 

[robartsd]

There's usually a reason that the standard practice of a profession is standard practice. I don't imagine the costs of theater style rigging provides sufficent benefit to photo studios. Even in theater, people go up on ladders or lifts to focus the lighting because it is more efficient than lowering the batten to make an adjustment then not being able to see if the adjustment worked out until you raise the batten again. If you feel inclined play with rigging for studio use, you may well find advantages that make it worthwhile to you; but don't cut any corners on safety. You should find a rigger experienced with the rigging equipment you plan to use to work with you.

Constant light as bright as the flash used for still photography would use more energy, generate more heat, and be uncomfortably bright for working in. Of course photography technology has advanced with more sensitive sensors, so perhaps you don't really need the light to be as bright as it used to be and advances in lighting efficiency have reduced the energy and heat. And for video, you need constant light anyway, so I see some potential for bridging between theater and studio lighting.

 

[CWPS]

Thank you for the input.

Not so long ago there was a clear distinction between lighting for video and photography, but today technology all round has merged those requirements. Continuous LED lighting and higher ISOs have seen to that and high-end cameras shoot video and stills, some simultaneously. Wireless technology has also reduced the need for as many people to make changes.

When an entertainment venue is rigged, if that's the right way to say it, does a regulator or an engineer certify it to be safe and suitable for insurance coverage? Typically where would one look to find experienced people to assemble something like I've described?
Thank you.

 

[robartsd]

In a theater, the counterweight fly system is designed as part of the building. The structural engineer designs the building to support it and a theater rigger installs it. The engineer and rigger design the system with weight limits for each batten as well as an overall weight limit (often less than the sum of all the battens).

Arena riggers build truss structures and hang temporary rigging from structures. The truss system you described sounds like it would more closely relate to arena rigging. I'd look for production companies that set up outdoor stages to find this kind of expertise.

 

[AlexDonkle]

Arena riggers build truss structures and hang temporary rigging from structures. The truss system you described sounds like it would more closely relate to arena rigging. I'd look for production companies that set up outdoor stages to find this kind of expertise.

Arenas use flying trusses that change for each show, but most pro venues have a structural drawing available for rigging companies to use. These drawings typically show each beam in the roof, which ones can support rigging loads, which ones cannot, and the max load rating of each beam. This steel is permanently installed, designed by a structural engineer. When shows come in that exceed the venue's weight limits, a 3rd party structural engineer is brought in to evaluate the precise locations of all loads and see if it'll work, then they supervise the load-in crew to make sure they only attach to the agreed upon locations.

To the OP, the motorized rigging you're describing is commonly used in TV but instead of individual battens it's typically an entire section of the lighting grid that lowers to the floor. See http://www.iastage.com/portfolio/large_capacity_lighting_plaque
While popular for some larger studios, it is rarely done for most studios in the US due to cost, and instead a pipe grid is used. When lights are needed below the grid, drop pipes are added to keep equipment off the floor.