SDI Record and Multi Mode playback

A feature that would allow you to simultaneously record your SDI input, create an index of files based on your recordings and play them back at any speed up to 1 frame behind the record.

This would be very attractive to sport operators giving them the ability to instantaneously playback sport plays in slow mo, or regularly. You couold also create some very cool time based effects such as Live slow mo.

Example, you are playing your SDI layer that is being sent to you via the truck or cameras, the "record real time and broadcast "visual FX mode is on and outputing the recording lagging 1 or 2 frames behind, something negligable. At a certain point in the song you can take a cue that would slow the frame rate on the recordinng down to stop over the course of a specified time in your cue.

At any rate, the ability to record and auto index files and recall them at will would open CAT to the sports world where they commonly use EVS.

CC

this isnt kindof close to what i set out to do.
This really is a different industry that already has its own players providing such solutions.

Christian.

when one designs a system, one only designs it to do certain things.
One makes design decisions from the very moment one starts.
I cant design something to do everything possible ever with 'video'.

I have to pick a small sub-set and try and do that well.

I have watched people who try to do generalised do everything control systems, and they failed - often from the very beginning - because they made it far too complex for themselves.

The truth of it is, that every design is only optimal for a small number of the possible uses of that equipment.

Beyond those uses - users are better served by other more efficient solutions.

And by products that are more closely focussed on the unique set of problems in that application space.

A bicycle doesnt turn into a car if i add an engine....
If i need a car - i really should buy a car.

The problems that the designers of bicycles are trying to solve and not commensurate with those of the car.
The expertise that a designer of bicycles learns is not compatible with that of a car designer.
They exist in different worlds.

Richard,

You can't tell me that Catalyst hasn't evolved dramatically from what you originally set out to do. You should really give yourself more credit than that. I don't see Catalyst as a bicycle I see it as an ever evolving piece of revolutionary and usefull technology. I think this is part of the reason you have created the *feature requests* forum - to possibly consider implementing these requests and further evolve your software.

Having said that, I would be hard pressed not to point out to you that nearly all TV video servers include functions such as SDI in and out, Sound, Travel mattes and fills with alpha channel support, record and replay with edits, and nearly all of them benefit from multiple 0striped high performance storage solutions such as Dual U 320 SCSI. San is another technology that they will make use of.

Some Examples:
Profile HD xp based - http://www.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/ click on servers
EVS video server ? www.evs.tv
360systems Sub $10,000 Video server ? www.360systems.com
DOREMI Labs MCS-HD server ? www.doremilabs.com
Appela video server: Www.apella.tv
Adtec Soloist 3 or edje video server: www.adtecinc.com
DSR 2k Digital Disk recorder available in 3q 2004: www.gdc-tech.com

I hasten to point out that there is a Sub $10,000 system by 360 systems that does nearly everything profile will do.

I don't mean bad by this and hope you can see what I'm trying to point out to you without taking offence. What I'm trying to say is that you have developed such an amazing product that is so flexible it is scaring the people who use the afformentioned products, I'm curious why you don't close the deal and create an "everything possible ever with video" machine. You are already half way there. As ambitious as this may seem, I know the technology exists for it to be done and if anyone can do it, you can.

In conclusion, I see Catalyst as an emerging butterfly in this world of caterpillar class video servers, not as a man propelled tuk tuk, bicycle, moped or anything less than a potential Mack truck.

Sorry for the sentiment.
Christian Choi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by litemover

Richard,
Sorry for the sentiment.
Christian Choi

---

Highend is terrified of video. hence the dl1. they turn it into a 'light' which they think they can sell to their dealers.


Im not doing a lighting product - but highend is.

Their marketing angle is 'digital lighting'
I try to add show control and pro-video functionality.
What i do has nothing to do with 'digital lighting'

SCSI? SDI?
Highend thinks being able to move a video image around is 'cool'.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...on/lumpow.html

Quote:

---

A typical 100 watt incandescent bulb has a luminous flux of about 1700 lumens

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samsc

Highend is terrified of video. hence the dl1. they turn it into a 'light' which they think they can sell to their dealers.


Im not doing a lighting product - but highend is.

Their marketing angle is 'digital lighting'
I try to add show control and pro-video functionality.
What i do has nothing to do with 'digital lighting'

SCSI? SDI?
Highend thinks being able to move a video image around is 'cool'.

---

Digital Lighting - Lighting's less offensive word for video. I hate this term because not only is it deceiving but it is a a bold faced lie. Sure light comes out of a projector or video wall but nonetheless, it is still video even if is attached to a yoke or head. This would be like Video people doing lighting at the same time and calling it Video Highlighting. How lame. They must think that the video world is stupid. When asked numerous times by tech directors, video operators, and the like "How is this lighting?" I always say "It's not, it's video." They always say, oh. If I were to answer them with the digital lighting answer, I would be insulting their intelligence. Video people are hardly stupid, especially about what is and isn't video.

They need to get off the fence and realize what they have.

I do think that all of the flexible features, even re-aspecting, are very cool as this would require a lot of extra equipment to do with any of the video based video servers. But it is still video.

This must be quite frustrating, thanks for explaining it to me. It would make me want to start a new project.

Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by litemover

Digital Lighting - Lighting's less offensive word for video. I hate this term because not only is it deceiving but it is a a bold faced lie. Sure light comes out of a projector or video wall but nonetheless, it is still video even if is attached to a yoke or head. This would be like Video people doing lighting at the same time and calling it Video Highlighting. How lame. They must think that the video world is stupid. When asked numerous times by tech directors, video operators, and the like "How is this lighting?" I always say "It's not, it's video." They always say, oh. If I were to answer them with the digital lighting answer, I would be insulting their intelligence. Video people are hardly stupid, especially about what is and isn't video.

They need to get off the fence and realize what they have.

I do think that all of the flexible features, even re-aspecting, are very cool as this would require a lot of extra equipment to do with any of the video based video servers. But it is still video.

This must be quite frustrating, thanks for explaining it to me. It would make me want to start a new project.

Christian

---

its incredibly frustrating. And its not going to change.
So i did start a new project.

Its always been video.
I work in the video industry with video equipment.
I have been doing this kindof thing for more than 10 years.
Video people just fall about laughing at the mention of gobos.
There is no 'lighting' technology, jargon or terminology used in the interface or design of this software.


But this is focussed on the lighting console as a control solution for live shows.
Video people never really developed anything to control large numbers of devices- outside show control.

The lighting operator gets to leverage his live skills - his skills in breaking things down visually and being visually aware - and use them to control more of the stage display elements.

This is a role they are good at.

Video people are often hidden backstage without an overview of the stage picture being created.
This is because the creative role in video production has already been fulfilled once the content is on tape and has been approved.

The lighting guy now gets to make the show presentation work even better.

R

Just got finished doing a show with 7 dl-1's, and three servers.

For aerial effects, they are great, for anything else, they are not that great. Originally, they were supposed to be projecting some texture and effects onto a setpiece that had some fabric to be projected on. When we got to the site, the fabric was on 6 inches tall, when it as supposed to be 4 ft. So, we ended up hanging them in different places and trying to project some stuff. It was OK if I put all seven basically in one concentrated area, but other than that, you could barely see them.

BTW, Richard, the 8-layer version is GREAT for preview. I ran two servers, with a third by the board emulating the two for my preview monitors. The only thing that would be nice, is if you could do mixes of every two layers. I.e. mix 1&2, 3&4, etc for each of the outputs. As it was, the only thing I could do was seperate outs, or 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8 at once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jasonrudolph

Just got finished doing a show with 7 dl-1's, and three servers.

For aerial effects, they are great, for anything else, they are not that great. Originally, they were supposed to be projecting some texture and effects onto a setpiece that had some fabric to be projected on. When we got to the site, the fabric was on 6 inches tall, when it as supposed to be 4 ft. So, we ended up hanging them in different places and trying to project some stuff. It was OK if I put all seven basically in one concentrated area, but other than that, you could barely see them.

BTW, Richard, the 8-layer version is GREAT for preview. I ran two servers, with a third by the board emulating the two for my preview monitors. The only thing that would be nice, is if you could do mixes of every two layers. I.e. mix 1&2, 3&4, etc for each of the outputs. As it was, the only thing I could do was seperate outs, or 1,2,3,4 or 5,6,7,8 at once.

---

yes dim.

i have seen this kindof problem of lots of shows.
you need short throws and no spill. same caveats with all projectors.

Please add the mix 1&2 thing to feature requests.
this works the way it should work in pixelmad. you can have any compbination you want - the gui is different.

"Digital Lighting - Lighting's less offensive word for video."

Oh my.. High End's intention is to involve more lighting professionals in video. This has been happening in the background for many years. If I recall some of those that post on this forum have worked professionally with lighting for some time.

I for one am not scared of video (geez). However with Richard's help and the help of others including you Christian, High End is applying more lighting techniques to video. The end result is a sort of hybrid.

So... I guess we could call an LED wall behind a stage a "Digital Signage".

Anyway it is quite obvious that those of us that are into video (for what ever purpose) on a set or as part of a set are enjoying the advantage of being an advocate.

Richard Belliveau
Chief Technology Officer
High End Systems

"A typical 100 watt incandescent bulb has a luminous flux of about 1700 lumens"

OMG! What is that quote suppose to mean?

Richard.. have you only done video but never been involved in lighting optics?

Yes.. a 100 watt light bulb can be 1700 lumens when the light is captured by an integrating sphere!!!! However try to get that 1700 lumens through projection system optics and you will be lucky if you end up with 300 lumens.

An NOW.. We are going to talk about lumens:

First: What is the difference between 2.5K, 5K, 10K and 15K lumens?
Answer: Screen size

Second: What is the visual difference when you compare a projected image of the same size from a projector that is twice as bright as another?
Answer: You can see the difference but it does not look "twice as bright"

Third: If you have a background illumination of 1K lumens on a screen which
one will completely overshadow the 1K lumens? 5K, 10K or 15K?
Answer: None of them they are all contaminated

Fourth: What screen has a higher luminous measurement? A 300cm X 400cm
screen at 5K lumens or a 435cm x 580cm at 10K?
Answer: 300cm x 400cm at 5K lumens

Fifth: What produces a more stable light output over life? A xenon lamp
used with a 12K projector or a high pressure mercury used for a 5K
projector?
Answer: High pressure mercury lamps produce a more stable light output over
life. Xenon lamps can be 50% output within 500 hours. High pressure
mercury lamps can be 80% output at 500 hours.

Sixth: What is more expensive to own and operate? A single fixed projector
at 18K lumens or 4 automated DL-1 at 4500 lumens?
Answer: The single fixed projector at 18K lumens.

Jason.. you wrote
"For aerial effects, they are great, for anything else, they are not that great."

Huh?? The DL-1s looked good for aerial projections but you could not see them projected on a screen uhmm (fabric)? Think about that for a moment....

The only way a projector or light of ANY kind would look better projecting aerials but not good when projecting on a screen would be if the screens uhmm (fabric) were poorly suited.

This could have been fabric that only imaged a low portion of the light to the viewer.. like a net or dark fabric that absorbed light. Screen or scrim selection if very important.

Again.. if a DL-1 did not read on this "fabric" a 10k or 15K projector would have made very little difference. So check your fabric or check screen area (size).

To help promote understanding please go to:

http://www.highend.com/products/digi...hting/dl_1.asp

and click "DL1 in Action" there you will see actual shots of DL-1 in action on stage with many 1200 and 700 watt conventional movers. The answer to using video projection on stage is the proper set up of the stage and screens.

Richard Belliveau

Whew... !!

Thats all for now.. lets all work together.. we have the same goals.

Richard Belliveau

thankyou.

these issues need to be addressed to users
Im trying to explain what i and others have seen on shows.

our users dont have the benefit of research and development.
our users need to have these things addressed as part of the stage design problem.

They need clear guidance and demonstation.
They need to understand what a projector is and what it does, in a non-technical way.

I have had to deal with many such misunderstandings with Catalyst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richbell

So... I guess we could call an LED wall behind a stage a "Digital Signage".

---

and guess what - i just had to directly compete with a company whose business is doing digital signs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richbell

"Digital Lighting - Lighting's less offensive word for video."

Oh my.. High End's intention is to involve more lighting professionals in video. This has been happening in the background for many years. If I recall some of those that post on this forum have worked professionally with lighting for some time.

I for one am not scared of video (geez). However with Richard's help and the help of others including you Christian, High End is applying more lighting techniques to video. The end result is a sort of hybrid.

So... I guess we could call an LED wall behind a stage a "Digital Signage".

Anyway it is quite obvious that those of us that are into video (for what ever purpose) on a set or as part of a set are enjoying the advantage of being an advocate.

Richard Belliveau
Chief Technology Officer
High End Systems

---

No Doubt about that, Richard. But whichever way we look at it, it's still video. Made by a lighting company or not, it's very obviously Video. Calling it "Digital Lighting" just makes the video people who usually do this and the producers/directors who advocate the old ways such as Profile, think lighting people have come up with a term that they can use to sneak around and take control instead of just announce it honestly.

There are a few directors and producers who won't even consider it because they don't think lighting people should be doing video. On the other hand, there are a few that think it's great and what they love about it is the flexibility to change things on the spot. As I've stated before, I've been asked on many occasions "how is this lighting?" I always try to respond honestly and simply say it's not. Nothing more to say.

Let me tell you a little story, Richard, that you may find interesting and pertain to what I'm saying. This last weekend I received a frantic call from Ecuador, it was the Director for Miss Universe telling me that the content for Gloria Estefan was totally botched and needed to be completely replaced. He had so wished that they had used Catalyst for the job but they went with Profile instead because of the politics involved. Long story shorter, He asked me to produce the content to be played on Profile for the Gloria Estefan performances because the producers hated it. I agreed to do it. I did it in AE and FCP and sent it via Satellite to Ecuador to Dbeta and played back on Profile. In no way was Catalyst involved. It was just video being replaced by video.

The end of this story was that the producers were so incredibly happy with 'the Video' that I sent them that now they want to come down to my house to check out Catalyst to use for video as an alternative to Profile because Profile can't make radical changes to a whole song within a few minutes. No mention of Digital Lighting is ever made. I stopped using that term soon after I first hear it because it's not straight forward and it does sound sneaky as if it were something else than video.

The editing of this show took me in excess of 22 hrs, 9 hrs of rendering, and 2 hours of mastering and checking, not to mention the time it took for my wife to take the masters up to LA to get Sat fed to Ecuador. A process that would have normally taken me no more than an hour tops with Catalyst. And now they know...

If you market it as video that it controlled by lighting and has the same flexibility and power as lighting does with regards to immediately being able to change the look, you will have much better results because people will know what it is and they will love it because it's video that is way more flexible than the current TV based video servers out there. That would certainly help my cause. There are still video people who come up to me saying "what is this catalyst thing?". I still get calls from producers who say "so explain to me what Catalyst is, is it some lighting thing or is it video" I think the term "Digital Lighting" is so off the mark that it confuses people.

As a major proponent of this technology, the two main selling points for me have been 1) The incredible flexibility to be able to change the video as fast as I'm able to change the lighting, which is fast in comparison to the old way - having to spend all night re-editing a piece, master it to dbeta and test it (A real pain in the ass), and 2) the complete integration of video with the lighting to create a merged cohesive environment driven by 1 vision rather than a multitude of chefs in the kitchen baking up their own cakes.

Best,
Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richbell

"Digital Lighting - Lighting's less offensive word for video."
Anyway it is quite obvious that those of us that are into video (for what ever purpose) on a set or as part of a set are enjoying the advantage of being an advocate.

Richard Belliveau
Chief Technology Officer
High End Systems

---

BTW Richard,

It's been a fight and an uphill one for me. The advantages haven't yet paid off for me although I have faith that they will someday soon and that is what keeps me being an advocate. I've made both friends and enemies by being an advocate but I strongly believe that the artistic aspect of this will outweigh the naysayers anticatalyst mafia tactics and one day they won't be a problem for me.

Nevertheless, it has been a fun and interesting albeit a difficult path to walk.

Christian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richbell

Jason.. you wrote
"For aerial effects, they are great, for anything else, they are not that great."

Huh?? The DL-1s looked good for aerial projections but you could not see them projected on a screen uhmm (fabric)? Think about that for a moment....

The only way a projector or light of ANY kind would look better projecting aerials but not good when projecting on a screen would be if the screens uhmm (fabric) were poorly suited.

This could have been fabric that only imaged a low portion of the light to the viewer.. like a net or dark fabric that absorbed light. Screen or scrim selection if very important.

Again.. if a DL-1 did not read on this "fabric" a 10k or 15K projector would have made very little difference. So check your fabric or check screen area (size).

To help promote understanding please go to:

http://www.highend.com/products/digi...hting/dl_1.asp

and click "DL1 in Action" there you will see actual shots of DL-1 in action on stage with many 1200 and 700 watt conventional movers. The answer to using video projection on stage is the proper set up of the stage and screens.

Richard Belliveau

---

Hehe Richard,

When the DL-2 comes out, hopefully you won't have to spend so much energy explaining all of this.

I can see where you are coming from as I understand the circumstances under which a DL1 can look good projected on a screen. It does take circumstances however as opposed to putting a mirror on a lighting 28sx which most people don't understand. Things like Screen material, ambient light, throw, maximum levels adjustment in your imagery, etc... A lot of people that I know see it marketed more as a regular lighting fixture with video for gobos and they misunderstand it when it doesn't look that great next to a hundred mac 2k washes. It's a specialized fixture and I'm glad that you have posted some sort of guide to getting the most out of it but this should have been done much earlier, like before you came back, not your fault.

Nevertheless, even in the projector world, brightness is a selling factor, circumstances or not. The DL-1 lays within the PowerPoint or corporate presentation projector class, which is great if you don't need more punch. People will say what they see, lighting or video engineers alike, even Highend engineers. I myself have always thought that the fixture has a place in the industry, but it has gotten a bad wrap for its lack of punch. I think again that this is a marketing mistake and could have been avoided had it been prefaced by more facts about the circumstances under which the DL-1 shines best. If you think about all the disappointed people that have used the fixture in their tour that were never made aware of the environment and circumstances that the fixture best shines in, you would understand what I mean. Marketing strategy. A similar parallel could be drawn to the Hog 3, bad marketing - telling everyone in the beginning that it was very close to being finished, etc... Convincing a lot of underdeveloped consoles to be sold... All mistakes that have cost Highend a lot of money and even worse, trust.

So now you're back at highend having to clean up that mess and try to convince all of those dissapointed people that if you would have done x than your result would have been much better. I can't imagine what your day must be like. I really wish you the best of luck and I for one am looking forward to the right show to come along for me to use them so i can send you some good press and pictures. The only time I used them, all I had was a wood surface to use them on, hardly a projection surface but they were actually punchier than I thought they were gonna be. I knew though that they would've worked well on the right surface.

I still loved the idea of the orbital mirror heads on the lightning sx, barcos, and christies. They really were cool cept for the erector set that you had to put together around the unit.

I like to see this place as a wealth of information and experiences from the users of Catalyst that everyone can learn from. Bleasedale has done a fabulous job providing an informative place where people can be honest about their experiences/suggestions and get listened to. It has proven to be very useful because he has listened to everyone's suggestions and has in turn improved the software because of them.

It would be nice to see the same thing with the Hog 3. A mutually beneficial situation like this is invaluable to both the user and the developer.

Good job, R. Bleasedale.

Christian

" If you think about all the disappointed people"

Huh? What? Huh? Not the story of the users coming into HES. I appreciate very much what you have done for Catalyst but truly your experience with the DL-1 itself is very limited. We had one job together I believe where DL-1s were an afterthought (not your fault) and they were used shining on some dark oak. Almost every major lighting designer today that has used them has been VERY happy. Just a few includes:
Jim Tetlow
http://www.highend.com/news_events/n...asp?news_id=97
Marc Brickman
http://www.highend.com/news_events/n...asp?news_id=87
Andrew Dunning
http://www.landrudesign.com/

Again whether you use an 18k projector or a 5K projector is based upon screen size. Most designers are opting to use multiple projectors with multiple servers.. such as 4 DL-1 with two Catalyst servers instead of one 18K projector. This gives much more creative flexibility. AND.. YES.. I would not have thought that moving a conventional video image (not graphics) would have been something that special. But I have personally found that moving a conventional video image and ALLOWING it to distort to acute or obtuse angles is very creative. Not all images need to look "video". This is in part the reason for "digital lighting".

I used to think that it was important to keystone correct when moving an image.. not anymore depending on the look you want. I used to think that moving a video image might look cheap.. not anymore.. when a video image is moved from one location to another depending on the programming and the emotion involved it can be very powerful to the audience.

NOW.. as far as the Catalyst being involved with Digital Lighting advertising... I could try to change that.. after all it is a video server.. but then it is controlled by a LIGHTING desk. Maybe HES should advertise with "VidLighting" or something.. water under the bridge.

Christian as you know I really appreciate your creativity and work..(very much) but one day with the right application you will program a show with multiple DL-1s or something similar. You can then choreograph movement, movement crossfade, moveable scrims and screens, fades and video editing all at once. HES will be there for you.

For me the art of digital lighting involves the best of straight and technical video with the creative aspects of lighting. Three pixels.. thousands of pixels.. out of focus.. soft edge.. keystoned.. inverted and inside out.


Richard Belliveau

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richbell

" If you think about all the disappointed people"

Huh? What? Huh? Not the story of the users coming into HES. I appreciate very much what you have done for Catalyst but truly your experience with the DL-1 itself is very limited. We had one job together I believe where DL-1s were an afterthought (not your fault) and they were used shining on some dark oak. Almost every major lighting designer today that has used them has been VERY happy. Just a few includes:
Jim Tetlow
http://www.highend.com/news_events/n...asp?news_id=97
Marc Brickman
http://www.highend.com/news_events/n...asp?news_id=87
Andrew Dunning
http://www.landrudesign.com/

Again whether you use an 18k projector or a 5K projector is based upon screen size. Most designers are opting to use multiple projectors with multiple servers.. such as 4 DL-1 with two Catalyst servers instead of one 18K projector. This gives much more creative flexibility. AND.. YES.. I would not have thought that moving a conventional video image (not graphics) would have been something that special. But I have personally found that moving a conventional video image and ALLOWING it to distort to acute or obtuse angles is very creative. Not all images need to look "video". This is in part the reason for "digital lighting".

I used to think that it was important to keystone correct when moving an image.. not anymore depending on the look you want. I used to think that moving a video image might look cheap.. not anymore.. when a video image is moved from one location to another depending on the programming and the emotion involved it can be very powerful to the audience.

NOW.. as far as the Catalyst being involved with Digital Lighting advertising... I could try to change that.. after all it is a video server.. but then it is controlled by a LIGHTING desk. Maybe HES should advertise with "VidLighting" or something.. water under the bridge.

Christian as you know I really appreciate your creativity and work..(very much) but one day with the right application you will program a show with multiple DL-1s or something similar. You can then choreograph movement, movement crossfade, moveable scrims and screens, fades and video editing all at once. HES will be there for you.

For me the art of digital lighting involves the best of straight and technical video with the creative aspects of lighting. Three pixels.. thousands of pixels.. out of focus.. soft edge.. keystoned.. inverted and inside out.


Richard Belliveau

---

Bravo Richard,

Huh? What? Who? - That is hilarious, you remind me of Homer! I'm glad to see that there is someone there that is actually making a concerted effort to market the DL-1 intelligently and with passion. Keep up the good work, I hope it is starting to pay off now.

A couple of things though, and I don?t mean this to discourage you only to help you.

A) Whether you realize it or not, you still have a lot of convincing to do, There are many designers you don't know who wouldn't even consider spending a huge part of their budget on DL-1s and who think they really aren't worth it (I'm not going to name names or list websites for the obvious reasons). I'm sure you understand that the reason that designers are able to afford Catalyst and a bunch of 16 or 18k lumen projectors with screens, or huge 10mil video walls is that the projectors, screens, and LEDs are already budgeted into the production, they're already there. The lighting designer's budget is not affected by the addition of projectors. Catalyst is a negligible cost to the designer, especially for the added flexibility you will get by using it. Even the production of content and in some cases, the entire Catalyst budget falls under a separate budget than the lighting does. When you introduce the DL-1's, this falls under the lighting designer's budget because it is considered a fixture. It's a hard sell when the production already has 6 Lightning 28sx projectors and a bunch of huge screens. Why do we need these things the producer asks?

By the way, your statement that most designers are opting to use multiple projectors with multiple servers is true; however, lighting designers don't often have final say on how may projectors they use and in many cases they have no say whatsoever. This is entirely up to either the production designer or director/producer. Your added example of "such as 4 DL-1 with two Catalyst servers instead of one 18K projector" is entirely unfounded and not true. I don't mean to be picking on your words here but you've got to realize that while this may pertain to a few designers you know, this certainly does not encompass the entire lighting designer community, who for the most part is very new at projection, and saying such broad unfounded statements makes you sound like a used car salesmen; doesn't help your cause much and I mean this in the nicest possible way. Go far with your marketing strategy but not that far, those in the know would think you were insulting their intelligence by saying something like that. I myself would absolutely prefer a single 15'x20' screen with an 18k projector over 4 DL-1s. If you watch any TV awards shows or specials at all, look at all the productions that are using 18k projectors with huge screens and Catalyst or EX-1, how many DL-1s do you see on those productions? Though there may be the odd TV production that has tried them, it's still very rare to see them. For one thing, you cannot stack DL-1s to create a brighter image because of their inaccuracy to hit such a precise alignment mark, if you could do this you might see more DL-1s being used over an 18k projector. If you improved the accuracy of the pan and tilt to always hit the exact same mark enough to always re-align the convergence of multiple units, you might have something to that statement, but currently not.

B) You must contain all of the negative reviews that representatives of Highend have to say about the DL-1, which seems to be more than just a few individuals, again of which I won't name names or list websites. I guess people will say what they think and if they think that the fixture is garbage, they aren't going to hold back their opinions and recommend buying or renting a bunch of them. This alone has cause irreparable damage to the product's image and has not helped with the stigma associated with the DL-1.

Richard, lighting designers are going to either going see it or not. My guess is that with the right representation, they might see it, but as you put it, I have very little experience with the DL-1. For all I know Richard Bleasdale could be right in saying it?s as dull as a 200 watt light bulb. For all I know, lighting designers could agree with the programmers that (Yes I personally know them too) question why Highend is peddling such crap.

As far as "digital lighting goes", go ahead and call it what you want, I get better results when I call it a video server, then people have some sort of reference and they don't think I'm trying to call video lighting... Unfortunately, the politics in the TV world are vastly different to that of touring whan it comes to Video.

I wish you the best.
Christian Choi

Hi Christian,

Thanks for the input. I appreciate your thoughts and experience about budgets and today?s separation between video budgets and lighting budgets. However what I can tell you is that in many parts of the world (including USA) the DL-1s are being specified within video budgets quite frequently.

Most Catalyst sales (over 85%) accompany DL-1s. Your style is large screen video on shows.. and it is very wonderful... however as you know there can be more than one way to do things when it comes to design.

Of course I appreciate your opinion very much. You may soon have the opportunity to see a multiimage show programmed with 8 to 12 DL-1s in your area or the invite to come to Austin always stands. As of yet I don't think you have seen the product in use the way I describe.

BTW.. the DL-1 won a staging award at Infocomm and even those stone cold AV guys had there heads turned to a new way of thinking.

Give me a call if you would like to talk. I am not sure if I will have the time to post here often.

Richard