Lighting desk

[Spam Butterfly]

If you want Hog III libraries written, you need to talk to Hog III librarian. He is usually pretty quick.

I find the Hogs more ergonomic and the syntax is more elegant than the Grand MA. Personally, I still program most of my shows on a Hog 2 OS system - preferably a Hog 2. It's simple to write you're own libraries for it too. There are still a few tricks that only the Hog 2 can do, and if the console has been looked after, it's still the most reliable desk around. It also has good timecode support (that will be the AMS Neve timecode chip then), and a decent MSC implementation. The downsides are that the Hog 2 as only 4 universes (without using overdrive boxes), no hard disk - perhaps one of the reasons that makes it intrinsically more reliable than other desks - however, floppies are becoming scarce. It's a better media server programming platform than the 3 - the fades are predicable, and the DMX does what you program. The Hog III still has rounding issues between real world values and DMX.

Whilst I love the Hog 2, it is getting long in the tooth...

The Grand MA is certainly an interesting desk, and I have no doubts that it would do what I want (and it talks Artnet too). What I find rather irritating is MA's stubborn refusal to implement any TCP/IP type media server features for any other media server than Grand MA Video.

Chamsys' Magic Q looks interesting - it's vaguely Hog like, and the media server support is good too - it supports Catalyst's web server.

Hugh

[emilianomorgia]

a bit off topic , but what drive me crazy is that no one design a SHUTTER ( or keystone ) UI . It is ridiculous we still have to rotate a wheel , actually many wheels to control a simple mechanism like Frame Shutter or in the case of Catalyst Keystone.

the Hog II did a giant step actually it create a entire NEW ERA of the lighting control and we now still living in that era . Every Desk mentioned it's son of the Hog but one of them did I big step forward in term of usability .
Yes for sure we went in to the networking days but the programmers are look a lot like the old hog .

Just recently I tough how many waste of time as been spent from zilllions of companies to create desk like maxxyz , vista , compulite and many others witch have a really little market share compared to what Maa and HES does .

I personally think the era of the hardware lighting desk it will be shortly over .

We got a clear example of what a lighting tool can be using common hardware .
Catalyst it's a strong software run on common computers , and it live in a real world eco system , where every year CPU goes faster and cost less .
I don't see why a lighting desk have to cost 40.000 euro ! ( more or less ) when the fastest Pc cost 4.000 .

Indeed why need faders and other " special " input devices that can't be found outside the lighting industry , then why not make only this input devices ? and use the personal computer industry power and growing speed .
Yes I know there are companies that sell this side wings and this is good .

Maa for example , as far I know , don't have any Pc control surface , neither
the HogII like from UK does it , and so all other . Only HES as been so smart to think to 512 channel widget and programer and playback wings and recently they " un lock " the use of dp2000 for the hog3 pc software .

HES and Maa and so ETC and Martin does Pc software witch are not really designed to be a Pc software . What they do they are simulating the real hardware desk but are not truly designed to be operated on a Pc .
( Just to clarify , when I say Pc I don't think to a little 13" laptop )

Indeed working using a Hog III Pc software ( IMO ) it's better then anything else , but I still working in a " SIMULATOR " of the real Hog .

As far I remember when I was a boy I saw big hardware machines to editing videos , monochromatic CTR monitors was display information to control many ( I think the was ) betacam VCRs .

what do we have today ?

best hollywood movies are edited on Mac or Pc certainly not a 13" laptop , but a real workstation filled with all the goods necessary to do what it's need.


So as I said , I might be bit off topic but since we start speaking of lighting desks i like to give my clear and deep opinion .

[Mr_P]

a bit off topic , but what drive me crazy is that no one design a SHUTTER ( or keystone ) UI . It is ridiculous we still have to rotate a wheel , actually many wheels to control a simple mechanism like Frame Shutter or in the case of Catalyst Keystone.

not true - go look at keystone controls n the mix window - click and drag!!

the Hog II did a giant step actually it create a entire NEW ERA of the lighting control and we now still living in that era . Every Desk mentioned it's son of the Hog but one of them did I big step forward in term of usability .
Yes for sure we went in to the networking days but the programmers are look a lot like the old hog .

Hog was advanced for its time, but AVO, ETC, JANDS compulite all have good range of desks - not all as good as each other for dealing with media servers - but good in their field and unique from the Hog2

Just recently I tough how many waste of time as been spent from zilllions of companies to create desk like maxxyz , vista , compulite and many others witch have a really little market share compared to what Maa and HES does .

Vista is a great desk - ideally suited for timeline programming....

I personally think the era of the hardware lighting desk it will be shortly over .

NEVER - people like hands on FADERS and KNOBS - mice are a pain! - you can only control one thing at once with a mouse or even touchscreen. Faders and knobs allow programmers to do more than one thing at once.

Granted - PC systems have their place for offline programming at the airport - or creating custom fixtures, or updating pallet names - but are no substiue when faced with a hard programmig session on big shows.

I will grant one exception to the pc lighting controller however, in use as a midi or MSC slave on an installation.

We got a clear example of what a lighting tool can be using common hardware .
Catalyst it's a strong software run on common computers , and it live in a real world eco system , where every year CPU goes faster and cost less .
I don't see why a lighting desk have to cost 40.000 euro ! ( more or less ) when the fastest Pc cost 4.000 .

Indeed why need faders and other " special " input devices that can't be found outside the lighting industry , then why not make only this input devices ? and use the personal computer industry power and growing speed .
Yes I know there are companies that sell this side wings and this is good .

Well you;ve just contradicted yourself and re-afirmed he need for hardware!

HES and Maa and so ETC and Martin does Pc software witch are not really designed to be a Pc software . What they do they are simulating the real hardware desk but are not truly designed to be operated on a Pc .
( Just to clarify , when I say Pc I don't think to a little 13" laptop )

not true - Hog PC works great!

Indeed working using a Hog III Pc software ( IMO ) it's better then anything else , but I still working in a " SIMULATOR " of the real Hog .

As far I remember when I was a boy I saw big hardware machines to editing videos , monochromatic CTR monitors was display information to control many ( I think the was ) betacam VCRs .

what do we have today ?

technology has moved on! - the microprocessor replaced the valve 40 years ago!

best hollywood movies are edited on Mac or Pc certainly not a 13" laptop , but a real workstation filled with all the goods necessary to do what it's need.

So as I said , I might be bit off topic but since we start speaking of lighting desks i like to give my clear and deep opinion .

So im still not clear - are you pro hardware or software lighting desks?

Lighting desks are here to stay - the ameture user may only be able to afford a PC and offline software - but you'll find that every PRO user and hire company around the worldstill use real desks....

The future of video control is in dedicated video control desks. Take a look at the coolux control surface for pandoras box - is an interesting solution for them. -

(Catalyst is better though)

S

[emilianomorgia]

What's a Real Desk ?

[emilianomorgia]

not true - go look at keystone controls n the mix window - click and drag!!

I was referring to DMX controllers not to the catalyst it self



Hog was advanced for its time, but AVO, ETC, JANDS compulite all have good range of desks - not all as good as each other for dealing with media servers - but good in their field and unique from the Hog2

Vista is a great desk - ideally suited for timeline programming....

You can't say that, Vista it's soo young , and so incomplete

NEVER - people like hands on FADERS and KNOBS - mice are a pain! - you can only control one thing at once with a mouse or even touchscreen. Faders and knobs allow programmers to do more than one thing at once.

Fader it's not the CPU , faders does not cost 40.000 euro

Well you;ve just contradicted yourself and re-afirmed he need for hardware!

Input Device are not the the Desk it self ! Come on ! a desk it's not made of faders ! Yes some need hardware ( fader and wheels ) some does not , ( I don't )

not true - Hog PC works great!

Hog Pc is good as I said in my post , but it's SIMULATOR . there is nothing you can say that change the fact that it's simulate the real desk .

So im still not clear - are you pro hardware or software lighting desks?

It's Catalyst an hardware or a software Tool ?

[SourceChild]

If you want Hog III libraries written, you need to talk to Hog III librarian. He is usually pretty quick.

Yes, he will actually turn one out in about 24 hours if you ask.

I find the Hogs more ergonomic and the syntax is more elegant than the Grand MA.

It's only when you add two external touch monitors does it become cumbersome but still easier to single hand program than an MA.

Personally, I still program most of my shows on a Hog 2 OS system - preferably a Hog 2...It's a better media server programming platform than the 3...

I personally have always hated the Hog2 and actually fought against someone providing it on shows I was programming. I would pick a Virt, Spark, Pearl, or Diamond back in the days before Hog3.

I even opposed the Hog3 until I discovered the EDITOR.

Honestly, the editor in hog3 is the only reason I love it over any other desk. I believe it is that editor that makes the hog3 far superior to any other desk including and especially hog2.

...Hog2...It's simple to write you're own libraries for it too. There are still a few tricks that only the Hog 2 can do...

I design custom automation devices and the only other desks besides hog2 that are fast and reliable for users writing reliable libraries are AVO desks which I don't mind but don't offer the complexity I desire.

the fades are predicable, and the DMX does what you program. The Hog III still has rounding issues between real world values and DMX.

Being a hog3 expert and knowing all about these little bugs, I will agree with you completely.