Lighting Control on Non-Windows Systems?

fgodfrey asks: "Being a computer geek during the day and a theater geek at night, I'm looking to combine the two and turn a non-Windows computer into a theater lighting console. All the products out there that I've seen (such as Martin's 'Light Jockey' and Rosco's 'Horizon') only seem to support Windows. I'm looking for a solution that works on Linux, or preferably, Mac OS X. It also would require a DMX converter (DMX being the standard in dimmer control protocols) that could plug into the computer. I'm looking to be able to run an entire theater show directly from the computer. Has anyone out there tried such a thing? Before anyone suggests X10, it is not really acceptable for theater lighting as it doesn't respond 'instantly' to commands and would require a ton of X10 boxes."

Comments

Instant control, no windows

[shoppa]

This open solution

Re:Instant control, no windows

[PerlGuru]

Not certain because I can't see the flash crap but that looks like it is the X-10 protocol stuff from Leviton which, as the poster said, is absolutely absurd for theater use.

On the topic, your best bet for control from linux might be a standard DMX light board with programable scene's and MIDI. I worked at a theater that had such a board in the smaller of the two theaters at the facility. It would allow you to select among the preprogrammed scenes, fade between them and the like via MIDI commands from a computer. You would still set your scenes up on the light board in the traditional manner but could then use the computer for running the cues. Such a solution might open up the possibilities a bit more for software. Hope this info is useful.

For macs try LanBox

[RalphBNumbers]

You might try LanBox's LCedit on the mac side.

Re:For macs try LanBox

[xmath]

Note also one interesting difference with most other PC-based DMX systems: it's the LanBox that's actually doing most of the work, not the computer. This means that if LCedit+ is somehow not satisfying for you, or if you want to work under Linux, you could control the LanBox directly via its documented command set. (it also means that if your computer crashes, the LanBox will happily keep playing back what you programmed it to do ;-)

There are already third parties who've built or are building their own apps to control the LanBox. For example, this simple thingy running on Linux

(disclaimer: I work for them, so my views may be slightly biased :-)

Stick with dedicated hardware.

[glk572]

I hate pc based lighting control systems, I work in an enviroment where we have a lot of touring shows, and one night events in our several theatres, and I can ensure that I hate our horizon systems with a passion.

Some people like them, but I suspect that it's just a novelty, I like to have hands on control of my work. The problem with the pc solutions is that they limit you to making one change at a time, slowing down the creation of cues. Don't want to make cues, and just go with two scene preset or run with submasters, you're out of luck. Try to do a smooth manual fade, how smooth can you move a mouse.

There are only two times when I would look to a pc based solution; I use horizon and my laptop as a super remote focus unit, or when trying to create a show that can be run by just one person.

They just aren't worth the trouble, mousing around is just frustrating. The only time I would recomend this to someone is if they were concerned only with price, and had no intrest in user frendlyness.

Check out the Whole Hog PC it's the only system I know of that you didin't mention in your list.

As for the linux thing, it would help these systems as far as stability goes. But I dobut if these systems will really catch on in highend use due to resistance from people like me.

These systems are basically just a traditional lighting controler minus all the special input hardware. This is the system that we're replacing our light pallet 90 with, but notice that even though it is pc based it uses a full light board for input.

So in conclusion, not very useful, only good in a budget pinch, or when one of their special capabilitys (like remote operation, or sound macros) is needed. They do make a great remote focus unit though, much better than the little push button dealies, but that's not saying much.

Master Electrition WWU C.F.P.A. & Teatre Department.

Re:Stick with dedicated hardware.

[glk572]

Absolutley, all modern high end lighting systems are computer based, and the issue is with the the input. Yes they do require up/down movement. My complaint isin't really about the user interface, though, it's about the range of input devices available with these systems.

Even using keyboard shortcuts limits you to changing one thing at a time, I have ten fingers, I can change ten sliders at once, plus these changes are nearley instant, changing with the keyboard, I have to either choose a level by typing in a number, or use pgup/dn to change ten percent at a time, still not fast enugh.

As for the note about the midi controlers, most light boards allready offer wheel control, letting you change hundreds of values the same time, these are usally the level/rate wheels, one to shift all the selected channels up/down, the other to speed up or slow down fades.

All of these pc based systems that I know of offer side panels with the standard lighting controls, but once you've added one you're back up into the price range of a dedicated light board.

The only reason that we're moving to Emphasis to as our primary lighting controller in our mainstage theatre is beceause it allows us to integrate more of our workflow onto one platform, that's important when you have 3-4 people handling 300+ events per year.

The other thing that you have to realise is that having a mouse on a lighting controller will outright scare some people who will be using your facilitys, and will elicit mockery from others.

Is this the trend of the future, yes. But theatre is full of stubborn people, and once they've found something that works, evrything else scares them. The trap that is easy for us to fall into is to get wraped up in the technical side of things, and to put too much attention into the process, it is after all art, and evrything in the production process needs to be focused on the final result.

Knowing that many /. readers are devotees of the command line, I think that they would agree that adding pretty graphical eliments to the user interface dosen't really add to useability. There is a reason that computer lighting controllers have remained essentially the same for the last twenty years, if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Use a midi to dmx converter

[Andy_R]

DMX isn't rocket science, with a simple midi to dmx converter (like this one: http://www.cinetix.de/intrface/english/midmxbox.ht m) you can send DMX control data from any application that can work with midi, which should give you a choice of dozens of apps, whichever platform you decide to use... try here: http://xmidi.com/apps.html for OS X.

Re:Non-pc is even better

[Wombat]

I don't think that your statemnet "PC-based lighting control is in the severe minority" is entirely accurate. As evidence I point out that the Strand 550i runs a Pentium II and the embedded OS is Dos. ETC boards are similarly dos based. That seems to me to be a fair chunk of the nonconcert industry... they're dedicated light boards, true, but they have the guts of a PC.

[and in the venue of more specifically concert oriented consoles, the now venerable Leprachaun LP-* runs Win 95 (truly frightening, I know)].

The thing the orignal question is pursuing is if there's lighting control software that would run on a linux instead... after all, the control software from the boards I mention could really run on any pc. And this is certainly a viable question if one wants some form of WYSIWIG control.

I'm also curious about the size of venue at which you use the Omega console to which you link. It certainly seems a workable board, but in my perusal of the manual I didn't see any mention of Group functionality, which can be really useful. Plus, I would think that a console of 120 submasters would be more confusing than anything else... that's what submaster pages are for, if you really need them. I would think that cueing a show with that many subs would take forever. And I wouldn't even want to think about using that board with automated fixtures... If working with a small light rig, in a traditional theatrical setting, give me an ETC Express any day.

speaking of C libraries...

[Paul d'Aoust]

DMX4Linux is a project to develop kernel device drivers for DMX dongles and cards. Programming for the driver looks ridiculously simple. But you're probably looking for a more ready-made solution... well, there is the included X program, DMXPanel, but it's no Martin Show Designer. A quick search on Freshmeat brings up a few more full-featured programs, but they're all simple slider-type programs, so you still have to know exactly what's going to happen to your Martin MX400 when you send it "142" on channel 7 -- will it start scanning with a green filter and a spiderweb gobo, or will it just start smoking and turn off?

Re:semi-OT: remote controls for photo lamps?

[crucini]

If the X10 modules can't handle the current, you could connect the output of an X10 module to the coil of a contactor. I couldn't tell from your question whether you want to switch all the high-power lights together, or have individual control. If individually, you need contactors with at least 8.3 amps (1000/120) which is very small. The smallest contactors are probably 20A. If you want to combine the lights, add the total wattage and divide by 120 to get the minimum contactor ampacity. The coil of the contactor will be driven by the output of the X10 module. House the contactor in a metal box cut a heavy duty extension cord a few feet from one end, terminating the ends inside the box.