Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Entertainment Hardware

Lighting Control on Non-Windows Systems? 79

Posted by Cliff from the bright-light!-bright-light! dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lighting Control on Non-Windows Systems? More

Lighting Control on Non-Windows Systems?

Comments Filter:

  • wow google... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 8282now ( 583198 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @09:40PM (#8413756) Journal
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF -8&q=linux+dmx+control&spell=1
  • are stupid "dear slashdot, i do everyday things, and sometimes, not so everyday things, but im a geek and that some how makes me special, heres how i want to combine computers and stuff other, non-geeks do..."

    anyway, googleing for "
    theater lighting linux -X10" got me this:

    http://llg.cubic.org/dmx43/
    • Clearly if you don't know how to google, you don't deserve calling yourself a geek. An idiot maybe?
    • Um, yeah. I do know how to use Google. It's not exactly rocket science. However, that project seems to lack a useable user interface. When I'm designing operating systems, I'll take a command line any day, but that doesn't really work in a theater...

  • semi-OT: remote controls for photo lamps? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hmm, this is as good a place as any to ask:

    I do studio photography as a semi-hobby. Actually I just learned it to do copy work and now want to do photography of sculpture and other 3-d objects.

    I'm using 500W photo lamps (hot, not flash) and I use X10 appliance modules to turn them on and off remotely. I set multiple lamps to the same code and switch them all on and off at once, it's pretty handy.

    But now I'm getting some much bigger lamps (1000W+).

    Anybody know what I could use to switch them on and off l
    • Using DMX 512 like the article poster is doing
      is recommended. You can use a small dimmer set
      and dmx-512 controller like small bands use.
      check ebay for dmx-512. even the crappy American DJ
      controllers can fit your bill and make it very easy
      to save and repeat lighting setups you like. I
      wouldn't trade my light board for x-10 *ever*.

    • You can buy small theater lighting dimmers. One of the cheapest brands doesn't use DMX (but it uses something similar called Microplex), but it should be fine for what you describe. It's made by a company called NSI and it's about $79 for 4 channels of control. You have to buy a control board as well, but you'll have to do that for any solution. The board prices vary, but I think you can get a cheap one for about $100 on eBay and it can control up to 16 or so channels at a time. Other companies you mig
    • If you don't need to dim, just get some big fscking relays. If you need to dim, get some big fscking autotransformers.

      I assume you don't need real wireless access to all of this.

      --
      lds
    • 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 th

  • Instant control, no windows (Score:3, Informative)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:01PM (#8413870)
    This open solution [leviton.com]
    • Too bad that website doesn't work in most browsers.

      Ugh...

    • Re:Instant control, no windows (Score:4, Informative)

      by PerlGuru ( 115222 ) <michael@thegrebs.com> on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:08PM (#8413907) Homepage
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by RalphBNumbers ( 655475 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:19PM (#8413955)
    You might try LanBox's LCedit [lanbox.com] on the mac side.
    • This looks like exactley what you're looking for.

    • Re:For macs try LanBox (Score:2, Informative)

      by xmath ( 90486 )
      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

  • Stick with dedicated hardware. (Score:5, Informative)

    by glk572 ( 599902 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:21PM (#8413962) Homepage Journal
    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 [flyingpig.com] 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 [etcconnect.com] 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.

    • really. just get an ETC system and be done with it.

    • Re:Stick with dedicated hardware. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:07AM (#8414610) Journal

      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?

      • I have to agree with your remarks. I use ETC consoles quite frequently. They main thing that sets a dedicated console apart from a PC is that there is a specialized keyboard with buttons for "Cue" and "Channel" and "Time". It's easier to plug in a show at the console. Hell, the ETC Remote Focus Unit can do a decent job too.

        I've noticed that in many specalty applications the key benifit is the special user interface.

        Pro Tools has USB based hardware plugins. I've used dedicated MIDI sequencer with a v

      • 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 i
      • 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.
        I bet you could use VIs command mode to do this.
      • This [yahoo.com] seems to be the type of device you would want to attach. It might be overkill, but it would do the trick and looks very nice. I would be surprised if there isn't a plastic $5 knockoff out there
    • Yeah, I think "budget pinch" is an understatement given that this is community theater :) What I *really* want is an ETC Expression (or similar) board, but they aren't exactly cheap. Unfortunately, it sounds like from what you're saying the experience with using a PC will be less than fantastic though. Thanks for the info, though. I'll take a look at the Whole Hog PC.
    • I use Horizon at work and one thing that helped me get used to it was the addition of a submaster panel. It assigned the first 24 submasters to the slider board so I could crossfade subs easier. I'm starting to really like the Horizon system and I think the technology will really help improve the industry.

  • Use a midi to dmx converter (Score:5, Informative)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:35PM (#8414024) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Friday February 27, 2004 @10:53PM (#8414084) Homepage
    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 [edionline.com] 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:Non-pc is even better (Score:3, Informative)

      by Wombat ( 6297 )
      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 k
      • When did Leprecon make the switch? I've never found a hint of an MS based OS in any of the boards I've used. I just finished up a show with a LP-1536, and I've got stashed somewhere an older LP-500 and an LP-612 - if any of them are running Win95 internally, they sure don't show it anywhere.
        • Similiarly, I've never seen a hint of DOS on any of the ETC boards I've used.

          On the other hand, the Lehigh Millenium I'm in charge of now quite obviously runs Win95, and crashes just as much as you'd expect it to. When we first got the console, they hadn't disabled sleep mode and it would just shut itself off during shows.

          Worst console ever!

          --
          Phil
          Technical Director, RPI Players
          http://players.union.rpi.edu/
          • I can think of a few runners up for worst console ever. Avolites Azure for starters. It tends to crash at odd intervals, and the manual doesn't resemble reality. Bob ex RPI lighting tech
            • I don't know how long its been since you were at RPI, but the Millenium is rather crash happy itself these days. It seems to have problems related to disk access, most of the crashes come when loading or saving a show. Either way, the whole board is of shoddy quality in my experience; I need to call Lehigh Wednesday and order our second replacement button panel for the thing, as the Go button has worn out, again.

              --
              Phil
        • I have to admit, I've only played around with Leprechaun boards, never run a show on one. A rep from On Location Lighting [onlocationls.com] told me about the Win 95 thing, so I suppose I should've added a disclaimer. My bad.

        • When did Leprecon make the switch? I've never found a hint of an MS based OS in any of the boards I've used. I just finished up a show with a LP-1536, and I've got stashed somewhere an older LP-500 and an LP-612 - if any of them are running Win95 internally, they sure don't show it anywhere.

          Back when they first introduced the LP3000. That's the only console they have that runs it, thankfully.

          Yes, it was just as reliable as you can imagine any device running Win95 can be.

          BTW, the LP-500, LP-600, and L

  • Try this! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by stinkydog ( 191778 ) <sd@s t r angedog.net> on Saturday February 28, 2004 @12:00AM (#8414364) Homepage
    Get one of these dongles [artisticlicence.com] 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

    • speaking of C libraries... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Paul d'Aoust ( 679461 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @02:59AM (#8415112)
      DMX4Linux [cubic.org] is a project to develop kernel device drivers for DMX dongles and cards. Programming for the driver [cubic.org] looks ridiculously simple. But you're probably looking for a more ready-made solution... well, there is the included X program, DMXPanel [cubic.org], but it's no Martin Show Designer. A quick search on Freshmeat [freshmeat.net] 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:Try this! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      build your DMX frames by hand in VI

      emacs!
  • get a Whole Hog [highend.com] system from High End Systems [highend.com]. The OS on the board is rolled from scratch linux, and the boards are pretty much an industry standard due to the high quality of their product. They're not cheap, but they are the best. It'll probably do everything you want to do and more. if you really are a theater geek, you should know about them. they are one of the few real names in robotic lighting.
  • I use a really cheap MIDI keyboard to trigger the presets of my light show. It really saves a lot of key pressing to get to different pages of scenes. I can still grab a fixture manually and make adjustments on-the-fly

  • GPL'd Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sdirector ( 300580 ) * on Saturday February 28, 2004 @01:58AM (#8414853) Homepage
    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.

  • Hey O'Reilly... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is Ask Slashdot listed in the Google Hacks book? Maybe it should be for the next edition?

  • Look for a real board (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DRACO- ( 175113 )
    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 i

  • MIDI? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by darkjedi521 ( 744526 )
    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.

  • Pros/Cons (Score:2, Interesting)

    by darkjedi521 ( 744526 )
    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 s

  • X10 Sucks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Saturday February 28, 2004 @08:04AM (#8415881) Journal
    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.
    • X10 devices frequently do not support a "request status" command. IMO, that should be a mandatory feature of a protocol such as this.

      Unfortunately, every module which has the ability to broadcast drains the signal strength on the line. I'm not sure why, but it's definitely so. This means that making each module two-way would severely limit the number you could have.
      • I can't see a good electrical reason for that -- imagine a hypothetical system where the entire transmission system is isolated via a relay. The relay only kicks on when a transmission is to be done. I cannot see any signal strength drain in such a system.

        It may be that the currently popular design for two-way devices does this, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to buy into.
        • It may be that the currently popular design for two-way devices does this, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to buy into.

          I know, it sounds weird. But I think it's a more fundamental protocol design problem -- otherwise, *someone* would make modules that don't have this problem. I'm pretty sure SmartHome (makes cool stuff, quality control problems aside) would if they could -- their whole gimmick is selling more advanced X10 modules. Instead, check out this ad copy from one of their switches [smarthome.com]:

          This

  • Check out... (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Cyno01 ( 573917 )
    These guys [strandlight.com], i've used their stuff at school and at a theatre i work at sometimes, its a combination of a computer(non windows, custom OS iirc...) and a light board. Very nice, , very modular and very easy to use. And since their stuff is used by schools and a small local theatre it cant be that expensive.

  • You can't... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Luke-Jr ( 574047 )
    By definition, a PC is a computer for personal use. If you're only using it to control theater lighting, then it's not being used for personal use and therefore cannot be considered a PC.
  • I hate Virtual PC. I have to use it for like grandMA [malighting.com] Offline and Hog PC [highend.com] and such, but it's just so slow. I would really like to see a good Mac based control system, kinda like Light Jockey. It would also be nice to see a visualization program made for Panther, like Wysiwig or Show Designer.

    I was talking to a guy from High End [highend.com] at LDI last year, and was asking him if they were going to make a Hog PC for Mac OS X since the Hog console [flyingpig.com] is PPC based now, and he said that they were working on it. Who kno
  • My folks are building a new house at this very moment. Remote control lighting is one of the things my mother would like. It's not so much the turning on and off of lights upstairs from downstairs that she wants (although I'm sure she wouldn't mind the "feature"). Instead she wants the ability to turn on some of the house's lights via remote as she's coming up the drive. The house is in the sticks where it's nice and quiet and no one can hear a Jehovah Witness solicitor scream ( :-) ). The bad thing is
  • Z-wave is a new lighting control system that uses rf in a mesh topology. Supposedly be very fast and scalable. Its not out yet but should be in a few months.
  • Check out Radiance, http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/
  • You could get a DMXethergate [enttec.com] and then (if you are really a "computer geek") roll your own UI.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close