DMX DAY, ANOTHER STANDARDS WAR?

Some bright spark came up with the idea of International DMX Day – 5/12. Funny, but it also made me think about this old faithful standard, in use since 1992 and still going strong. Or is it?

I am seeing more and more Art-Net devices, Streaming ACN (sACN) and IP being used. Art-Net and sACN basically are ways to distribute DMX over EtherNet

Whilst each of these is starting to carve out its own niche, I am a little bit worried that we may be heading for another “Standards War”.

Do you remember when every lighting console manufacturer went “digital” with their own, proprietary, control protocol and nothing talked to anything else? Thank heavens that DMX came out on top and was universally implemented.

Each of the “new” protocols brings something else to the party, advancing DMX, or at least, expanding the scope.

DMX is certainly going to be around for a long time yet, but the complexity of shows is slowly forcing the adoption of new standards, I just hope that the industry decides on one soon and we can get on and use it.

I would be interested to know which way you are leaning.

WHEN TECHNOLOGY BECOMES THE REASON…

Lately I’ve been seeing a trend, especially in lighting, where it would seem that technology has become the reason and not the solution.

As a self-confessed technophile, I am somewhat ambivalent about this – if the technology exists, use it. Then I see it being used for no other reason than the fact that it exists and I get a bit worried.

I have always seen technology as the solution to a specific problem, take moving heads for example: A stunning solution to a lot of problems, one being the one-fixture-replaces-many in respect of colour, gobo, beam size, etc.

Lately I see a lot of lights moving, but not adding anything apart from making pretty pictures – they don’t actually light anything.

It may be argued that this is a new style of lighting, granted, maybe I am just old school, but I still believe lighting is there to light something, be it performers or sets, just light something.

I grew up in an environment where the LD looked at the problem: Where is the action, what needs to be lit? He, or she, then positioned lights to solve those problems. Careful planning and allocation of fixtures and colours were the rule.

These days it often seems as if placement of fixtures to create symmetrical beam patterns is the first and most important step, if it actually lights something, it is a happy accident.

Don’t get me wrong, I have seen shows lately that were beautifully lit, some I’ve seen only at times, at other times, just stunning beam patterns.

Is it time for Lighting Designers to revisit the reason why they exist, or should we redefine the role of the LD?

MUST HAVE BOOK

It has been a while since my last blog here, not for lack of having anything to say, more a lack of time in which to say it, but I am going to get back to regular blogs.

Firstly, I have been somewhat amiss in mentioning one of my favourite technology books - John Huntington's "Show Networks & Control Systems".

We all know that everything is going over to networks and the ability to "speak" IP has become essential, but how does all of this fit together and what talks to what? Mr Huntington addresses these and other very complex issues in the book - best of all in a language that anyone can understand.

I find myself reaching (ok, opening the e-book) for it whenever I wonder about a new protocol or how do I make this work with that.

He covers just about any protocol currently known, lighting, audio, video, you name it, it is there.

An absolutely essential part of any technician's toolkit! Get it!