SDI Record and Multi Mode playback

[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.

[samsc]

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.

[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

[richbell]

Whew... !!

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

Richard Belliveau

[samsc]

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.

[litemover]

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

[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

[litemover]

" 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

[richbell]

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