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

For macs try LanBox

[RalphBNumbers]

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

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.

[swillden]

If you'll excuse an uninformed comment, it appears to me that your complaints aren't about PC-based control systems at all, but rather about the bad user interfaces on PC-based control systems.

In particular, it sounds like they make very heavy use of mouse-based control, when they should do as much as possible with the keyboard. With 100 keys, and tens of thousands of key combinations, a well-designed UI should allow you do do damned near anything, really quickly and easily, with just a simple keyboard.

The one exception, of course, is smooth changes. You asked: "how smooth can you move a mouse"? Actually, people can move a mouse *very* smoothly, over a relatively short distance side to side. But I suspect that the controls require you to slide up and down, since that seems to be the common orientation of sliders on window systems.

If side-to-side mouse movement doesn't do the trick, it seems to me that you could easily get some of the wheel and slider controls used on MIDI controllers and use those for smooth input -- that's exactly what they're designed for and nearly every PC can be connected to them.

To summarize: I suspect that a PC-based lighting control system could be excellent, if it had a UI that was constructed by someone who understood both UIs and theatre lighting.

OTOH, I don't know beans about either, so why listen to me?

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.

Non-pc is even better

[moosesocks]

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.

Re:wow google...

[MalleusEBHC]

If you are going to rip on someone for failing to notice the obvious, you ought to learn how to spell "linux," "dmx," and "control" properly.

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?