Media Servers for Lighting Programmers

A Comprehensive Guide to Working with Digital Lighting

Vickie Claiborne

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000372281
• Auflage: 2
• Thema: Media & Performing Arts
• Thema: Theatre Stagecraft & Scenography

Media Servers for Lighting Programmers, Second Edition, is the reference guide for lighting programmers working with media servers – the digital media devices used to control and manipulate video, audio, lighting, and projection content that have become the industry standard for live events, broadcast, and theatre performances.

This book contains all the information you need to begin working with these devices, with topics ranging from common video terminology and equipment to the workflows for setup, patching, programming, and operating a media server from a lighting console via DMX. It also features a brief history of where this unique market originated from and offers a look at the current trends in media server technology and the growing digital media industry. This second edition also includes more information on alternative methods of programming and operating a server beyond using DMX, along with new information on projection mapping workflows, content creation software, and media management techniques.

Media Servers for Lighting Programmers, Second Edition, is a valuable resource for the lighting programmer working in live entertainment venues.

The book includes access to additional online support material and links to industry sites and articles.

CHAPTER 1

How Did We Get Here?

A Brief Look at the Beginnings of Digital Lighting

When automated lighting first debuted, fixtures were extremely limited in the number of patterns that could fit in the unit. Manufacturers constantly pushed to develop fixtures with more gobos and effects in response to the demand from lighting designers. However, the trade-off as manufacturers developed new products was larger, heavier lighting fixtures with as many as three gobo wheels. But there is an upper limit to the size of a fixture you want to hang on a truss. These fixtures, while providing more than 20 patterns in some cases, simply took up more space in the rig. Other factors, like price (some of these fixtures cost upwards of US$10,000 each), were also prohibitive. That kind of money for so few patterns was the inspiration that some major lighting manufacturers needed to find an effective way of creating a lighting fixture with a digital gobo library. So, as technology continued to evolve, one of the primary goals for some of these manufacturers became designing a fixture that could have a virtually endless supply of images. And happening concurrently within the live events industry, designers began expressing their desire for a fixture such as this that would allow them to have the ability to use unique images for the event instead of using instantly recognizable stock patterns that could be seen on hundreds of other shows.

In the mid-1990s, Light & Sound Design (LSD) debuted a product called the Icon M (Medusa). When it came on the scene, it was a revolutionary breakthrough in the lighting industry. While it only saw limited use and remained an in-house product due to reasons like the fixture’s DLP micromirror technology (not used in today’s digital lighting luminaires), low output, and its need for proprietary control, it did prove that the industry could create a fixture with a much larger library of digital images.

FIGURE 1.1
Icon M spec sheet.

High End Systems (HES) continued the research and development on solving the digital gobo problem, and in the late 1990s, HES teamed up with hardware developers WWG and SAM Show Control software developer Richard Bleasdale to develop a prototype digital lighting product, code-named Vertigo. In its earliest form, Bleasdale’s control software (the foundation for today’s Catalyst Media Server software) provided the source and control of the digital images while WWG’s orbital projection head, attached to a large scale projector, provided the ability to pan and tilt the very bright source of light from mid to large size projectors (5000 to 18,000 lumens) from a DMX lighting console. This prototype continued to evolve and eventually became Catalyst and the Catalyst Orbital Head.

FIGURE 1.2
Catalyst Orbital Head.

This was an important milestone because using Catalyst meant that the lighting programmer would have the ability to control digital images that could be fed to a projector, and the orbital head allowed the programmer the ability to aim the digital images anywhere on any surface while controlling the speed of the movement between focus locations as well as the keystone correction needed when projecting at angles other than 90 degrees. This breakthrough opened up the minds of everyone in the lighting industry, and video suddenly became a new aspect of the lighting programmer’s world.

FIGURE 1.3
Early Catalyst notes.

CHAPTER 2

Why Do LDs Want to Control Video?

While video is an exciting world of creative visuals, the design and control of video have a distinctive set of criteria that has to be met in order to effectively manage the playback of a video. As such, many video engineers do not believe it’s worthwhile to control video from a lighting console; in fact, many video engineers are typically not familiar with the workflow of a lighting programmer on a console so the concept of using a channel with 256 bits to control a video may seem a bit foreign. Because of this, many engineers prefer to stick with their trusted methods of control. And that’s ok! But for the rest of us adventurers (aka lighting programmers) who want to cross over, using a lighting console is the least of our concerns. Here are some of the pros and cons typically heard when discussing using a lighting console for video control.

Pros

Lighting designers (LDs) in the past had to rely on separate personnel from a different discipline to execute video aspects of the show. Controlling a media server via DMX eliminates this problem and allows the operator to playback video using a cue that may also contain lighting fixture data such as color, position, and intensity. Also, designers who are familiar with current video equipment are always surprised at how easy it is to manipulate video images live, in real-time, without re-rendering each change. Controlling video from a DMX console also enables the LD more input into the overall look and feel of the show, and the programmer working with both lighting and video is better able to balance levels between the lighting and video aspects, something which requires additional coordination and equipment to do when lighting is controlled from one location and video from another.

The positive points for controlling video from a lighting console are as follows:

1. The lighting designer oversees the whole picture. What this means is that the LD can create more cohesive visual looks that combine lighting and video, and the execution of the cues will be tighter as well
2. Fewer hands in the mix. If the LD is calling the shots on how a video is played, there are fewer opportunities for missed cues or wrong videos at the wrong time.
3. Simplification of control. Most media servers today can handle video camera inputs, switching, and audio output, for example. And if less video gear is needed during the show, fewer operators will be needed as well.
4. Video clips can be manipulated in real-time. This is a VERY important concept. Why? Because a pre-rendered video clip is what it is. When a video engineer plays it back using a standard video mixer, the video clip will playback exactly as it was rendered. Not so with a media server. The pre-rendered video clip is merely a suggestion of the final composited image because the workflow allows for real-time manipulation of video clips while being controlled from the lighting console. This means a virtually endless number of visual creations are possible because a piece of content can be affected via visual effects, color effects, size effects, and so on, available both in the media server and in the lighting console.

FIGURE 2.1
FOH lighting and video control.

Now for the Cons

Currently, there are many choices for professional video gear available on the market, each with its own merits. Therefore, it can be difficult for the lighting designer to be in complete control of all of the video aspects used in a show. The video industry tends to favor routing the media server through a switcher, so it becomes one of the sources instead of the media server handling the switching between video devices. But with the introduction into media servers of features like live camera inputs, audio inputs, and serial device control, some technically savvy lighting programmers (who are somewhat video savvy as well) are undertaking the complete integration of video control from their lighting consoles with great success.

The negative points against controlling video from a lighting console are as follows:

1. The limitations of the technology. Video equipment is highly specialized and therefore has been optimized to handle all of the tasks of video playback. Media servers and lighting consoles are digital solutions to video playback and can be somewhat limited in certain areas such as previewing a piece of video content in “Blind” before it is sent live to the stage. Therefore, it is best to know the limitations so there are no surprises at the show site.
2. Less time for a complete design of both elements. If an LD’s time is split between lighting and video for a performer like a big pop star, for instance, then he/she will likely not have much quality time to completely develop the cues for both.
3. The workload for a single programmer to manage two time-consuming elements can be overwhelming. If one programmer is programming both lighting and video, then both may not be as thoroughly programmed and tight as they would be if the jobs were divided between two people. And most programmers agree, it is best to separate video programming from lighting programming and use different programmers and consoles for each.

The bottom line for deciding when to use a media server or when to stay out of the video world entirely is simple: the quality of the production cannot be allowed to suffer. So, remember, just because you can control video from a lighting desk or directly from a media server doesn’t mean you should. Considering the workload ahead of time will mean a smoother show all around.

CHAPTER 3

The Evolving Role of the Lighting Programmer

As lighting consoles continue to incorporate more and more features for video control, the job of the programmer gets more complex. The development of the digital media server has unlocked a world of possibilities for designers and allowed video to be more easily integrated into a wider range of shows. This is further solidified by the continual development of hybrid lighting/video fixtures (aka digital lighting) and the popularity of pixel mapping due to LED lighting fixtures. So it seems probable that at some point in a lighting programmer’s career, he or she will find himself programming some type of media server.

FIGURE 3.1
Programming with grandMA2.

The Responsibilities of the Media Server Programmer

Lighting programmers are primarily responsible for mood, and we create mood through the use of movement, color, intensity, and texture. In most cases, though, an artist’s image is usually not identified with a specific lighting cue or color. However, the media server programmer is typically directly involved with conveying the artist’s “image” and/or visual message. As such, it is typical for the artist and/or artists’ management to be very hands-on ...