New format for laser shows - time to upgrade the show production

[laserist]

Okay I'll play. Sure, I like more than one instrument, but I'm tired of people doing the same old "look, fire, aim" approach to all things laser show related. The problem is lasers are inherently pretty and it takes a while to develop a clue about how to do a show or build a tool to help do the show. And once you take the time you still only have the insights gained from the esthetic you've evolved. From a software development point of view, where are the use stories that guide the development effort? The Radiator was an interesting example - it attempted to create a improvement on the laser consoles of old using today's tech, but I'm not sure they ever talked to anybody who ran a console until it was done.

[james]

When designing an application or a file format you can't please all of the people all of the time.

It might seem counter intuitive, but I think the best attitude is to stick to your own ideology and design it the way you want it.

If a system is designed by one person or at least one person is in charge of every aspect of it, then it has a much better chance of being coherent and consistent throughout the whole of it.

Design by committee is a well known horrible approach.

Just look at the ilda file format!

It sucks.

This is due to the fact that it was poorly designed in the first place and managed by a small group of egomaniacs who would rather have their name on it than for it to be correctly implemented.

[swamidog]

thank you for agreeing with my point. i did video production during the desktop video revolution and being able to identify video toaster and lightwave work on television became a running joke. that holds true for too many lasers shows. stock clip art and spazz and flail beam soup. but... this is not a fault of the tools, and it's certainly not the fault of ILDA. it's all on the heads of folks making the content. it's not the tool, it's the tool who uses the tool.

and we presented radiator prototypes to a large number of ex-console operators (including some that worked for laserium) before we completed the production version. it is not our intent to recreate old hardware and paradigms (notice we actually labeled our controls), but to create a tool that's optimized for successful live abstract performance, usability, and interoperability with other systems.

Okay I'll play. Sure, I like more than one instrument, but I'm tired of people doing the same old "look, fire, aim" approach to all things laser show related. The problem is lasers are inherently pretty and it takes a while to develop a clue about how to do a show or build a tool to help do the show. And once you take the time you still only have the insights gained from the esthetic you've evolved. From a software development point of view, where are the use stories that guide the development effort? The Radiator was an interesting example - it attempted to create a improvement on the laser consoles of old using today's tech, but I'm not sure they ever talked to anybody who ran a console until it was done.

[laserist]

I think ILDA did a disservice to laser shows (as opposed to trade show producers) by sticking a single lumia position in the scanner spec. Lumia doesn't scale the same way as scanners. Consequently lumia pretty much wasn't done. (Until the relatively recent resurgence.) And I think it's reasonable to lay that on the ILDA basic projector spec. It's been said that a craftsman doesn't blame his tools, but it may be because he made them himself, or at least understands the strengths and weaknesses of each.

[swamidog]

I think ILDA did a disservice to laser shows (as opposed to trade show producers) by sticking a single lumia position in the scanner spec. Lumia doesn't scale the same way as scanners. Consequently lumia pretty much wasn't done. (Until the relatively recent resurgence.) And I think it's reasonable to lay that on the ILDA basic projector spec. It's been said that a craftsman doesn't blame his tools, but it may be because he made them himself, or at least understands the strengths and weaknesses of each.

the ILDA projector standard says "The ILDA Standard Projector shall have *at least one* rotating lumia of medium angle and generic texture".

nothing is locking a manufacturer or laserist into a single lumia effect.

[james]

I've always thought of lumia a something that is completely outside of a "projector". It can certainly use the same source lasers on an optics table, but it has nothing to do with the precision line art that is made with scanners. It is by its nature random and every system is unique.

The DB25 connector pinout is fine.

[laserist]

the ILDA projector standard says "The ILDA Standard Projector shall have *at least one* rotating lumia of medium angle and generic texture".

nothing is locking a manufacturer or laserist into a single lumia effect.

The ILDA standard was all about people who did cartoons wanting to be able to rent projectors on the road that were capable of producing their cartoons as well as on their home system. As a standard it produces substandard planetarium laser shows no matter how many of the insipid boxes you throw under a dome.

[james]

I think its worth noting that the ilda standard(s) were originally designed well before you could put a projector in a box carry it with one arm.

[swamidog]

The ILDA standard was all about people who did cartoons wanting to be able to rent projectors on the road that were capable of producing their cartoons as well as on their home system. As a standard it produces substandard planetarium laser shows no matter how many of the insipid boxes you throw under a dome.

well..... the ILDA standard is about establishing a projector standard with a minimally specified set of features. this is actually a very useful thing, and there's nothing stating those specifications can't be exceeded to improve projection quality or features. if you're on a gig and a projector fails, it's quite important to know the replacement projector you rent / borrow / buy will meet the standards of the other projectors in the show.

cartoons and domes are not part of the specifications. even the best, most feature rich systems can't make bad content look good.

there are a lot of embarrassing dome shows from a wide variety of hardware... including laserium.

quoting you (https://www.photonlexicon.com/forums...1#post266631): "it's not the quality of the lasers that's hurting the quality of laser shows - it's the quality of the shows. Better lasers won't improve things - it'll take better shows to do that."

[JohnYayas]

The ILDA standard was all about people who did cartoons wanting to be able to rent projectors on the road that were capable of producing their cartoons as well as on their home system. As a standard it produces substandard planetarium laser shows no matter how many of the insipid boxes you throw under a dome.

How many planetarium shows are happening these days? How many projectors are used for trade shows with logos, etc, or with large concert tours?

The ILDA file format and projector standard are antiquated but they still meet the needs of most.

I get your frustration, but if people don't want to see that planetarium type stuff anymore then what is the point in having technology to support it? If there was a demand, it would exist.