Source Four Jr. vs. 360Q

hemismith

Active Member
For those who haven't seen my previous post, I'm trying to do some lighting on the cheap for my church's theatrical stuff. We have a small stage in a social hall with no permanently installed lighting of any use. There is basically no budget so cost is a major issue. The biggest problem is the throw distance; as of yet there is no convenient place to mount the lights up close. I've attached a crude diagram. Sometimes we will build out the stage some and I have to put the lights farther back, but in general I calculate a throw distance of about 40 ft. (That's from 30 feet back to the center of the stage (30 feet over).) I was hoping to make do with some NSP PARs, but now I'm thinking we would be better off with some (cheap) ellipsoidals. We don't need anything fancy. I was excited about the price of the S4 Jr. until I saw the narrowest field was 26 deg. Then I saw the 360Q, which has narrow beams for the same cost as the 'regular' ones. I've read a lot of posts in this forum with both pros and cons of both lights, so am a bit torn. I saw a mention of a "shootout" by "ship" but searched and searched and couldn't find it.

But then I looked at the specs. I've attached a table in a Word doc. I've included a regular 19 deg S4 as well. Both specs are with a 575W short-life bulb. The one thing that stands out is with the S4's the beam angle is about 80% of the field angle, whereas with the 360Q 6x12 and 6x16 it's less than half the field angle, so you get a hot spot in the middle. And even though the specs show them as brighter most of the field may be dimmer than their counterpart S4. So I'm thinking maybe 6x22's for small areas and S4's for larger areas, although I'd rather stick with the same brand. I wish they had an S4 Jr. in the 19 deg size. Or I could just get larger 360Q sizes and shutter them down. Not sure how good all that heat will be for it though.
 

Attachments

  • Lighting Diagram.JPG
    Lighting Diagram.JPG
    8.4 KB · Views: 529
  • Light specs.doc
    28.5 KB · Views: 291
I'll talk about what I know, which are Source Fours. I'll leave it to others to discuss how they compare to the 6x22, something I've not used.

You can always use a 26° Jr. with an iris or an aperture-limiting gobo. The downside is that it doesn't put as much light on stage as a genuine 19° would, but it's the same principal as shuttering while maintaining a truly circular shape for the beam.

Any specific reason you chose ERS fixtures over PAR's? You can buy four Source Four PAR's for every three Jr.'s and they're be cheaper and brighter than something with an aperture-reducing gobo or shutter cuts.
 
Each light should ideally have a 8'-15' field onstage. Generally this will give you the appropriate lumens so the instrument doesn't seem dim. I would stay away from 26 degree S4's and S4 Jr's.
 
Thanks Mike, very interesting thoughts. I have used the Source Four PARs a little, and they are certainly much better than a normal PAR. I was thinking if I'm going to spend that much I should go for ERS's, but the PARs would put a lot more light on the stage at the expense of some control. The interchangeable lenses are a plus, although I found them difficult to change. Adding an iris to a Source Four Jr. wouldn't be cost effective; I'm not sure what a gobo would cost, but I think I'd be better off getting a true Source Four 19. But in many cases a square shape works best anyway. But I think I'll probably still need some 6x22's for the really small stuff.
 
I've been advocating the 360Q a lot lately (not that I prefer working with the 360Q!) but in this case, I feel like a 6x22 lamped to 750w would be a better fit than a Source Four Jr given the long throw. The best light for you would probably be the Source Four 14 or 19 degree, but the 6x22 is easier on the budget. Used ones crop up on eBay all the time also. There's one right now I believe for under $50 buy-it-now. Search "Ellipsoidal", "Leko", or "Altman Light".
 
Awesome, thanks, I'll check that out. I see the Source Four PARs have the same beam vs field angle as the 360s, but are half the cost of the Source Four 19. Unfortunately the 14 and under Source Fours are even more expensive. I think it would be best to stick with all one brand for lamp consistency. I'm hoping to have more power run to the lighting locations but I'm not sure when that will be.

The interesting thing about the 360Q is that the 6x22 and 6x16 have the same beam angle and center illumination, so I'm wondering if I should just get 6x16s for more flexibility.
 
My local dealer says he hasn't sold a 360Q in 15 years. Wow. I see that Altman also makes a PAR like the Source Four with interchangeable lenses and the same lamp as the 360Q. I wonder if I should use that for general stage wash. It's not much cheaper, but appears about twice as bright, and it's half the weight. It's beam isn't as even though. Why are the narrow beam ellipsoidals so inefficient?
 
Last edited:
The narrow beam Altman ellipsoidals lose efficiency because of a variety of reasons. One is the distance between the gate and the lens. A lot of light hits the inside housing before it reaches the lens, hence the units get very hot about midway down the barrel. Another reason is that photometric readings are usually taken from further distance from the lens, and you will lost some intensity when light has to travel that far.

As far as beam angles go, the only ones you should be concerned with are these:

Field / Beam

4.5 - 55/22
6x9 - 37/16
6x12 - 26/11
6x16 - 19/8.5
6x22 - 11/8

I'm not sure why the StarPar appears "twice as bright" as the ETC Source Four Par, but I highly doubt that it is. Keep in mind that there are a host of lamps available for both units which will have an effect on how much light the instrument puts out.
I wouldn't worry too much about the evenness of the beam. Light meters are much more sensitive than the eye, and pars aren't generally known for having an even beam.
 
Thanks very much for the info, I appreciate it. I've tried to find info on how to interpret the illumination specs but it only confused me further. And I'll remember to keep my hands off the barrel when it's on!

I believe those are the angles I'm referring to; was there something else I said?

Actually I meant that the StarPar was twice as bright as the 6x22, not the Source Four Par, sorry. The specs and my local dealer both say the Altman is a somewhat brighter than the ETC, but I don't know by how much. So my main dilemma now is do I go with 6x16s instead of 6x22s for narrow beam, and do I go with PARs instead of ERSs for the wider beams. I was planning on going to LDI Friday to look at stuff, but it looks like I need to get these ordered this week.
 
Anything front light (for lighting areas), I would exclusively use ellipsoidals if possible. Ellipsoidals mixed with pars will give very uneven light. Keep in mind also, that pars (especially short pars like the Source Four Par) will create more glare (often referred to as flare), which may be distracting to some audience members.
 
OK, thanks. And I didn't think about the glare issue.

You could compensate for this by using tophats or barn doors in the pars, but then you're just buying more gear which would most likely start costing about the same as if you were just buying ellipsoidals in the first place. Save the pars for top light, but don't forget about fresnels. You can get an Altman 65Q (which is an all-around decent unit) for about $100.
-Less than a Source Four/Star Par and with better blending and control. Fresnels will have a softer edge than the pars, but you might want that.
 
Random thoughts/comments:
...
Field / Beam
6x16 - 19/8.5
6x22 - 11/8
Something about those beam angles doesn't seem quite right. Altman has never been known for its precise photometric data. Compare Altman's information with that published for the Source Four. Further, in practical use, one can pretty much ignore beam angle information. To the eye, the pool of light emitted from any ERS is almost even all the way to the edge.

...Fresnels will have a softer edge than the pars, but you might want that.
Fresnels are great for overstage applications, but the amount of flare (even with barndoor/tophat) and loss of intensity makes them unsuitable for FOH or long throw positions.

hemismith, based on your drawing, I'd likely use 6x12/26° for the near shot and 6x16/19° for the far shot. I'd also try to mount the fixtures as high as possible. I don't think I'd recommend buying new 360Qs, unless your purchasing regulations prohibit buying used. There are always lots of 360Qs on the used market, for $50-100. If buying new, I would only consider Source Fours. Note that your lighting positions are in the worst possible place for shutter cuts, and you're really going to depend on that rotating barrel, if you have it.

A top hat or half-hat is appropriate on an ERS used FOH as well.
 
Random thoughts/comments:

Something about those beam angles doesn't seem quite right. Altman has never been known for its precise photometric data. Compare Altman's information with that published for the Source Four. Further, in practical use, one can pretty much ignore beam angle information. To the eye, the pool of light emitted from any ERS is almost even all the way to the edge.

You know, the numbers seemed weird to me too. I can't understand why the 6x16 and 6x22 appear so similar on paper, when in reality, they're not. I ran a search and came up with this thread:

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/2643-altman-360q-beam-field-angle.html

The photometric data was pulled from SteveB's post, which he retrieved from the Altman website.

Fresnels are great for overstage applications, but the amount of flare (even with barndoor/tophat) and loss of intensity makes them unsuitable for FOH or long throw positions.

Yep, that was my idea also. Try to scratch using pars for any kind of front light; especially at such distances and angles in relation to front/center of the stage. I hadn't seen any talk of fresnels for toplight, so I figured I'd throw that in there. Thanks for reinforcing my post :) .

Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems like the older generations of 360Q's are built a little better than the newer units. The rear pineapples (lamp housing) are pretty much the same, but the barrels seem more sturdy on the older fixtures. Even if you find a bunch of old brown 360Q's that are difficult to work with, the most work they will probably need is four new shutters and more than likely a new lamp socket. Most other parts stand up pretty well to the test of time. Even the reflectors tend to hold up pretty well unless they were constantly used as worklights running a 1k FEL lamp.
 
Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems like the older generations of 360Q's are built a little better than the newer units. The rear pineapples (lamp housing) are pretty much the same, but the barrels seem more sturdy on the older fixtures. Even if you find a bunch of old brown 360Q's that are difficult to work with, the most work they will probably need is four new shutters and more than likely a new lamp socket. Most other parts stand up pretty well to the test of time. Even the reflectors tend to hold up pretty well unless they were constantly used as worklights running a 1k FEL lamp.

Could be my imagination also. This other than the older style has the clutch break that breaks and is no longer available, and the more modern style has a clutch cam that works better and is still sold. No way to upgrade a 6x22 to clutch cam either.
 
Thanks everyone. I'll stick to ERSs for front light then, and PARs or Frenels for top light. And maybe used is indeed the best option here. Of course, maybe used Source Fours could be an option, but I doubt there are as many of those available.

That's good to hear about the light appearing even despite the photometric data. I won't worry about it. The specs in that thread are the same that I posted though; am I missing something?
 
Thanks everyone. I'll stick to ERSs for front light then, and PARs or Frenels for top light. And maybe used is indeed the best option here. Of course, maybe used Source Fours could be an option, but I doubt there are as many of those available.

That's good to hear about the light appearing even despite the photometric data. I won't worry about it. The specs in that thread are the same that I posted though; am I missing something?

Hemi, take a look at the L&E Leko, its almost identical to the 360Q's, but much cheaper. Also, as much as I hate to promote it, Lightronic's Leko is actually pretty decent and you could get a true 19 deg. Both leko's are affordable options that would help you stretch your budget.
 
Interesting, thanks, I'm not familiar with those others. I guess the Lightronics is a Chinese knock off of the Source Four. Their list prices are all the same as the 360Q though. I'll have to do a little more research.

Oh, and Derek, yes, one of the big problems is getting the lights up high enough. I'm hoping to get some permanently installed mounts up higher but that'll be a while. I guess the 360 doesn't have a rotating barrel? I tried to download the manual from Altman but you get Shakespeare manual instead.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, thanks, I'm not familiar with those others. I guess the Lightronics is a Chinese knock off of the Source Four. Their list prices are all the same as the 360Q though. I'll have to do a little more research.

These threads give a bit of background on the relationship between the Lightronics ellipsoidal and the Source Four....

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/8221-patent-infringment-lawsuit.html

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/news/10508-etc-lightronics-lawsuit-settled.html


Hans
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back