Justin Timberlake Eye Safety SNL??

[Timmers]

Noticed some people here saw the performance last night.

I couldn't resist coming here to ask...

It must have been spectacular to see live in person, the tv couldn't possibly do it justice. I am still a "newbie," took up lasers as a side line hobby over ten years ago, often wishing I just pursued something in optics so I could get more involved, been fascinated since I was a kid with lasers.

How was Justin able to perform with no eye wear at all, and the lasers clearly going over his face constantly? I come from a time when gas lasers were the norm, and diodes were just beginning to come on the market, just killing the prices of some of my gas lasers.

What is being used for performances like that and why is there no concern about the eyes?

I also see this with a lot of club lasers now, as well as ones in limos, etc...

Just wanted some folks well-versed to chime in on this. In the 70's, the prog rock band Yes was using Argons, right into the audience, before regulations came in.

Thanks. A shame YouTube likely doesn't have the performance, I think they have monitors for any/all SNL uploads who instantly nix them, because I don't know how else those of you that missed it could watch it. It was way-way cool.

[Stuka]

It does look like Timberlake took several shots to the face.

Video is posted under the SNL links on NBC.com ...

[steve-o]

Pro laser show software incorporates instant reduction of laser power in certain scanned areas if programmed correctly. He probably was in the "safety zone."

[slicklasers]

http://pyrotecnicofx.com/2013/12/06/...to-the-future/

[mixedgas]

Pro laser show software incorporates instant reduction of laser power in certain scanned areas if programmed correctly. He probably was in the "safety zone."

One should not trust the "Safety Zone" without performing at least a power measurement. Flash-blinded major talent is the last thing this industry needs in the news.
PASS or a similar scan fail device is ideal for this situation.

Steve

[CountFunkula]

The projectors on his tour do indeed have PASS systems.

[DanG]

Sorry guys but I don't think that PASS cuts it for this situation. Scanning does not reduce the overall exposure by a significant margin, at least not nearly as much as divergence would. I actually sent out a note on the ILDA list on this subject to start the conversation and see how we might, as an industry, perform such spectacular effects while making sure we care for artist safety. Maybe that was done somehow in this case, I really don't know.

As I noted in my e-mail, I am really looking for some wisdom on this subject because X-Laser is not show production company.

[Stiffler]

Sorry guys but I don't think that PASS cuts it for this situation. Scanning does not reduce the overall exposure by a significant margin, at least not nearly as much as divergence would. I actually sent out a note on the ILDA list on this subject to start the conversation and see how we might, as an industry, perform such spectacular effects while making sure we care for artist safety. Maybe that was done somehow in this case, I really don't know.

As I noted in my e-mail, I am really looking for some wisdom on this subject because X-Laser is not show production company.

Do you offer a system that allows safe audience scanning?

[White-Light]

Sorry guys but I don't think that PASS cuts it for this situation. Scanning does not reduce the overall exposure by a significant margin, at least not nearly as much as divergence would. I actually sent out a note on the ILDA list on this subject to start the conversation and see how we might, as an industry, perform such spectacular effects while making sure we care for artist safety. Maybe that was done somehow in this case, I really don't know.

As I noted in my e-mail, I am really looking for some wisdom on this subject because X-Laser is not show production company.

I thought the above company said they were using their own system?

But in any event Dan, I think you probably don't understand how the PASS system works.

PASS does not try to use scanning speed to create safe levels, which as you point out, isn't really possible because any reduction in exposure time is compensated for by increased repeat exposures.

PASS monitors for unsafe scans or system failures that arise after a SAFE exposure level has already been set - the operator has to first set up an audience safety zone and set these levels in the PASS board. To that extent, safety is only as good as the operators ability to set the system up safely.

However, once a safe level has been set for the audience area, its impossible for any condition to arise that allows those levels to be exceeded (at least this side of an event of such low probability that there's probably more chance of you winning the lottery many weeks in a row than of PASS failing to protect).

Rather than trying to explain it, I'll copy an abstract of the text from Pangolin's website as they do a much better job:

PASS continually monitors the laser power, scanner signals, and other projector-related parameters. If everything is working safely and correctly, then PASS will never need to interrupt the light output from the projector. However, if there is a minor problem with the show programming such that the beam is travelling too slowly, the beam is scanning an area that is too small, or the beam stops scanning altogether, PASS will momentarily interrupt the light coming from the projector, by manipulating the colour and blanking signals.

Once the show resumes safe operation with the laser beam moving sufficiently fast so as to not present a hazard, PASS will allow the light to resume coming out of the projector.

The PASS hardware and software does this in a very intelligent way so as to not destroy the intended visual effect. It is only in the event of a major problem detected within the projector (or within PASS itself) that PASS will take drastic action. PASS aggressively and vigorously protects the audience from system failures.

PASS is significantly more advanced than any previous "scan-fail" or "laser show safety" products. It went through ten years of R&D, and two years of U.S. government scrutiny to determine that it provides true safety. PASS was also reviewed by ILDA judges in 2007 and received the first place Fenning Award for Technical Achievement. Then, finally in July 2010, PASS was granted a US Patent (other international patents are pending).

All of the systems within PASS were designed such that there is redundancy. That is, there are always at least two circuits monitoring any condition (power supply, light output, scanner dynamics, and system logic). For maximum reliability, each of these “at least two circuits” are implemented in different ways, thus, making it extraordinarily unlikely that both circuits would fail in exactly the same way at exactly the same time. And the output of these circuits are polled, such that all circuits must agree that there is a safe condition, in order for PASS to allow light to emanate from the projector.

Due to its redundant approach, there is no single point of failure that permits hazardous light levels to reach an audience. If any parameter is unsafe, or if a monitoring circuit within PASS fails, it will go into a safe mode where laser light ceases. In fact, PASS will maintain safety even in the face of five simultaneous system failures!

I think the confusion has probably arisen because of the 2nd paragraph about show resumption which says the show will resume once the laser beam is moving sufficiently fast. However, this is being said in relation to the situation mentioned above where the scanner slows down to too slow a speed or stops entirely because of some kind of show programming error, or mechanical glitch / failure. So its about the laser recovering from that, not using scanner speed as a safety mechanism. Pangolin probably should have include after the words "... sufficiently fast" the words "...or is scanning a sufficiently large area"...so as to not present a hazard" to make it clear its referring to the examples in the previous paragraph of scanners slowing, failing entirely or too small an area being scanned.

[JStewart]

Hi Al,

I think Dan’s point is that no projector emissions monitoring device, even a sophisticated one such as PASS, would make what is an inherently unsafe thing to do, safe.

Dan should know a thing or two about how PASS works as I was assessing some of his projectors on another show last week, and he is one of the few that have a US variance to sell audience scanning projectors, and these rely heavily on PASS.

Maybe someone could post the video or grab a few stills so we can see what is being spoken about. At the moment, the links only allow US based ip addresses to access it.

Over the summer I’ve seen an increasing number of questionable performer laser exposures. There is only so long that good fortune can be relied upon though…

James