Talk:Intelligent lighting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stage on stage This article is part of Wikipedia's Stagecraft coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Stagecraft, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the art of stagecraft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Stagecraft, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Name of article

This article also needs to have its name wikified, removing all capitals, since it's not a proper name

Charlie Richmond 17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

and now that the merging dirty work is done I'd argue the proper name should be Automated lighting because most people agree it's not really very intelligent.... Charlie Richmond 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I have worked in this industry for some time, and I have never seen moving heads called anything other than "intelligent lights". I wouldn't call myself an expert, but maybe an "experienced amateur". Anyway, history is littered with uses of terms which are technically inaccurate, improper or just plain wrong! Think of conventional current, for instance... They took a punt, got it wrong, and saddled children for the next thousand years with an enormous headache! But is still maintained because it's the most common way of describing it. Happy-melon 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this boils down to an American vs. European thing (although earlier versions of predecessor pages had a lot in them about how 'Intelligent Lighting' is an oxymoron) since I am looking at the front page of Installation Europe Magazine, April 2006, and the lead article is entitled "Moving in time: The past, present and future of automated lighting" - so I'd have to say that is definite proof that the industry does regularly refer to it this way. And with respect to an 'experienced amateur' I am an industry professional with 40 years of experience...

Charlie Richmond 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - it probably does boil down to some petty Anglo-American grammar conflict!! Moving the page won't really change any of the content - just need to swap a few sentences around in the introductory paragraph. You'll need to wait for the existing automated lighting article to be deleted though. Happy-melon 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is more than just petty though - there are frequent discussions about this on the stagecraft mailing list in which the vast majority of professionals there agree that, even though 'intelligent' is often used in many circles, it makes no sense and 'automated' is a far better description (as the article says even now) - but, just like all encyclopedias and dictionaries record common usage and don't prescribe preferred terms, we need to make sure the term 'Intelligent lighting' stays. It's just that I do think there is tendency now in the industry to use automated preferenctially.
Indeed. Inteligent lighting is the worst possible name for this, as it's entirely factually inaccuarate. It is not intelligent by any meaning of the word. My vote is for Automated. Or even "Robotic". Bryson430 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First computer-controlled fixture

I have done some research an I believe that the first computer controled inteligent light was the Vari*Lite VL Zero, a prototype developed by Showco for the band Genisis in December, 1980. The first marketed moving head would be the Vari*Lite VL1 then. However I could be wrong. Can someone back this up or challenge this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWGreen (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 August, 2006 (UTC).

Vari*Lite was second on the scene. The first moving-head lights, Autoscan, were developed and marketed in 1981 by a short-lived company named Cause and Effects, based in Birmingham. Clients who bought or rented Autoscan include Gary Numan, Asia, James Last, and Billy Joel, and several nightclubs including the Hippodrome in London. It's uncertain who first used them. Vari*Lite appeared later, and dominated the market when Cause and Effects folded in 1983.
Nic Cave-Lynch invented the Autoscan moving lights when he was 21 and established Cause and Effects to build and sell them. When the company approached the major UK production houses and lighting equipment manufacturers to solicit investment in the product, it was apparent that no moving lights were being either used or marketed at the time. It's possible that Showco (which Genesis invested heavily in) had prototypes around then, but Autoscan was definitely on the market before Genesis first used Vari*Lite VL1 on their September 1981 tour.
Nic Cave-Lynch's part in the industry has been mentioned in an interview with Steve Warren - co-director of Avolites in London, former employee of Cause and Effects - published in Mondo magazine, Jan/Feb 2002. The article is reproduced online at [1] (scroll halfway down). Nic is now an electronics engineer in New Zealand.
Wendy Collings 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Von Ballmoos patent goes back to 1971, though those lights were never manufactured and sold on a large scale. Does any one have any pictures of the Autoscan moving lights? I would be interested in finding some. [Richard Cadena]

[edit] Terminology

I've always objected to the term "intelligent lighting," because it implies that the rest of what we do is, well, "stupid lighting."

Salzberg 17:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's neither intelligent NOR automated. The most accurate terms to use are either "moving lights" or more correctly "robotic lights" as the contemporary versions of these luminaires are based on the process of robotic control.

The term "intelligent light" could be most correctly applied to the hand operated open face lime lights (hot blocks of calcium carbonate lime heated by an oxy-acetylene flame) and early hand-fed carbon arcs that were each directly operated by a human being. Lighting rehearsals were held to choreograph the operators on the proscenium bridge and perches, so that they could all change the silk colours and refocus their lights on the cue signal. Every lighting instrument ever since has been very dumb by comparison :-) --Andy Ciddor 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I tried to use 'moving head' preferentially when I rewrote it. I agree with you, but that term is not as popular as "intelligent/automated lighting" in popular usage. Happy-melon 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with those who believe the proper terminology should be "automated" lighting. We will never eliminate popular usage (misusage?) of terminology, but at the very least we can prevent its propagation. [Richard Cadena, author "Automated Lighting: The Art and Science of Moving Light" Focal Press 2006]

[edit] One of the industry's most advanced moving heads?

I would be very inclined to disagree with the statement that the Martin MAC500 is "one of the industry's most advanced moving heads" surely this is extremely out-dated, they don't even have CMY! Any thoughts...... AndyP543 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right... a picture of a MAC2000 would be more appropriate. Does anyone have one available under GDFL? Happy-melon 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is done......however, although relatively advanced, I think it would be still incorrect to say that it was one of the best moving lights available.....however this is my opinion so didn't want to inflict this onto the wiki. AndyP543 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

THe only moving lights ive ever used are Mac 500s and Mac 550's. Now I will agree that the Mac 550 is better than the 500, but what makes the 2000 more advanced? Judging by the picutes here and on the martin website, the 550's case looks like the 2000's, and the main difference is 2000 having a brighter lamp. What is CMY? If it has to do with color mixing, well the 550 has 2 color wheels and it mixes color too! I will be running a show tonight, so I might take a picture of the 550 in operation. KeepOnTruckin 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

I am proposing that the page Moving light should be merged with the page Intelligent lighting. I don't particularly have a preference what to ultimately call the article--I know there has been a big debate about what to call inelligent lighting/moving lights/automated lighting. However, the content on the page Moving Light seems easily mergable with the content on the Intelligent lighting and it seems a little unecissary to seperate out 'moving lights' from the broader catagory of 'intelligent lights' based on Wikipedia's policy which says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability."

I don't want to start any editing wars, so if you have a dissenting opinion, by all means tell me, but don't freak out. This is merely a proposal. I'm not going to fight anyone tooth and nail to force it on them. However, If I don't hear any opinions against it from anyone in a month I will merge the page (again, this is according to Wikipolicy).

Thanks y'all, be well.

Benjo 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me.... Charlie Richmond 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge is done and done. Hopefully everyone is happy. Benjo 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question about the vari-light in the article

The caption for the image of the Vari Light says it has many advanced sensors. Is it one of the cool lights that follow people wearing a transmitter on stage independently of the light board? If it can, I might classify it as a true intelligent light or robotic light. (As opposed to automated or moving) KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any moving lights that have this facility built in. That Vari*lite doesn't, for sure. It requires an additional controller - essentially replacing the desk with multiple sensors, a transmitter and a box of tricks that spits out DMX. Clever engineering, for sure, but intelligent? Oh no. Bryson430 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Mac2000profile.jpg

Image:Mac2000profile.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken out. Not really a problem as we have other pictures. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it could have qualified for fair use anyways since there are free alternatives. -JWGreen (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Profile VS Wash heads

I think this article should have somthing in the diffeences between profile and wash lights, such as differing features (gobo etc lacking from washes but washes have CMY more often) I work with mac 250 krypton and entour (profiles) and 250 washes. and also mac 500 (profile) and 600 (wash). so could get some pictures of equivlant levels of profile and wash being used together.~Wilflet (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting 2 comparison shots is an excellent idea. The picture you put on the stage lighting page (Image:Valve Oct.jpg is a nice one. If you could get some more like that too that would be great. Ive got an intelligent lighting textbook so ill see if i can put in a bit about profiles vs. washes KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Movers"

I'm not prepared to argue this, not really being a lighting guy (I don't actually think 'Intelligent' is the proper description anyway....) but I have started seen more and more people in the stagecraft mailing list use the term 'movers' these days.... FWIW.... Charlie Richmond (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted mainly because 'moving heads' was replaced with 'movers'. -JWGreen (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)