Slashdot Mirror
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."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=linux+dmx+control&spell=1
This open solution
You might try LanBox's LCedit on the mac side.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
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.
Well art is art isn't it, but then again water is water; and east is east; and west is west; and if you take cranberries
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.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Most of the professional level lighting controllers do not run windows. In fact, I'd wager that PC-based lighting control is in the severe minority.
Most lighting consoles use an embedded OS and proprietary software. Which is okay, because DMX lighting control takes very very little processing power. For those of you who don't know, DMX is the standardized interface/protocol for lighting control, and has been around for quite a while.
That being said, you don't really want something too complicated, as it adds too many points of failure. No matter what the OS you're running, you can't risk a crash/kernel panic before or during a show.
In addition, you don't NEED a sophisticated OS for lighting control. It's not rocket science, and even the weakest of computers can handle it without breaking a sweat.
The console I use probably has less power than an Apple ][. It has no hard drive, and the only moving part is the floppy drive which can be used to move configurations between consoles. Plus, it's completely silent (which is important in this business). Also, inputting commands with a mouse and QWERTY keyboard is absolutely inefficent for lighting control especially if you're mixing on the fly. Having specific buttons and sliders for certain common tasks is a necessity. We also have a submaster board which gives you 120 sliders (one for each light). It is incredibly convienent.
If you've got thousands of lights and don't change your performance often, a PC-based solution is for you. Otherwise, a pre-built, proprietary solution is for you. Open isn't important. You could easily hack together a solution in linux, as DMX is incredibly easy to control... the true cost always lies in the hardware. You'll end up spending more using a PC based solution than a dedicated console.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Get one of these dongles and you can roll your own light board. Comes with all the C libraries you'll need. Or if your feeling extra macho build your DMX frames by hand in VI.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
We have an as-yet-unamed solution that I funded and co-wrote back when I was making phat-cash in the dot-com days. It's GPL'd, written using OmniOrb/C++ and Python/GTK. It uses a PCI DMX card from soundlight.de and is fairly much rock-solid. I've used it for multiple shows, some of them fairly complex. Give me a shout if you're interested. We haven't spend any real resources on packaging it. We have a web page for us http://inaugust.com -- but you won't find links there. So just contact me directly and I'll hook you up with info.
I think you are thinking on the wrong level. Lighting control requires none of the features you speak of. The lighting control system I use at work is a custom pII system (designed for stability and has the lighting specific ports added) that is connected to a monitor and a board with lots of sliders, buttons, and a wheel. There is nothing intricate displayed on the monitor, its most common use is displaying what is basically a screen full of numbers (looks kind of like the more advanced console applications in linux).
What makes the system special is the board with sliders and the overall stability. Any computer with a DMX controller connected could run a cue based show, but its the ability to work on the fly that is valueable. Try to run a show if your cues go bad, a normal PC doesnt have crossfaders (with controlable time too) and multiple sets if dimmers (set up one scene while the other is in action, then switch)
The real uses of a powerful PC in lighting is with a program like WYSIWYG from etc(I think?) that works kind of like a 3d modling program for lights. Build your stage and lighting rigs and then start experimenting with color and angles. You can connect it to an in place lighting system and then transfer the cues over from WYSIWYG. It is a lot easier than physically adjusting hte lights just to see.
Bottles.
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?
Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
Look for a real lighting board. Most have computer links via serial and run from a dos based screen to display scene advances, programming and control.
Back in my old high school, my last year in drama (SR year) we got a hold of a light board that accepted programming from a serial pc. We used a lunchbox 286 with a monochrome screen non productionally. When it came down to the real production we just used the boards programmable scenes or winged it ourselves. I cant remember the unit brand we used but it also had a pcima slot for adding flash memory pcima cards (the years before flash came in those handy little smart media size and compact flash sizes) for storing scene data and other selections.
We never got really into the board as we were SR's in the school and the school was going to be renovated the next year for 6th and 7th graders. Its a shame we didnt have some real time to play with the thing. Our light pack only handled 12 channels and that thing was a clunker. 2 of the voice coils sang out loud but otherwise it functioned as long as the DMX card didnt get damaged.
God I miss being a theatre tech geek! At least I still get to twiddle with sound boards every now and then and cheapie dj lightboards for small concerts.
DRACO-
Consider yourself blessed if you are sneezed on by a dragon and only get wet, it could have been a fireball.
What about MIDI - there is a wealth of gear that supports it from computers to sequencers to dimmers. As a plus, the DMX converters already exist for the format. All the light consoles I used are configured with the ability to either remotely control or by remotely controlled by other fixtures through MIDI.
You're going to need to weigh the pros/cons of having multiple consoles vs a single PC. On one hand, if you're short on space, the PC is more compact. On the other hand, as the original poster metioned, most PC based systems require MS-Windows. I've found in my experience over the years, the old fashioned two scene board with programmibility (presets, cues, chases) to be the most versatile and easiest to use on a moment's notice.
There has been one case over the years, where the PC based solution was superior to the console. We used to use an old Martin 3032 DOS based control system (on a 486) for a bank of roboscans. It was replaced with an Avolites Azure. The PC has proven more userfriendly, easier to program, more stable, and more reliable still than the replacement console.
As a compromise to having a PC do everything, you might want to look at the Express/Expression from ETC. They have an offline editor for the PC that you can use to create a show, and then upload it to the console for further tweaking/operation.
The Mac's refresh rate just always seems to give that extra kick over the PC.
This is akin to saying "the fire hydrant's extra boggle makes it better than a giraffe."
May we never see th
The gripe about X10 imposing latency is pretty significant -- it's annoying even for general use.
X10 really sucks. I've been slowly forcing myself to come to grips with the fact ever since setting up an X10 controller. Among the things wrong with it:
* X10 does not mandate that devices respond to any kind of "ping" or "broadcast". If you misconfigure something, it's annoying to figure out what the addresses of everything are.
* X10 transfers data extremely slowly, giving the high latency that irritates people so much. I realize that fancy signal analysis may cost more, but I've very dubious that the incredibly slow trickle of bits is required.
* X10 as a parotocol is a bit of a hack, and the extensions to it are awful -- for example, my SmartHome light fixture doesn't even support the standard dimming commands -- it uses its own.
* X10 devices frequently do not support a "request status" command. IMO, that should be a mandatory feature of a protocol such as this.
* X10 isn't even all that inexpensive, which one would expect, given its extreme technical limitations.
May we never see th
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.