Conventional Fixtures Source 4 knock-offs?

[CrazyTechie]

So I've been doing some research into this and reading other threads on here in particular this one http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/8221-patent-infringment-lawsuit.html and I was wondering if anyone had anymore information on this subject in particular:

>Does Altman have to pay ETC to produce and sell their Shakespeare's and if so about how much is it? (From what I can tell it appears that they do) What features of the Shakespeare are being used from the Source Four that requires them to pay to use them?

>Does Strand have to do anything like this for any of their fixtures? (I don't know the Strand line of products at all so sorry I can't give any specific fixtures)

>What was on the Lightronics ellipsoidal that ETC got after them for having/using? (I realize that the fixtures look very similar) Are there any advantages to using a Lightronics ellipsoidal vs. a Source Four? Does anyone know the specifics of the lawsuit that is mentioned in the thread I've posted a link to above?

>Did the Source Four come out before everyone else's fixtures or did it come after? More specifically, who copied who? The threads I've read didn't seem to come to a specific decision as to what came out first as there seemed to be the issue of which was invented first. I do know that the Source Four came out in 1992 ETC | Explore the Source Four | History

> I'm also curious as to why it is called a Source Four.

>If you have used a Source Four and any of the other fixtures I've previously mentioned I would like to know what you think about them. Which one do you like better? What are the pros and cons of each that you have come across while using the fixtures (lets leave out how close the local dealer for the product is for you as a reason as this may help get an answer more tailored for what I'm looking for)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Grog12]

Click on Source Four in this post or yours for the answer to why it's called a Source Four.

 

[shiben]

I have used the Strand SL, Altman Shakespeares, and Source 4s. First of all, the Source 4 looks the coolest of the batch, IMO. Second, I hate the SLs more than anything else. I couldnt get a sharp focus on them (could be poor bench focus, was at a HS), and I couldnt get a decent breakup off of them. The Shakes were ok, but I still didnt think they were very bright. I have also used 360Qs, and although not very bright, decent units those.

 

[mstaylor]

I have used Shakespheares and they are OK but much prefer the S4s. The Shakespheares aren't as bright and they are heavier.

 

[Soxred93]

Personally, of all the S4 knockoff's I've tried, the Altman is the best one. The SL just plain sucks.

 

[dramatech]

I haven't worked with any of the Src4 knockoffs, as the thread calls them, but I have used a number of the older ERS instruments. There is no doubt in my mind that the Source Four is a remarkable instrument that moved the "state of the art" of ellipsoidal instruments into a new cycle of development. I have quite a few Altman 360Qs along side of the four times as many Src4s. The 360Q has a flatter field than the Src4 if you can get it bench focused without raising your blood pressure. But for any advantage in the field of flatness, it is lost in every other aspect.
As for the copies of the Source 4, It is very difficult to build a better instrument when several of the inovative features of the Src4 are patented. From everything that I have read and discussed with about 100 theatres that I have taken shows too, all of the copies fall short and have very little financial advantage over the Src4, if any.

Now for the Lightronics ERS, it truly is a knock off. I have had a very good relationship with Lightronics for quite a few years, as I volunteered my time to install dimmer systems in high schools on the Virginia peninsula, and I used almost exclusively Lightronics. These schools had older analog systems from the earlier 70s, and had little or no budget to upgrade them. As Lightonics was just down the road, we were able to put in a useable, if not fancy dimming system for what we could squeeze out of the School system.
Having known and dealt with Lightronics management, I would always go and spend some time with them at LDIs. The last one in Orlando, I asked them what was the law suit about, how did they solve it, and why were they selling this obvious knockoff. Their response was honest if not ethical in the eyes of some of our CBers. First their dimmer products are in a price range that made them below most of the major players but a bit more than the new Chinese products. They didn't want to give up their line that is all American made in Virginia Beach, but needed to add some products to compete with the new Chinese stuff. In that process, the Chinese company that they approached to build some of their lesser quality dimmers, had a line of instruments. Even though these instruments were obviously knockoffs. They figured that they were selling to a totally different market than the ETC products, and gave it a go. ETC brought the law suit and Lightronics settled by making the changes that were required by ETC. 1) must be made so that the instrument cannot use an HPL lamp. 2) the shutter barrel cannot rotate from the reflector barrel. Their may have been a third item, but as I didn't write this down, I am not sure. After discussing this whole thing, the comment was made, that They couldn't understand why somebody would buy these units as the price break wasn't all that much better than a Src4, and the quality was a bit less. They then mentioned that they make very little off of the instrument, but carry it so that they have a complete line of lighting products and not just dimmers. On the other hand, all of their new wireless products use high quality circuit boards that they pruchase as "boards only", from one of the major Wireless manufactures.
I won't give any opinions as to the wrongness or rightness of their marketing procedures. I do know that over the years, I have received repair and part service from them that makes the big players look cheap.

Tom Johnson
Florida's Most Honored Community Theatre

 

[MNicolai]

I'll refrain from going too in-depth on this because we've talked about this at great lengths several times already.

The SL had its traits that made it really kick butt though. The 360deg barrel rotation being the most significant. However, it was a very poorly executed design with spring-loaded knobs that fly across the theatre when you over-loosen them, the plastic barrel rotation ring that's subject to break, the reflectors that were easily cracked, and the lamp cap that was not user-friendly to remove. Also, Strand's support has made it so that people who are trying to fix their SL's (for the last couple years) can buy several Source Four's at the cost of replacement parts for the SL's. Two venues I've worked were Strand systems, dimmers, and fixtures. Now you can find an ETC console in the booth, Source Four's on stage, and in one of those two cases, Unison replacing a Strand Premier architectural system. TD's at both venues gave up when Strand wanted $350 for replacement metal gel/accessory frame holders, plus some very costly replacement parts for the sockets in the fresnels and replacement reflectors. It was an easy sell when both went to their respective accountants and pointed out that for the cost of maintaining the SL's, each could afford to outright purchase over a dozen new Source Four's instead.

This is a relatively moot point because since the SL has been swept under the carpet by Strand and Strand has joined forces with Selecon under the umbrella of Phillips, both have released new fixtures and I have no idea what the customer support structure for either is since Phillips has stepped in.

 

[banjokeith]

The school I went to used Source Fours, the theater I work at is primarily Shakespeares, and I am really missing the S4's. I wouldn't say that the Shakespeare is a bad instrument - keep in mind, these are little points, but over thousands of instruments hung, focused and used, they do add up.

The gel frame clip at the end of the barrel is spring loaded in such a way that you can not keep it open. The S4 has a similar retaining clip, but it can be locked open and then closed when needed. Leaning out to insert a frame on a Shakespeare requires you to devote one entire hand to manipulating the clip, which makes working on an already focused instrument - especially a 10 degree, quite difficult.

Swapping barrels is more difficult than it needs to be. The Shakespeare has a thumb screw similar to the S4, but also has a spring-loaded safety that - while a good idea in theory - is designed in such a way that you need to often use some sort of tool, or the end of the screw, to release. I have also noticed that on a few of the barrels (20 degree, I think) the placement of the lenses inside the unit sometimes prevents the clip from being fully depressed.

A Shakespeare can very suddenly decide that it doesn't want you to remove its end cap. I am not sure what does this, but it is quite random and very annoying. The screw will release but the cap just can't seem to be twisted.

It seems to me that the Shakespeare seems a lot heavier than the S4 but when I look at the specs now, they are fairly close, with the S4 only 1-2lb lighter. I almost think that the Shakespeare must just be balanced in such a way that it seems heavier, or is just a bit more cumbersome to manipulate and hang.

I would like to say that the S4 seems brighter, but since I haven't used the two side by side I can't fully back that up with anything but memory.

 

[Esoteric]

First of all I would not call Shakespeares or Strand SL's "knock offs".

Shakespeares are decent units. Okay output. Nice field. Nothing to write home about. However they weigh a TON. Also their lamp caps are really difficult to work with, especially as the unit gets older.

Strand SL's have decent output. Okay field. Require almost constant bench focusing. Spring loaded knobs are a bad idea. The 360 unit rotation is nice, except for two things. First of all the rotation ring tends to break. Secondly, an inexperienced electrician will sometimes rotate a unit with a pattern or a gel frame too far. So you still have to hang the unit right side up, which kind of defeats the purpose of 360 degree rotation. Plus they just feel cheap with all that plastic.

Now as I understand the Lightronics situation (this came up in a thread of mine), ETC's main beef with them was the lamp cap. Because the unit could use the HPL lamp and Lightronics basically copied the lamp cap exactly that is why ETC was filing suit. I see nothing wrong with the Lightronics unit (assuming you know you are not getting Source 4 quality) if its base were made to use GL lamps.

Mike

 

[Kelite]

The question regarding royalty has not been answered, I believe.

It has been my understanding that a royalty had been paid by Altman in past years for the use of the patented dichroic coated glass reflector used within the Shakespeare (which I've used and liked, though not as much as the legendary S4). Not sure about any royalty agreement if any re: Strand's SL fixture reflector.

 

[Grog12]

First of all, the Source 4 looks the coolest of the batch, IMO.

Because this should be a major influence on your descions when purchasing lights...especially above optics and usibility.

 

[Les]

Some of this may be redundant, but I will try to answer all of your questions the best I can.

So I've been doing some research into this and reading other threads on here in particular this one http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/8221-patent-infringment-lawsuit.html and I was wondering if anyone had anymore information on this subject in particular

>Does Altman have to pay ETC to produce and sell their Shakespeare's and if so about how much is it? (From what I can tell it appears that they do) What features of the Shakespeare are being used from the Source Four that requires them to pay to use them?

Yes, I do believe Altman pays a certain royalty to ETC (David Cunningham) for every fixture they sell. I think they pay for the rights to use the dichroic reflector, and possibly the rotating gate assembly, though not sure about that last one.

>Does Strand have to do anything like this for any of their fixtures? (I don't know the Strand line of products at all so sorry I can't give any specific fixtures)

I'm not sure if Strand paid royalties for their SL reflector or not, but I would bet that they did. As has been said several times, the SL's were not without their flaws. I, too, had never ending problems with lost knobs, sticking lamp holders, cracked reflectors, and broken plastic bushings inside the rotating yoke cradle. I never noticed an excessive amount of plastic on the units, but their cast aluminum was way too thin. A more refined SL would have been a great fixture, and the SL Zooms were awesome because of their compact design. They were no bigger around than a standard Source Four or SL, only longer. About the same size as a Shakespeare. Luckily, bench focusing on the SL's was as easy as turning a knob -- when it wasn't frozen at least.

>What was on the Lightronics ellipsoidal that ETC got after them for having/using? (I realize that the fixtures look very similar) Are there any advantages to using a Lightronics ellipsoidal vs. a Source Four? Does anyone know the specifics of the lawsuit that is mentioned in the thread I've posted a link to above?

This has been pretty well covered by everyone else

>Did the Source Four come out before everyone else's fixtures or did it come after? More specifically, who copied who? The threads I've read didn't seem to come to a specific decision as to what came out first as there seemed to be the issue of which was invented first. I do know that the Source Four came out in 1992 ETC | Explore the Source Four | History

There has been debate over which came first, the Source Four or the Shakespeare, but I believe the consensus was that the Source Four came first, with the Shakespeare being introduced not much later. Altman was smart to introduce a higher performance ellipsoidal; they would have been stupid not to. Too bad it's not as well refined as the Source Four. Not terrible instruments, but also not preferred. The SL arrived much later than the Source Four and the Shakespeare. Probably the late '90's - early '2000's

> I'm also curious as to why it is called a Source Four.

The light Source has Four tightly-wound filaments instead of one large coil like its predecessors. This created a more point source of light, creating more optical efficiency.

>If you have used a Source Four and any of the other fixtures I've previously mentioned I would like to know what you think about them. Which one do you like better? What are the pros and cons of each that you have come across while using the fixtures (lets leave out how close the local dealer for the product is for you as a reason as this may help get an answer more tailored for what I'm looking for)?

I have used the Source Four, the Shakespeare, and the SL extensively. The Source Four is by far the easiest to work with, but they are all better than many other fixtures out there. My only gripe with (at least the older) Source Fours was that the accessory slot could only be opened with a phillips screwdriver. Also, they sould come up with more ergonomic knobs. The Shakespeare is really long and heavy, and they aren't quite as bright as the Source Four, but they're close. The accessory slot is held open or closed with thumb screws, but they're not captive and easily lost. The lamp cap can jam, and in fact, the barrels don't replace quite as easily. Overall, they're not as punchy and that's my main gripe. They are reliable fixtures when well maintained though. The SL's, as mentioned above, aren't as reliable and suffer from poor materials and workmanship. The design is great, if only it were properly implemented. I was always able to get pretty good pattern projections out of them.

Thanks in advance!

Thank you, Grog12 for cleaning up my post!

 

[gafftapegreenia]

Shakespeare's aren't all that bad, and preferable to many other lights, even other Altman ellipsoidal. (KL series
anyone?)

 

[Les]

Shakespeare's aren't all that bad, and preferable to many other lights, even other Altman ellipsoidal. (KL series
anyone?)

Oh yeah...

 

[Esoteric]

I actually like the Selecon Pacific units more than the Altman Shakespeare.

Yeah, I forgot about the royalties paid for the dichroic reflectors.

Mike

 

[MNicolai]

The Pacific fixture series is in a league all of its own. Due to the cost of importing, it's a higher price and not a limited feature set that puts it out of most people's rigs.

I agree that we don't want to throw the term "knock-off" around loosely. If you work for Car Company A, and Car Company B, C, D, E, and F started making pickup trucks just after you did, you wouldn't call them all knock-off's. They're called competition.

Now on the note of the plastic-kind-of-feel, I present to you, Exhibit A, the SPX, which is built out of a disturbing amount of rigid plastic, a feature for some, and a design flaw for others. We can go back and forth on how people feel about having a plastic yoke, because having played with one, I can say that I think it's actually not a poorly built fixture, but unless I was bouncing those fixtures around for a year in my venue, I don't think I'd be able to say one way or another how the plastic holds up. A lot of people would discount the SPX to begin with given that amount of plastic in the design.

Pretty much for this diagram, anything that's labeled "cool touch," is just a fancy way of saying it's made of plastic. You might not be able to tell from a distance, though, because it's a very convincing metal look and feel.

Personally, I don't know why Selecon wanted to make this fixture. Aside from utilizing the GLA lamp and a whole lot of plastic, I don't think it actually improves upon their existing technologies that they pioneered with the Pacific series, but is designed and marketed in way that it seems like heat dissipation was really what they had on their minds -- a feature they had down after they designed the Pacific fixtures and implemented into the SPX in a completely different way. Meanwhile, Strand has their Leko Lite, which looks like a rebranded SL with a FastFit lamp, as if the lamp cap was the only problem that people had with the SL's.

Since Phillips has acquired Selecon and Strand, things have started to get a little weird. Maybe they'll kick something new out at LDI, but the stuff that they've been releasing lately isn't the kind of jaw-dropping stuff I would expect from one parent company with such a vast amount of intellectual property (not forgetting that they own Color Kinetics as well).

 

[Esoteric]

Yeah, I don't get that fixture either.

All I know is Strand customer service is light years better now that Phillips owns it.

The SL is junk as far as I am concerned. I would rather have 360Q's. But that is just my opinion.

I hope that Strand has something new up their sleeves (Altman too for that matter). In the mean time no sense not buying Source 4's these days.

Mike

 

[JChenault]

One issue I have with the Shakespeare line that has not been mentioned is the inability to simpy swap lens barrels. The 40 degree unit has a lens deep within the body of the fixture (Which I found out when cleaning them - I believe it is on the reflector side of the gate. ) This means you have to be careful about swapping bodies around with different lens trains.

One thing I really like about the S4 ( after the first few years ) is the lamp retainer spring that holds the lamp firmly to the socket. Reduces arcing as the lamp is always well seated.

 

[CrazyTechie]

I agree that we don't want to throw the term "knock-off" around loosely. If you work for Car Company A, and Car Company B, C, D, E, and F started making pickup trucks just after you did, you wouldn't call them all knock-off's. They're called competition.

Sorry, I was unable to think of a term that fit the questions I was asking and I thought of "knock-off" mostly because of the Lightronics ellipsoidal.

EDIT: Thanks everyone for the input and for answering my questions! I've learned a lot about this!

 

[derekleffew]

Just buy the book: