# Typical Plot Size?



## jaredwooden921 (Jan 9, 2008)

Hey Guys..

I was wondering what you usually size you usually print your light plots. I want a fairly big one and I'm taking the file to Kinkos in the morning. Thanks for your help..


----------



## icewolf08 (Jan 9, 2008)

jaredwooden921 said:


> Hey Guys..
> I was wondering what you usually size you usually print your light plots. I want a fairly big one and I'm taking the file to Kinkos in the morning. Thanks for your help..


I prefer getting plots in 1/2"=1'-0" scale, I don't care what size that paper is as long as the entire plot fits on one page. For our theatre that usually means Arch E (48"x36") sheets. The other size that is common is Arch D (24"x36").

By entire plot on one page, I don't mean that you have to squash all the info on one plate, often designers will do a separate boom plate. You of course should always include a centerline section on a plate as well.

Also, I know that it may seem a waste, but I find it more convenient to have all the plates the same size.


----------



## soundlight (Jan 9, 2008)

Yeah, whatever will get you 1/2" scale is usually the best bet. My other standard of measure for less-equipped theatres is "will it fit on a card table?" because that's often what I use as a plot table during hang and focus.


----------



## Van (Jan 9, 2008)

It Kind of depends on how large/involved of a plot it is. 1/4" usually works for most blackbox spaces some folks like nothing smaller than 1/2". I typically provide LD's with a 16" X 20" GP in 3/8" or 1/2" just don't let kinkos "Print to Page" or you'll have no idea of the actual scale. Although I guess with lights things are a lot more forgivin than with exact placement of set pieces.


----------



## icewolf08 (Jan 9, 2008)

soundlight said:


> Yeah, whatever will get you 1/2" scale is usually the best bet. My other standard of measure for less-equipped theatres is "will it fit on a card table?" because that's often what I use as a plot table during hang and focus.


I use a card table also, I believe it is 36"x36" or close to that, but I would rather have a plot in a normal scale than one that fits my table. I have a couple designers who love to send in plots in 3/8" scale (because it is the biggest scale that you can fit our theatre on Arch D paper), and that drives me nuts because the math is harder when you don't have your scale rule. 1/2" and 1/4" scale are real easy to deal with when you are on the floor with a tape measure and not a scale rule.


----------



## gafftaper (Jan 9, 2008)

You are asking the wrong question. Don't choose the size of the print out. Choose the scale (1/4" or 1/2") and print it to an accurate size however large that may be. Never blow up or reduce a scale drawing because you have no idea what the scale is then.


----------



## derekleffew (Jan 10, 2008)

icewolf08 said:


> I prefer getting plots in 1/2"=1'-0" scale, I don't care what size that paper is as long as the entire plot fits on one page. For our theatre that usually means Arch E (48"x36") sheets. The other size that is common is Arch D (24"x36")...


I second what Alex said. No larger than 36x48 and no smaller than 24x36, unless a very small space. As far as scale, always put an scaled ruler as an icon on your drawing and add the phrase "Unless Enlarged/Reduced" after [1/2"=1'0"] in this day and age of PDFs and other electronic reproduction. A separate "Hanging Plot" layer can be created with dimensions for hanging every fixture, and discarded once the show is hung/pipe tapes are created.


----------



## Sean (Jan 10, 2008)

I used to be of the opinion that 1/2" was needed.

Now, I'd much rather deal with 1/4". For me that's usually 2-3 plates in Arch D (plus another plate for the section). When I fold up a drawing it doesn't take up a lot of space. And, if I don't have a lot of layout room I can fold it like you do a newspaper to see the particular parts I need easily.

The key is good layout when you're drafting. If you can condense the FOH to make both the FOH and overstage fit one plate, you might consider it. As most FOH positions are fixed (catwalks, balcony rails, etc) they don't need to be the "true" distance from the stage.

--Sean


----------



## gafftaper (Jan 10, 2008)

As for the 1/2" vs 1/4" debate, that's a direct function of how big is the theater and how much gear do you hang. If we are talking about less than 100 instruments in a small educational and or community theater venue, 1/4" is probably just fine. If you are hanging 500 lights for a show in a massive theater... you need 1/2" or you won't be able to figure out what's going on.


----------



## Footer (Jan 10, 2008)

1/4" all the way. I HATE HATE HATE E sized plates. Also, I never want the set on my LP. I don't want focus on the plot ether, all I want is the instrument, the color, unit number, and channel number. Don't leave me boxes to fill in the dimmer number either. For me a plot goes as far as getting distance off center info and which way the fixture is pointed, then its paperwork from there on out. I always put my distance off center on my ppwk and sometimes the direction the unit is pointing. This makes making pipe tapes much easier. A D sized plate usually folds up very well to fit into a binder, an E size plate is usually too thick to fit neatly. Plots are useful, but it is a pain to rifle through a plot to find things, ppwk/lightwright is the way to go.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Jan 10, 2008)

I'm gonna have to differ with you on the set and focus on the plot footer. Alot of times lights are hung in relation to the set, especially specials and putting them in relation to the set makes more sense. The same goes with focus if you are hanging a light and see that how you hung it won't make the shot you can go ahead and add the side arm or whatever then to take care of it and save time in focus.

I want to punch designers who don't use much information on their plots. We just hung a show and the plot had no color on it. It was a blast to go find the hookup any time we quickly needed to know a color.


----------



## Sean (Jan 10, 2008)

gafftaper said:


> As for the 1/2" vs 1/4" debate, that's a direct function of how big is the theater and how much gear do you hang. If we are talking about less than 100 instruments in a small educational and or community theater venue, 1/4" is probably just fine. If you are hanging 500 lights for a show in a massive theater... you need 1/2" or you won't be able to figure out what's going on.



I disagree. If the theater is bigger, then the plate gets bigger (you know, because the building is bigger). As an electrician, it's not as if you have MORE information per light on a larger show.

I regularly hang shows in the 400-600 unit range. Unless the LD has very poor drafting skills, I would MUCH prefer that size show fit a 1/4" Arch D.

--Sean


----------



## Grog12 (Jan 10, 2008)

Pie4Weebl said:


> I'm gonna have to differ with you on the set and focus on the plot footer. Alot of times lights are hung in relation to the set, especially specials and putting them in relation to the set makes more sense. The same goes with focus if you are hanging a light and see that how you hung it won't make the shot you can go ahead and add the side arm or whatever then to take care of it and save time in focus.
> I want to punch designers who don't use much information on their plots. We just hung a show and the plot had no color on it. It was a blast to go find the hookup any time we quickly needed to know a color.



I completley disagree. 
The only information you need on a plot is the unit number...that's what hookups are for.


----------



## SteveB (Jan 10, 2008)

Grog12 said:


> I completley disagree.
> The only information you need on a plot is the unit number...that's what hookups are for.



Did somebody actually teach you this ?, or did you come by this opinion based on years of experience. In any event, it is total nonsense.

The plot is the graphical representation of the lighting designers intent. It needs to have whatever information is pertinent to those users the designer is communicating to - using the light plan and any other assorted paperwork required. Requiring the recipients of the plot to have to scan additional pieces of paperwork for information that should be readily available is absurd.

I suggest you read Steve Shellys "A Practical Guide to Stage Lighting" as a very well written How To.

As example, the production electrician (responsible for the hang) may ask to NOT have focus indicators on a version of the plan being used as the master to hang the show, but may well want channel, color, possibly an empty box to log the dimmer as well as general orientation and spacing. Since the purpose of the light plot is to communicate intent of the design, I like to do as Shelly recommends - ask the person getting the plot what they think is necessary. Maybe there will be additional versions that have focus, but not spacing ?, useful when focusing perhaps after the plot is hung and when spacing is not as important (it's spaced already). 

I apologize in advance as to any perceived attitude, but I can tell you this is a sore point as I occasionally get tour plots without information that I was taught is essential, instrument type (with associated key) -unit number-spacing-channel-dimmer-color-template indicator (usually a circled "T" in the body of the fixture. When I see plots sent out without this information, I immediately wonder "what idiot trained this person". 

BTW, in the past 2 weeks I have seen 3 touring plots: The Kennedy Centers tour of Brand New Kid, The Acting Companies tour of The Tempest and a tour called "3 'Mos Divas". All 3 lighting plots have Channel as well as Template. The Acting Company has no color information, which now requires me to go to a 2nd piece of paper - the hookup, to ascertain color. That's a waste of my time !.

Steve Bailey
Lighting Director - Master Electrician
Brooklyn Center for the Performing Arts
Brooklyn College


----------



## soundman (Jan 10, 2008)

I don't think you can ever have to much information on a plot. If the plot is reading crowded it might be time to look at the label legends and shift them or change the text size to make them more readable. 

As far as paper size goes whatever it takes. Arch D is common for our proscenium space.


----------



## icewolf08 (Jan 10, 2008)

Pie4Weebl said:


> I'm gonna have to differ with you on the set and focus on the plot footer. Alot of times lights are hung in relation to the set, especially specials and putting them in relation to the set makes more sense. The same goes with focus if you are hanging a light and see that how you hung it won't make the shot you can go ahead and add the side arm or whatever then to take care of it and save time in focus.
> I want to punch designers who don't use much information on their plots. We just hung a show and the plot had no color on it. It was a blast to go find the hookup any time we quickly needed to know a color.


I am going to side with Grog on this one. Lights may be hung in relation to the set, but that is why you have a distance from center. Unless the carpenters mess up putting the set in, the lights should be in the right place when you put a tape measure to the position. This of course is given that the LD spent the time to make sure he put the units in the right place.

As long as the plot is in scale, it is much easier to read if the only info on it is unit number, color and channel. Sometimes gobos. After that, that is why you have paperwork. It is much more convenient when pulling color and templates to have a small sheet from the paperwork as opposed to the plot. Then, if you use hang tapes you have all the info you need on the tape (color, gobo, accessories, 2fer-ing, circuiting, etc) and so you shouldn't have to refer back to the plot all the time.

I would much rather have a plot that is not cluttered with too much information so that I can read it and have to refer to the paperwork, which I always have at hang and focus. After focus the plot gets filed away and it is all about paperwork. Plots ultimately become too cumbersome, so you don't want them to start out that way.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Jan 10, 2008)

Icewolf, I have seen plots with hardly any information that look cluttered and I have seen plots with all the information that look great. If your drafter has every layer in thick black and every piece of info at a 14 point font, it will look like crap. If they do it right it can have all the information and look good.


----------



## soundlight (Jan 10, 2008)

I know that someone did their line weights and font size and style properly when I can print out a 70'x50' plot onto a standard 8.5"x11" piece of paper, and I can still tell you the color and channel and instrument number of every instrument, as well as whether it has a template or scroller or rotator or not, and it's focus area. I was able to carry a copy of the plot in my back pocket all week during hang and focus so that I didn't have to yell at the person at the plot. I was able to read everything about every instrument except dimmers, and we always figure out dimmers after plugging everything in, and just run that in to patch off the patch sheet.


----------



## icewolf08 (Jan 10, 2008)

Pie4Weebl said:


> Icewolf, I have seen plots with hardly any information that look cluttered and I have seen plots with all the information that look great. If your drafter has every layer in thick black and every piece of info at a 14 point font, it will look like crap. If they do it right it can have all the information and look good.


Well in that case it isn't a function of what is on the plot, it is a function of how the plot was drawn. However, on most of the shows in our theatre there is barely enough room on a plot of 1/4" or 1/2" scale to fit all the important info like channels and colors. If you put 25+ fixtures on a 50'-60' batten and then have 8 electrics over the stage it gets crowded really fast. Hopefully this image of the plot for our production for "Paint Your Wagon" designed by Phil Monat will illustrate. This plot was done in 1/2" scale, but (hopefully) you can see that some lights are so close together that even putting the color on the plot would make it near impossible to read.



I realize that everyone has their own preferences, but I think the most important thing is legibility. There isn't much that can make up for bad drafting, but there are plenty of ways to make good drafting easier to read.


----------



## SteveB (Jan 10, 2008)

icewolf08 said:


> I am going to side with Grog on this one. Lights may be hung in relation to the set, but that is why you have a distance from center. Unless the carpenters mess up putting the set in, the lights should be in the right place when you put a tape measure to the position. This of course is given that the LD spent the time to make sure he put the units in the right place.
> As long as the plot is in scale, it is much easier to read if the only info on it is unit number, color and dimmer. Sometimes gobos. After that, that is why you have paperwork. It is much more convenient when pulling color and templates to have a small sheet from the paperwork as opposed to the plot. Then, if you use hang tapes you have all the info you need on the tape (color, gobo, accessories, 2fer-ing, circuiting, etc) and so you shouldn't have to refer back to the plot all the time.
> I would much rather have a plot that is not cluttered with too much information so that I can read it and have to refer to the paperwork, which I always have at hang and focus. After focus the plot gets filed away and it is all about paperwork. Plots ultimately become too cumbersome, so you don't want them to start out that way.



Go read Shelly's book. It's scary how much stuff he prints. 

I follow his logic - print everything in as many different formats as desired and necessary so that for every conceivable type of project, there's a piece of paperwork that gives the worker a clear and understandable idea as to what needs to be accomplished. 

I think that you should put as much information in as many places as possible and that it's a talent that needs to be developed as to how to draft a plot so that it has the information needed as well as not be cluttered. 

Yes, print hanging cards, but have the spacing on the plan as well. It's a visual reference for the head elec. to look at and double check the spacing for when the dumb assed worker read the hanging card wrong, hung the pipe and then thru out the hanging card. How many times has that happened.

My system has a color coded (highlined instruments) plot that gives a quick visual indicator as which units are all going R26, or L161, etc... We use that plot for the RFU operator, who sits on stage and brings up channels for the designer. A good operator can anticipate what the designer needs next - say all the DS pools so as to match instruments. Or the DS Red Bax, to lay in the MS Red Bax. You can't do this without channels on the plot, as well as a general purpose or focus. Often times the LD doesn't even have to check their paperwork - the RFU operator calls out the Channel as well as purpose - which they can either see on their plot, or can reference the hookup - which takes more time. 

I'm attaching a plot that we will focus this Sat. as example. Note that this is a "Representational Plot" as in, it has no structure to the space, no spacing as it's a Rep Plot and fits on an 11x17.

SB


----------



## MHSTech (Jan 10, 2008)

I don't usually do a lot of plotting for lighting. Most of what I do is plotting of maps and stuff in AutoCAD at work, so my knowledge on this is limited. I can say that Arch D size sheets will fit on most desk pretty well. I listed all the other Arch sizes out below for you.

Name in × in 
Arch A 12 × 9 
Arch B 18 × 12 
Arch C 24 × 18 
Arch D 36 × 24 
Arch E 48 × 36 
Arch E1 42 × 30


----------



## Grog12 (Jan 10, 2008)

SteveB said:


> Did somebody actually teach you this ?, or did you come by this opinion based on years of experience. In any event, it is total nonsense.
> The plot is the graphical representation of the lighting designers intent. It needs to have whatever information is pertinent to those users the designer is communicating to - using the light plan and any other assorted paperwork required. Requiring the recipients of the plot to have to scan additional pieces of paperwork for information that should be readily available is absurd.
> I suggest you read Steve Shellys "A Practical Guide to Stage Lighting" as a very well written How To.
> As example, the production electrician (responsible for the hang) may ask to NOT have focus indicators on a version of the plan being used as the master to hang the show, but may well want channel, color, possibly an empty box to log the dimmer as well as general orientation and spacing. Since the purpose of the light plot is to communicate intent of the design, I like to do as Shelly recommends - ask the person getting the plot what they think is necessary. Maybe there will be additional versions that have focus, but not spacing ?, useful when focusing perhaps after the plot is hung and when spacing is not as important (it's spaced already).
> ...



A Lighting Plot is a graphical representation of where the lights go. I did mispeak in that I didn't mention dimensions from CL.

I've read Steve Shelly. I don't care for Steve Shelly's plots or his soft symbols. He's also definetly not the end all be all to drafting. A good place to start espcially for academia but by no means a standard.

Here's the thing to remember provide the information the place you're working at wants. Everyone wants something different. In my grubby little hands I have two different Brodway plots and the Plot for Wrestlmania 22....they're all drafted in completly different styles with completly different information.


----------



## icewolf08 (Jan 10, 2008)

I am going to preface this by saying that I hope that no one takes it as an attack or as me saying that someone else's way is wrong. Drafting is a very personalized thing, and also, every organization has it's own way of handling things and wants information differently. The following is a system that works for me, and it has a lot to do with how I was taught and practical experience.

For me, a plot is a layout and spacing tool. The most important information on it, IMO, is position, unit type, unit number, and channel. This of course is in addition to the standard plot elements: key, linset schedule, trim heights, boom placement, notes, scale rule, etc. If it fits in an uncluttered, easy to read manner then color and templates, but I don't find it necessary on the plot.

When I get a plot in for a show I sit down with my favorite blue colored pencil (I like the ones that don't show in photo copies) and figure out where all the 2fers are. For this you need to have channels on the plot. I draw in the ganging unless it was done for me by the LD (most times not and I prefer it this way because I find VW's gang lines annoying). After that the plot goes out to a crew person who makes hang tapes, we use the plot for spacing and position info, but copy all other info from the paperwork. There is a logic to this in that we can lay down the marks for each unit and then pull the tape across and write out the info working from one end to the other right down the instrument schedule.

Color and templates are pulled based on the paperwork. Lightwright is your friend for producing counts. When it comes to framing and organizing color ad templates, I find it much easier and efficient to hand someone the instrument schedule for the position and have them go at it. It has all the info in numerical order so it is easy to work straight across a batten or down a boom. It is also a lot more compact than a plot.

During hang the plot normally only gets referenced for boom placement and box boom hanging order. As all of our horizontal positions, be it over stage battens or FOH positions get a hang tape. All you have to do is line up the CL of the hang tape with the CL of the theatre and all the info is right there in front of you. Then it is really easy to pick up the instrument schedule and walk from one and of the pipe to the other and write down all the circuit numbers. I find that writing things like circuits and dimmers on the plot just make a headache later when you want to get them into the paperwork.

For focus i sit with the plot calling channels and directing air traffic as the designer focuses. I use the plot to keep track of where we are and where we have been (highlighters and magnetic poetry are nice). Unless we run into snags usually I can work focus right off the plot, I have yet to run into an LD who asked me to be calling purposes to him, but I have my paperwork there open to the position we are on, so the info is there if I need it.

After focus the plot goes away, filed into the archives (or something). I work the rest of the run off the paperwork, why do I need anything else? Unit 14 on the third electric isn't going anywhere. When it comes down to it, the plot is a significantly less organized tool than the paperwork. On the paperwork every bit of needed info to fix a problem is conveniently located on one line for each unit. When you try to turn on channel 215 and nothing happens, it is a lot faster to have a channel hookup to look at and say "Ahh, channel 215, that is dimmer 35 and it is unit 15 on the first electric" rather than trying to find said channel on the plot to figure out where the fixture is.



SteveB said:


> Go read Shelly's book. It's scary how much stuff he prints.
> I follow his logic - print everything in as many different formats as desired and necessary so that for every conceivable type of project, there's a piece of paperwork that gives the worker a clear and understandable idea as to what needs to be accomplished.
> I think that you should put as much information in as many places as possible and that it's a talent that needs to be developed as to how to draft a plot so that it has the information needed as well as not be cluttered.
> Yes, print hanging cards, but have the spacing on the plan as well. It's a visual reference for the head elec. to look at and double check the spacing for when the dumb assed worker read the hanging card wrong, hung the pipe and then thru out the hanging card. How many times has that happened.


I couldn't disagree more with putting as much information in as many palaces as possible. Why? It's a recipe for disaster, especially if all of the place you put the info are not linked in some form like VW and LW. But even the VW/LW link can fall short. A designer may choose to change a color at the last minute and just put it in the paperwork and not go through the trouble of re-importing that back into VW. Many designers will tell me that if I find discrepancies between plot and paperwork to go with the paperwork over the plot. This makes a big difference when you are printing out a color count to pull color. This is especially true with people who are still hand drafting, it is a real PITA to go through the entire plot to change a color, when in LW you can just tell the color to be something else and you are done.

Also, the more places you put information the more chances you create to have discrepancies. The biggest waste of my time would be having to call a designer multiple times to figure out which instance of information is correct. A single document with the all the pertinent information is less prone to mistakes. Besides if you are using LW, once all the info is in, you can print all kinds of useful info from one data set, but you still only have one document.


SteveB said:


> My system has a color coded (highlined instruments) plot that gives a quick visual indicator as which units are all going R26, or L161, etc... We use that plot for the RFU operator, who sits on stage and brings up channels for the designer. A good operator can anticipate what the designer needs next - say all the DS pools so as to match instruments. Or the DS Red Bax, to lay in the MS Red Bax. You can't do this without channels on the plot, as well as a general purpose or focus.


Not everyone has access to color plotters, so it is important to be able to understand things in black and white. I also find that multi color plots are harder to read.

As far as bringing up systems go, most designers that I work with play out their systems in groups of channels. So if your red backlight PAR that is being focused is channel 22, and you have a channel hookup in front of you, it is usually easy to see that the entire red backlight system is channels 21-30, making it, IMO, easier than trying to find all the units on the plot that are PARs gelled the same color that are backlight.


Creating plots, hanging, and focusing are tasks that become very personalized. Designers, technicians, and theatres all have a way that they like to do things. This means that everyone's views on the process may be different, but it does not mean that anyone's methods are wrong.

I am going to end by reiterating that I don't want anyone to feel like this is an attack or that I am saying that there is a right and wrong way to do things. The post above is *my opinion only*, and it is what works for me.


----------



## ScaredOfHeightsLD (Jan 10, 2008)

So just a quick hijack here. Last year I had the luxury of a crew member with a plotter, he has since left, so I am looking for another method of printing. For those of you who print your plots at Kinkos (or some location of the like) What has been your best experience with file type? i.e. How do you bring your plot from vectorworks(for example) to Kinkos to have it printed without loosing a lot of resolution?
Thanks
-Mike


----------



## icewolf08 (Jan 10, 2008)

ScaredOfHeightsLD said:


> So just a quick hijack here. Last year I had the luxury of a crew member with a plotter, he has since left, so I am looking for another method of printing. For those of you who print your plots at Kinkos (or some location of the like) What has been your best experience with file type? i.e. How do you bring your plot from vectorworks(for example) to Kinkos to have it printed without loosing a lot of resolution?
> Thanks
> -Mike


It's less about loosing resolution as it is about loosing the scale. You probably would have the best luck creating a PDF of your plot in the dimensions of a standard sheet. Then have kinkos print it at full size, make sure you tell them not to scale it at all. Also, it is beneficial if you put some kind of scale marking on the plot (like the scale bar on a map) so that you can check the scale against a scale rule after it is printed.

just my 2 cents


----------



## SteveB (Jan 10, 2008)

I have a method of working that is developed for our particular scenario. Alex and others generate work methods that are particular to their facilities, and my methods may make no sense or have any use to them. Everyone uses the methods that are the most efficient for their situation. 

I don't have a color printer, instead using hi-liners to color code the plot for when we are dropping color and focusing. This method rarely works for a dramatic or opera plot with a lot of non-symmetrical configurations and with lots of scenery, but saves us a TON of time as well as helping to prevent errors, noting that my system is a dance plot and the systems are often obvious and that's when some form of color coding is helpful. 

When I print, I always print a Designers Copy and I do not color code, as they cannot read blue hi-lined symbols under the red bax, when they are focusing, as example, noting again hat my example is a road house with a visiting LD that may/or may not have done an adaptation to a rep. plot. 

I also print a designers Instrument Schedule - something I have no need for, as that's something designers find helpful. 

In truth, the paperwork I create for the typical designer is rarely used as the RFU operator is better able to see what's needing to be focused, what hasn't, what systems work together (the advantage of having "Pool DL" as a use on the plot) it's certainly much faster (in this house) to find channel numbers for a system of washes by reading the plot then reading the channel hookup, which we do keep and read as well, especially when the purpose might be too specific and when that information clutters the plot.. 

When I state put as much info as possible, the caveat is that the information needs to be readable, non-cluttered and understandable TO THE PERSON USING THE DOCUMENT. The flip side is to create paperwork that has only what's required for the person using that document. This is the point to what Shelly was saying.

Alex wrote:

"I couldn't disagree more with putting as much information in as many palaces as possible. Why? It's a recipe for disaster, especially if all of the place you put the info are not linked in some form like VW and LW. But even the VW/LW link can fall short. A designer may choose to change a color at the last minute and just put it in the paperwork and not go through the trouble of re-importing that back into VW. Many designers will tell me that if I find discrepancies between plot and paperwork to go with the paperwork over the plot."

Most Broadway electricians use VW, LW and Filemaker Pro, as well as assorted other software to achieve the desired results and you can believe that they spend a lot of time mastering all this software so that the assorted software files are all up to date and all talking to ea. other. The recipe for disaster, IMO, comes when you have assorted paperwork that is incomplete and not kept linked and up-to-date. In my mind, I'd go nuts if I had to "know" that the hookup is the most recent version - Suppose I get in a car accident on the way to work and I'm the only one who "knows" this ?. The plot should have the same basic info. set and not have contradictory information. This is why so many professionals spend time developing and using add-ons such as SoftPlot, from Sam Jones - all to make theirjobs easier with the paperwork trail.

I was astonished when our instructor of lighting design sent a plot out last year not done in VW Spotlight and with no link to Lightwright. The LW file was hand entered. The potential for errors is much greater when this occurs and makes the job of the electrician that much more difficult when they have to enter information.

The point of all this is to communicate. You can not communicate well when you don't keep your information correct and up-to-date. Thus I get bent when I see missing information on paperwork I get. BTW, the standard, as far as the USA 829 Lighting Design exam, is to have channel and color on a plot, usually some form of template indicator, as well as lineset schedule, instrument numbers, key, title block etc... pretty much what Shelly's book is saying.

Steve B.


----------



## soundman (Jan 10, 2008)

SteveB said:


> I was astonished when our instructor of lighting design sent a plot out last year not done in VW Spotlight and with no link to Lightwright. The LW file was hand entered. The potential for errors is much greater when this occurs and makes the job of the electrician that much more difficult when they have to enter information.



Ive encountered this when given hand drafted plots and a LW file. The first thing I do is draft the plot in vectorworks, autonumber the instruments and export it to LW open up both LW files and do a copy paste from what the LD sent me to what I drew then I merge that file back into VW. This method has been pretty rock solid for me. 

As far as keeping paperwork up to date one solution that I found to work very well for follow spot tracking was to watermark what stage of rehearsal we were in on every page IE 1st tech, 2nd tech preview FINIAL. It killed a bit of paper but there was never any confusion as to what revision you were looking at. This might not work as well with documents that will not be updated everyday because people will not always be looking for a new copy. Perhaps we need to develop some paper that is remotely destructible so when a new revision comes out the old ones disappear.


----------



## Van (Jan 10, 2008)

ScaredOfHeightsLD said:


> So just a quick hijack here. Last year I had the luxury of a crew member with a plotter, he has since left, so I am looking for another method of printing. For those of you who print your plots at Kinkos (or some location of the like) What has been your best experience with file type? i.e. How do you bring your plot from vectorworks(for example) to Kinkos to have it printed without loosing a lot of resolution?
> Thanks
> -Mike


 
Kinkos, in the past has asked me for PDF's and AI files for printing of large scale documents, it's worth it to look ing the phone book < or Google> blueprinting services in your area. Before I got my plotter i use to use a company here in town, Ford Graphics, they have branches nationwide. I could two or three sets of typical set drawing printed from a tif, dwg, dxf, Vectorworks file, what ever and usually for $8 - 16 a lot cheaper than Kinkos, Faster, and you're dealing with people who deal with Architects and Engineers and construction folk all the time, they know the importance of the drawings. As a matter of fact I think one of their slogans is " The drawings ARE the project."


----------



## Charc (Jan 11, 2008)

I took mine to staples. They are big. Staples is full of idiots. I new that, so I first took two test copies (eh? prior planning prevents poor performance!), got everything ironed out, and tada!

Of course the evening of the day where I submitted my plot I noticed the half-dozen errors, and the orphan instrument only on the plot...


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Jan 11, 2008)

I think I might be a little backwords with drafting, I tend to make my Lightwright file before drafting the plot, it forces me to plan out what lights I want and then get them in place, but thats just me.


----------



## Footer (Jan 11, 2008)

Pie4Weebl said:


> I think I might be a little backwords with drafting, I tend to make my Lightwright file before drafting the plot, it forces me to plan out what lights I want and then get them in place, but thats just me.



Technically you should start with a section... but thats just me....


----------



## TupeloTechie (Jan 13, 2008)

speaking of printing the plot, (sorry for the hijack) but is there any way to take a wysiwyg plot to say kinkos or another printing place? 

I can't figure anyway to export it as a pdf, and I know kinkos is probably not going to have the wysiwyg viewer installed. I'm quite convinced that wysiwyg report is total crap and I can see why it was given to me... I just don't have the time to learn vectorworks in a week.


----------



## soundman (Jan 13, 2008)

http://www.bullzip.com/products/pdf/info.php install this, your computer will treat it like another printer but when you print to it will create a PDF.


----------



## soundlight (Jan 13, 2008)

The other popular PDF printer is PDF Creator. It's a sourceforge program, and you can download it here. Works just like BullZip, but allows you to give the file more attributes if necessary (creation date, date modified, author, keywords, etc). This isn't useful most of the time, but sometimes it is.


----------



## Footer (Jan 13, 2008)

Cute PDF is what I have been using for a pretty good amount of time.


----------



## soundman (Jan 13, 2008)

Footer4321 said:


> Cute PDF is what I have been using for a pretty good amount of time.



I used to use that but it was not supported by vista so I had to switch really they are all about the same IMO


----------



## Hughesie (Jan 13, 2008)

A2 SIZE (if your in OZ)


----------



## SteveB (Apr 19, 2013)

View attachment Earth_and_Me_Brooklyn_Hookup.pdf
Rant ON !

What the bejesus is being taught in lighting class ?.

Re-opening this thread as I got a "Plot" and "Hookup" this week from an LD in our space on Monday & Tuesday next week. Nice enough guy when he visited a month or so and I sent him the Vectorworks house plot (he requested version 12.5) and Lightwright file. 

Then zip for 3 weeks, until I e-mail last Monday and remind him his event is a week away and 1) I'm busy. 2) I'm also not at work Thurs/Fri, then busy with a ballet company Sat./Sun/ so..... ?. Unless he wants us to pull all color and frame while he stands around Monday during load-in as well as losing me to the computer while I generate some paperwork.

I get the "Plot" and "Hookup" on Tues. morning. OK, that's good.

I can't attach the plot as I can't open it as it was done in what Nemetchek calls "an illegal copy of Vectorworks", so I had to open my version 2009 VW, open the bootleg, save, open in v2013, only to find my basic plot (only has FOH/Boxes and goes to 2 Electric), with nothing but channel numbers.

Thus the reason I tag this at the end of a necropost.

The "Hookup" (attached) is actually a pdf done in what I assume was Excel. And it's not a channel hookup, it's an instrument schedule. Generated quickly I assume as it's hard to read.

So I open Lightwright in side-by side windows and type the info. into LW, noticing some errors and obvious typo's. Among them - who uses R120 as a frost ?. I suggest R119, which I stock. If I wasn't such a nice guy, I would have ordered a sheet of 120 or two and billed the company. 

I then - in conversation with a Dept. of Theater lighting student, who's becoming a good VW and LW paperwork guy, show him the paperwork I got. He comments that his lighting teacher/adjunct - Natalie (last name not added, she was written up in one of the trade journals a while back) tells her students in class "don't put color on the light plot". I'm thinking of sitting in on that class one day......


----------



## Grog12 (Apr 19, 2013)

There is no excuse for crap paperwork.

If you're going to go by the unit number and paperwork method of plotting (yep still do that however many years later Steve ) your paperwork better be damn good.


----------



## Esoteric (Apr 21, 2013)

gafftaper said:


> As for the 1/2" vs 1/4" debate, that's a direct function of how big is the theater and how much gear do you hang. If we are talking about less than 100 instruments in a small educational and or community theater venue, 1/4" is probably just fine. If you are hanging 500 lights for a show in a massive theater... you need 1/2" or you won't be able to figure out what's going on.



Interesting. I have designed 400-500 unit shows before and I always use 1/4" scale without a problem. Interesting. Ahhhh... As I finished reading, I do only unit numbers on my plot. Nothing else. Everything else is in the paperwork. This is what we were taught. I suppose if the ME wants something more, I can activate those fields in Vectorworks. But my paperwork is impeccable. I am as anal about it as I am my cabling. You get a channel hookup, an instrument schedule, a color cut sheet, a copy of my focus chart, a copy of the cheat sheet, a copy of the cue list, plus all the plot plates (between 1-5), the section, and any notes both on the drawings themselves and in paper copies.


----------



## SteveB (Apr 21, 2013)

Esoteric said:


> . As I finished reading, I do only unit numbers on my plot. Nothing else. Everything else is in the paperwork. This is what we were taught. I suppose if the ME wants something more, I can activate those fields in Vectorworks.



Of course the ME cannot activate a color class while looking at a printed plot. Too late for that.

Here's why not having color and an indication of a unit having a template ("T") or iris ("I") on the plot drives me nuts and why I believe it's a bad habit.

The plot is printed and is being used for focus. I'll interrupt by stating, yes you can use the instrument schedule, but lets say that you have 2 electrics right next to each other. The electrician in the Genie can reach both electrics as they roll across the floor. It's harder to keep track of what light is next when using an IS, it's easier to use a plot. Which is why we always use a plot to see what channel/addresses are next while focusing. Typically the RRFU operator is doing this. All proceeds as planned.

But maybe you didn't land all color and gobo's while the electrics were on the the deck (or maybe it's the box booms where you can't in any event), so maybe the elec. has an electrics worth of color in the bucket bag. I don't like doing it this way, but our Dept, of Theater does. So now the person running the RRFU, as well as either recalling channels from an IS, or the plot, has to refer to another sheet of paper to find the color to tell the bucket person what gel to stick in a light. That's slow and is prone to error. 

But OK, you don't always want to stick a "R77780" template label next to a light, especially when you have a lot of units using templates. At some point you are cluttering the plot up with a lot of info. But color seems pretty easy and as I've seen the "No color on the plot" concept used, and in my mind it's just an excuse for the LD to not make a bit more effort to create useful label legends (assuming Vectorworks) that are effective in placing useful information pertinent to the light, on the light plot.


----------



## Esoteric (Apr 21, 2013)

SteveB said:


> Of course the ME cannot activate a color class while looking at a printed plot. Too late for that.
> 
> Here's why not having color and an indication of a unit having a template ("T") or iris ("I") on the plot drives me nuts and why I believe it's a bad habit.
> 
> ...



I meant that if the ME insists on it, I will activate those fields when I make my plot. I always talk with the ME first to see what information he wants where. I want to give him the paperwork in the order that he wants it in. After I put the paperwork together I never look at it again. It is produced only for the benefit of the electricians, so I want to give them what they want.

I have always used the instrument schedule to focus. You bring up an interesting point, but I have never focused that way. We always go along one electric and then over to the next one. Now, I do have multiple systems focusing sometimes (one electrician overhead, one on FOH, one on booms) but we have never bounced like that. Interesting theory.

As far as information on the IS, I have color, pattern, focus, etc all on the IS. I don't see why they can't look at Inst 2 on electric 3 and see it is R26 on the paperwork instead of the plot. I don't see how that is "easier" to see on the plot.

But, like I said, if that is what the ME wants (within reason) that is what they will get.

Heck, if they want 1/2" scale I will give them 1/2" scale.


----------



## Brandofhawk (Apr 22, 2013)

I read a 3rd of what was posted so sorry if i repeat. 

I think that a hand drafted plot should be whatever makes it 1/2" to 1'. 
A computer plot, if drawn correctly should be 1/4" to 1'. 
As small of a paper as you can so it can be manageable.
Remember to leave 1/2" boarder all the way around to allow for damage/unprintable area. 

For me, I like to see channel, color, template, unit and purpose on the plot - depending on the amount of instruments nad how close together, they could point where they are going or just point straight up/down/left/right or on the 45degrees. It is more important that they land on their foot markers. During focus we will point them where they go. 

I'll use the plot for hang. 
Right before focus starts / end of hang double check that each instrument comes up correctly according to the plot. 

Once hang is done, I don't reference the plot so much as the other paperwork (The plot is after all part of the paperwork). During hang all the dimmers will be associated with their instruments and recorded and updated on the paperwork. 

I'll also have 3 copies of the plot to work from. One will be for the ME where ever they want to be stationed - this one will get notes of dimmers and possibly adds or moves. One for the LD to reference during hang. And then an additional one which will be marked as the changes plot - the one that gets updated with any moves/adds that inevitably need to happen during tech, and will be updated in the computer at the end and printed new for the run, in case lamps blow. Depending on size, hang cards will be made in 8.5 x 11 sizes. 

I like having purpose on there because then the electricians can foresee issues... like if an entire position wont work as side lighting because there is an I-beam that every single light will hit, right below. So they know to ask the ME or the LD what to do (in that case it was okay to top hang to get the shot).


----------



## SteveB (Apr 22, 2013)

Esoteric said:


> As far as information on the IS, I have color, pattern, focus, etc all on the IS. I don't see why they can't look at Inst 2 on electric 3 and see it is R26 on the paperwork instead of the plot. I don't see how that is "easier" to see on the plot.
> Heck, if they want 1/2" scale I will give them 1/2" scale.



This becomes a "whatever the crew likes" situation. One thing we find useful with having the color and template info on the plot, is multiple crew members can read the plot at the same time, as opposed to having to use the particular Instrument Schedule for a particular position (Oh, Damn, I have the 3 electric IS and just loaded color onto 2E !). In general they find the plot more "graphical" to reference, in terms of about where on a pipe a unit is located as example. That becomes easier then counting from unit 1 (and how many times do they forget and start from SR ?). OTOH, Instrument Schedules become really useful as you can just hand a sheet for a particular task to a person, so sometimes that's what works best. 

My rant for LD's though, especially "name" LD's who are teaching , is don't make something like "I don't put color on the plot" as being dogmatic. Be flexible and prepared to pull a Steve Shelly and have every type of paperwork printed and ready for whatever the situation calls for, even if that means creating label legend in VW that have color and template info. whose class is not visible on a particular print. Be prepared to print it and maybe do it any way and have that paperwork ready.


----------

