# Performance Comparison: ETC S4WRD vs. HPL 575Wx



## STEVETERRY (Feb 25, 2016)

The following video may be of interest in comparing many aspects of the performance of a S4WRD LED Retrofit vs. the performance of a tungsten HPL 575Wx long-life lamp in the ETC Source Four (tm):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=UL3bnxmIGnI

ST


----------



## egilson1 (Feb 25, 2016)

Thanks Steve. We were just doing a shoot out yesterday in our demo room. Units look nice.


----------



## RickR (Feb 25, 2016)

I'd like to see a meter reading along side the video. Cameras are not eyes and I'm a numbers sort of person. Maybe a dimming curve chart would be easier?

I loved that you put skin in some of the colors.


----------



## JChenault (Feb 25, 2016)

Steve
Thanks for post

I'm curious why there is such an fade curve discrepancy between the incandescent and the LED under DMX control. Was that a conscious decision and if so can you share the rationale?


----------



## STEVETERRY (Feb 25, 2016)

RickR said:


> I'd like to see a meter reading along side the video. Cameras are not eyes and I'm a numbers sort of person. Maybe a dimming curve chart would be easier?
> 
> I loved that you put skin in some of the colors.



Yes, but the problem is what that meter is measuring? Center beam candlepower? Sure, but that's not as important as total field lumens, which is difficult or impossible to measure with one spot meter reading.

Thanks for the comment on color--that's where ETC is living right now!

ST


----------



## STEVETERRY (Feb 25, 2016)

JChenault said:


> Steve
> Thanks for post
> 
> I'm curious why there is such an fade curve discrepancy between the incandescent and the LED under DMX control. Was that a conscious decision and if so can you share the rationale?



Those fade curves are not actually very far apart when measured. However, we did accept some compromises in the LED driver curve in order to achieve the relatively low cost of the S4WRD--which is a significant reduction in the LED transition cost for S4 owners. We argued (no, agonized!) over this for a long time, but in the end we realized that the product performance was well suited to its primary market--which is not a Broadway show or a major opera company--but more mainstream applications of Source Four.

Thanks for asking!

ST


----------



## SteveB (Feb 25, 2016)

Impressive intensity and imaging. Color isn't bad and as with 'ye olden dayes of adjusting from T12 lamps to TH, you find a gel that works when R05 looks different.

Very impressed with DMX dimming.

Not impressed with RJ45 instead of 5 pin "industry standard" XLR. 

Wondering if making the housing a bit longer and just including a new and longer yoke might have been considered to get that XLR connector(s).


----------



## kicknargel (Feb 26, 2016)

I'd love to see a color spectrum comparison. Is the white more "peak-y?"


----------



## gafftaper (Feb 27, 2016)

kicknargel said:


> I'd love to see a color spectrum comparison. Is the white more "peak-y?"


In the shoot out I did, I felt it was close but the LED had a slightly flatter field.


----------



## STEVETERRY (Feb 27, 2016)

SteveB said:


> Impressive intensity and imaging. Color isn't bad and as with 'ye olden dayes of adjusting from T12 lamps to TH, you find a gel that works when R05 looks different.
> 
> Very impressed with DMX dimming.
> 
> ...



Key spec point: it had to pass through existing yoke. That drove a _lot_ of other decisions.

ST


----------



## SteveB (Feb 27, 2016)

Fully understand about the yoke, but I would have just supplied a longer yoke.

As point, a popular tool for electricians I see a lot of these days it's the Ultimate ratcheting (or not) tool, which will not fit under a yoke on a regular S4 ellipsoidal or Par, when the unit is pointed straight down/out, in line with the clamp. There's just not a lot of room and I often wish the yoke was a tad longer. It's not a game changer as my 8" c-wrench will work, just a built in design PITA.

Thus a longer yoke is not a bad idea anyway.


----------



## theatricalmatt (Feb 27, 2016)

The Source Four Lustrs would really benefit from a longer yoke. (So would a S4 with a Seachanger, but that combo seems to be going to way of the dodo.) I'm kind of surprised ETC doesn't offer one as an after-market add-on, rather like the split yokes available for the ColorSource PARs.


----------



## gafftaper (Feb 28, 2016)

theatricalmatt said:


> The Source Four Lustrs would really benefit from a longer yoke. (So would a S4 with a Seachanger, but that combo seems to be going to way of the dodo.) I'm kind of surprised ETC doesn't offer one as an after-market add-on, rather like the split yokes available for the ColorSource PARs.



You can buy extra long yokes for Seachangers. I have 10 of them in my theater. I want to say they were made by City Theatrical, or perhaps even Seachanger themselves... it's been a while since I got them.


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 28, 2016)

SteveB said:


> Fully understand about the yoke, but I would have just supplied a longer yoke.
> 
> Thus a longer yoke is not a bad idea anyway.



There are catwalks all over the world that have been designed on the basis of how tightly you can pack fixtures between the railings. A suddenly longer yoke is the difference between S4WRD being viable or not.


----------



## SteveB (Feb 28, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> There are catwalks all over the world that have been designed on the basis of how tightly you can pack fixtures between the railings. A suddenly longer yoke is the difference between S4WRD being viable or not.



Just to be argumentive, the majority of a conventional plot is not on catwalks, as well you can short yoke. As well we are taking maybe an inch & half, are you saying the consultant made the catwalks so tight that 1.5" matters ?


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 28, 2016)

Not every theater has a consultant, and yes, especially cases where they use the top and mid rails both.

It also adds the cost of the yoke into every S4WRD and makes it less cost-competitive.


----------



## SteveB (Feb 28, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> Not every theater has a consultant, and yes, especially cases where they use the top and mid rails both.
> 
> It also adds the cost of the yoke into every S4WRD and makes it less cost-competitive.



The cost of my 3 to 5 pin adapters for High End fixtures is about $25 ea., so $50 per fixture added on. I'm guessing a 5 pin XLR to RJ45 is a bit cheaper, but as you need 2 for in and out, you are talking near the cost of a longer yoke yet get a fixture that takes 5 pin XLR. I'd take the longer yoke and go with 5 pin.


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 28, 2016)

Almost nobody is going to do that. They're going to use CAT5E or CAT6 tactical cable, and quite frankly a lot of places won't even bother with tac cable. For a standard theater that may have 50-100 S4's in a plot in addition to whatever LED wash fixtures or movers they may have, they'll do a drop of DMX on 3 or 5-pin per electric and a drop of DMX on 8P8C. They won't dick around with adapters in and out of every fixture. Nobody is masochistic enough for that.

And as far as moving to the 8P8C connector goes, I'm surprised it's taken this long. DMX as we know it is very limiting. Max 32 devices per branch, only 512 channels per universe, proprietary nodes to DMX all over the place. Once the industry gets its head out of its butt and moves to ACN or whatever the post-DMX protocol is going to be, everything will be based on network-based control and CAT5E/CAT6/CAT6A cable will become even more ubiquitous to theaters than it already is. I'm sure that's got nothing to do with why ETC went this route, but it's certainly part of why I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Also remember the reasons that people don't like the S4 zooms. They're costly, and they're freaking gigantic. They yoke's get bent out of shape if you use them on booms and the 15/30's don't fit on meat racks built for standard S4's. They're more likely to get knocked around and beat up, and most people I've talked to said about this said they would rather have gotten more standard fixtures or extra lens tubes than getting zooms at a premium cost.

It also makes it a much harder pitch to large venues to give up their incandescent fixtures. If they have to pay hourly for all of their fixtures to get struck down and have their yokes replaced, it's more expensive and harder to justify the upgrade than it is if they can spend a little extra on UTP cables and hardly have to worry about the labor expenses associated with the retrofit.

Not everyone wants to pay more, size matters, and not everyone has free or $10/hr labor they can use to strike every fixture in the house and replace the yokes.


----------



## SteveB (Feb 28, 2016)

MNicolai said:


> , they'll do a drop of DMX on 3 or 5-pin per electric and a drop of DMX on 8P8C. They won't dick around with adapters in and out of every fixture. Nobody is masochistic enough for that.



We can go back and forth on this all day but the bottom line is we argued with manufacturers about the problem with 3 pin "DMX" and they pretty much finally listened and went to 5 or a mix of both. 5 Pin has been and is the industry standard for DMX transmission and I think ETC is making a huge mistake by going this route. As well we've known for years that RJ45 is a crappy connector and nobody's really come out with a great alternative except Ethercon, and we don't see that very often. Bitch is moving to Cat 5 and the required powered distribution is all fine and well except this unit doesn't use Net 3. It's DMX over an inferior connector.

As well, I have a in-place distribution for 5 pin. If I add Lustre 2's and D60, I still have 5 pin and will BE REQUIRED to put adapters on a fixture if it uses RJ45 and I choose to daisy. And who is not going to daisy. So what you're saying is I need a 2nd cable run to get to the RJ45 fixtures. That's just BS in my book.

And as note, I've been using assorted zooms for 30 years. I'm a road house with a rep plot that has about 80 S4 zooms in a 300 unit inventory. Love them. Never had bent yokes but don't put the 15/30's in a yoked out situation. I think ETC once made a balancing bracket or some such for this fixture but I've never needed it nor had issues focusing and staying focused. The typical response from visiting LD's is fine, can you make the image bigger/smaller ? (to the guy in the bucket). The labor saved in not changing barrels is in multitudes of hours. The unit is cheaper then a regular S4 with lens tubes to either side of the range ($489 for a 25/50 zoom vs. $319+$129+$129 for a 36deg. plus a 26 and 50 tubes =$577 at an on-line store) Most Euro LD's asks me how come we have them yet nobody else in the US does, when they are all over Europe. I've no answer.


----------



## STEVETERRY (Feb 28, 2016)

SteveB said:


> We can go back and forth on this all day but the bottom line is we argued with manufacturers about the problem with 3 pin "DMX" and they pretty much finally listened and went to 5 or a mix of both. 5 Pin has been and is the industry standard for DMX transmission and I think ETC is making a huge mistake by going this route. As well we've known for years that RJ45 is a crappy connector and nobody's really come out with a great alternative except Ethercon, and we don't see that very often. Bitch is moving to Cat 5 and the required powered distribution is all fine and well except this unit doesn't use Net 3. It's DMX over an inferior connector.
> 
> As well, I have a in-place distribution for 5 pin. If I add Lustre 2's and D60, I still have 5 pin and will BE REQUIRED to put adapters on a fixture if it uses RJ45 and I choose to daisy. And who is not going to daisy. So what you're saying is I need a 2nd cable run to get to the RJ45 fixtures. That's just BS in my book.
> 
> And as note, I've been using assorted zooms for 30 years. I'm a road house with a rep plot that has about 80 S4 zooms in a 300 unit inventory. Love them. Never had bent yokes but don't put the 15/30's in a yoked out situation. I think ETC once made a balancing bracket or some such for this fixture but I've never needed it nor had issues focusing and staying focused. The typical response from visiting LD's is fine, can you make the image bigger/smaller ? (to the guy in the bucket). The labor saved in not changing barrels is in multitudes of hours. The unit is cheaper then a regular S4 with lens tubes to either side of the range ($489 for a 25/50 zoom vs. $319+$129+$129 for a 36deg. plus a 26 and 50 tubes =$577 at an on-line store) Most Euro LD's asks me how come we have them yet nobody else in the US does, when they are all over Europe. I've no answer.




Mr. Bailey--

You and I have known each other professionally for 35 years, plus or minus--just sayin'.

A few points:

1. I would venture to say that there has not been a stronger defender of the XLR-5 than me, over the last 20 years or so. See my previous articles on XLR3 vs. XLR5. But today, I see it as not so black-and-white, due to economic realities.

2. If RJ45 is such a "crappy connector", I wonder why we entrust many tens of thousands of channels of control to it--in the Ethernet world.

3. People ask me--"How can we tolerate a connector that breaks so much?" If true, I say "Use your primary troubleshooting tool--the garbage can where you throw defective RJ45 patch cords." Their ridiculously low cost encourages this action.

4. The S4WRD is not aimed at the high-end professional market. It's primarily aimed at places where a daisy-chained lighting position with 20 fixtures really does not care about RJ45 vs. XLR5--other than the fact that the XLR connectors add significant cost.

5. We are in a different world now--one created by LED luminaires. That creates new realities--such as the acceptability of RJ45 in low- cost DMX applications.

6. I suggest that if you analyze the cost, the use of RJ45's on an S4WRD daisy chain makes economic sense, despite the fact that it might cause us to initially recoil due to "non-standard" application. This is likely true even in a system with other equipment using XLR5 connectors--one that requires an RJ45 run in parallel with an XLR5 run.

7. I will take this opportunity to remind you that S4WRD represents an _order-of-magnitude_ reduction in LED conversion costs. The reality is that there are compromises associated with that reduction. At the end of the day, the market will tell us if we did the right or the wrong thing.

I am sure that you, and others, will tell me how you feel on this issue!

Best regards,

ST


----------



## SteveB (Feb 28, 2016)

STEVETERRY said:


> Mr. Bailey--
> 
> You and I have known each other professionally for 35 years, plus or minus--just sayin'.
> 
> ...



All well stated in a nutshell, as always.

It is indeed a new world we live in in some ways and I am reminded of a generation earlier then us who lamented the move to tungsten halogen. 

Thanks Steve.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 28, 2016)

Interesting debate. I'd guess a new yoke and the other receptacle would add a substantial cost per unit. It will be a tough sell regardless in the high school market, and to add a more time consuming changeover and more expensive jumpers - if they are doing that even - just makes fewer sales. 

I don't know the break down - I'm pretty sure ETC does - but probably 10 or more S4s that rarely move in high schools for every one in rental or a professional theatre.


----------



## Thetechmanmac (Feb 29, 2016)

Coming from a high school where fixtures barely move and no DMX distribution in place, RJ45 would work just fine. The S4WRD is not a product for touring theatre, broadway, and large theatres out there- places like that can afford fixtures like lustr 2 and desires. 4WRD is a product that is perfect for schools and installs. Schools are awful for upgrading equipment. (We are upgrading our expression 3 to an Element and can only do it on donations) so when upgrading equipment, sometimes the only thing they care about is how much will it save them per year and how much does it cost to get it installed.

I really don't think that an RJ45 connector is going to hurt the product in any way. Once again, this product is not meant for the road or broadway. 

I have one question- why all the hate for 3 pin DMX? I make all of my cable. I Buy bulk DMX cable and just put on 3 pin connectors. I understand the fact that the higher end fixtures use only 5 pin. I completely agree that 3 pin mic cable should never be used, but if DMX only uses 3 wires, why is it frowned upon to use 3 pin DMX, even if it is not the "industry standard"?


----------



## tommygun (Feb 29, 2016)

theatricalmatt said:


> The Source Four Lustrs would really benefit from a longer yoke. (So would a S4 with a Seachanger, but that combo seems to be going to way of the dodo.) I'm kind of surprised ETC doesn't offer one as an after-market add-on, rather like the split yokes available for the ColorSource PARs.



The rumors of the SeaChanger extinction are highly exaggerated. SeaChanger is alive and well and can offer up an extended 16 inch yoke ME451-59 . To address the Dodo comment, it is quite understandable that many people are concluding we are no longer in the picture. Why is this ? From a : marketing standpoint , SeaChanger has been off the radar the past several years (corporate budget focus on spectral imaging cameras.... adding a $3M class 100 clean room etc.... not our decision) ; technical standpoint, the subtractive nature of the Seachanger CYM (XG) color mixing, required the LED technology to develop an manufacture a : full spectrum white (close to it); high output; point source lamp. You can say we were waiting to the white LED lamp technology to catch up with SeaChanger. The good news is our clean room is completed and budgets have loosened already resulting in a new design of a White LED SeaChanger utilizing the white LED ETC S4WRD adding to the existing SeaCHanger long throw Tungsten and HMI product lines. You should be seeing and hearing more of SeaChanger in the upcoming months.


----------



## sk8rsdad (Feb 29, 2016)

tommygun said:


> the subtractive nature of the Seachanger CYM (XG) color mixing



If the argument for LEDs is energy efficiency then could you please explain the reasoning behind using a subtractive mixing system as opposed to an additive mixing system? Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## DELO72 (Feb 29, 2016)

tommygun said:


> ...utilizing the white LED ETC S4WRD adding to the existing SeaCHanger long throw Tungsten and HMI product lines.



Hi TommyGun,

Very happy to hear Seachanger is alive and well! But you don't have an HMI product line. You may have a "Daylight-like CCT or spectrum" product line, but "HMI" products are made by one company and one company only-- OSRAM. We invented HMI and we own the trademark to HMI.


----------



## RickR (Feb 29, 2016)

Thetechmanmac said:


> I have one question- why all the hate for 3 pin DMX? I make all of my cable. I Buy bulk DMX cable and just put on 3 pin connectors. I understand the fact that the higher end fixtures use only 5 pin. I completely agree that 3 pin mic cable should never be used, but if DMX only uses 3 wires, why is it frowned upon to use 3 pin DMX, even if it is not the "industry standard"?



I have a couple of deep issues with 3 pin.

It's just too easy to confuse with mic cable. Sure lot's of folks can keep them apart, but most have issues. 

"industry standard" meaning common practice is not the same as a Standard for the industry. DMX512 (ANSI E1.11) is defined by a document that lays out the fine technical details. If you follow it everything works. If you don't then you get problems. "The Standard" says 2 pairs, 5 pin.

The emotion comes from the daily frustration when some gear is 3 and some is 5. So no matter what you prefer you have to constantly deal with both. That's a hassle that should never have arisen.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Feb 29, 2016)

RickR said:


> I have a couple of deep issues with 3 pin.
> 
> It's just too easy to confuse with mic cable. Sure lot's of folks can keep them apart, but most have issues.
> 
> ...


If your "by yourself", don't rent, rarely buy new gear, one person responsible for all: it doesn't matter till the "one person" is gone and the next person comes in. Makes a point of the difference between say a standard for fire sprinklers or fall protection, which can affect the well being of people, and a standard for DMX or email signatures, which doesn't really harm anything if not followed.


----------



## MikeJ (Feb 29, 2016)

RickR said:


> I'd like to see a *meter reading* along side the video. Cameras are not eyes and I'm a numbers sort of person. Maybe a dimming curve chart would be easier?
> 
> I loved that you put skin in some of the colors.




STEVETERRY said:


> *Yes, but the problem is what that meter is measuring?* Center beam candlepower? Sure, but that's not as important as total field lumens, which is* difficult or impossible to measure* with one spot meter reading.
> 
> Thanks for the comment on color--that's where ETC is living right now!
> 
> ST




STEVETERRY said:


> *Those fade curves are not actually very far apart when measured*.
> 
> 
> ST



Hold the phone! Seriously?! Are we measuring or not? You can't have it both ways. I know there are some stupid people on this forum, but you cannot actually expect people to believe that the comparison in the video *CANNOT* be measured in one post, and then argue that the* MEASURED* results are better than in the video in the next post.


----------



## MikeJ (Feb 29, 2016)

WOW! Really long video. Way too long; little information.


----------



## MikeJ (Feb 29, 2016)

STEVETERRY said:


> 7. I will take this opportunity to remind you that S4WRD represents an _order-of-magnitude_ reduction in LED conversion costs.
> 
> ST



Is this true? An order of magnitude is logarithmic, I.E. Ten Times. So you are telling me that there are no comparable LED replacements for less than $6000?


----------



## MNicolai (Feb 29, 2016)

@MikeJ, Do you need a hug?


----------



## robartsd (Mar 1, 2016)

I think 2x can be considered an "order of magnitude" in some cases, and S4WRD is about half the cost of comparable alternatives. However, if you buy the comparable alternatives, you still have the instrument you are replacing which could be sold to recoup some of that cost difference - so the S4WRD retrofit might only net about 30-40% less costly than alternatives.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 1, 2016)

robartsd said:


> I think 2x can be considered an "order of magnitude" in some cases, and S4WRD is about half the cost of comparable alternatives. However, if you buy the comparable alternatives, you still have the instrument you are replacing which could be sold to recoup some of that cost difference - so the S4WRD retrofit might only net about 30-40% less costly than alternatives.


I did too - I often am asked for an off the cuff estimate and I refer to it as an order of magnitude estimate - not more than double or half - but an order of magnitude is indeed 10x or 1/10th - technically. The discussion does begin to cause me to wonder who MikeJ works for.


----------



## MikeJ (Mar 1, 2016)

I work for the people. Just keepin it 100.


----------



## Malabaristo (Mar 1, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> Hold the phone! Seriously?! Are we measuring or not? You can't have it both ways. I know there are some stupid people on this forum, but you cannot actually expect people to believe that the comparison in the video *CANNOT* be measured in one post, and then argue that the* MEASURED* results are better than in the video in the next post.



You missed an important part of Steve's first comment: he was interpreting the request for a meter reading as having a light-meter visible in the shot for each fixture. This wouldn't give very meaningful results because a slight difference in position between the two meters, or slight bench focus differences between the fixtures would give significantly different readings. Obviously it is possible to measure the brightness in a more meaningful way, but not with the setup used to make this video. You would have to do that with just one fixture at a time using something that captures all of the light output of each fixture individually. Presumably Steve's comment on measured performance was based on this sort of testing.


----------



## RickR (Mar 1, 2016)

@Malabaristo I believe both you and @STEVETERRY misinterpreted my request. (not a big deal, but now its getting mixed up) I was trying to get a numerical reference during the dimming to see what the individual dimming curves are doing over time. There are dimmer levels showing, but nothing numeric on brightness. I really didn't see some of the issues commented on in the video, but saw others that bothered me. When it comes right down to it I don't trust video for lighting. I am certain they've done extensive testing, I'd like to see some of those results. Putting it into a sales video would be a bonus. 

For this sort of measurement ANY location is valid and could (maybe should) be reduced to percentage of full. I'd be doing that calc in my head anyway. One presumes that both fixtures are in very good condition and that the locations are selected with some care. Yes there is some minor change to the beam pattern during dimming, but really that's a very minor point. There is also the point of not putting too much trust into any sales presentation. I'll be demo'ing before spending! 

FWIW There was a small rant years ago from a knowledgeable and respected member in this forum, on how CBCP is the only measurement that matters for beam fixtures. 

It's also worth pointing out that Steve's 'not far apart' comment was on a comparison not shown- LED on dimmer vs on DMX.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 2, 2016)

If someone is demoing these on mains dimming, please check zero count blackout as well as fade from zero to on after the units been off for a while.


----------



## DeadCheerios (Mar 2, 2016)

The light itself looks great. I just wish the dimming from a dimmer was closer.


----------



## MikeJ (Mar 3, 2016)

Malabaristo said:


> You missed an important part of Steve's first comment: he was interpreting the request for a meter reading as having a light-meter visible in the shot for each fixture. This wouldn't give very meaningful results because a slight difference in position between the two meters, or slight bench focus differences between the fixtures would give significantly different readings. Obviously it is possible to measure the brightness in a more meaningful way, but not with the setup used to make this video. You would have to do that with just one fixture at a time using something that captures all of the light output of each fixture individually. Presumably Steve's comment on measured performance was based on this sort of testing.



This does not make any sense at all. Of all people, I would certainly hope that the manufacturer could bench focus their own fixture. Using a light meter(pick the same spot on each beam, say, center, maybe even a measurement on the edge as well, to show how flat the field is) is the only scientific way to measure the differences. It would be quite simple to measure each one and write down the numbers, then in post, superimpose those numbers next to each fixture. Professionals use light meters to measure and balance fixtures every day, when I compare demo units, out comes the light meter, because without it your eye can easily be fooled.


RickR said:


> @Malabaristo I believe both you and @STEVETERRY misinterpreted my request. (not a big deal, but now its getting mixed up) I was trying to get a numerical reference during the dimming to see what the individual dimming curves are doing over time. There are dimmer levels showing, but nothing numeric on brightness. I really didn't see some of the issues commented on in the video, but saw others that bothered me. When it comes right down to it I don't trust video for lighting. I am certain they've done extensive testing, I'd like to see some of those results. Putting it into a sales video would be a bonus.
> 
> For this sort of measurement ANY location is valid and could (maybe should) be reduced to percentage of full. I'd be doing that calc in my head anyway. One presumes that both fixtures are in very good condition and that the locations are selected with some care. Yes there is some minor change to the beam pattern during dimming, but really that's a very minor point. There is also the point of not putting too much trust into any sales presentation. I'll be demo'ing before spending!
> 
> ...



Ahh, I see, maybe show a graph with the DMX curve necessary to approximate the same output through the dimming? Interesting to see, but every led is different, so trial and error to get the right curve is probably going to be required. But, If there was a published curve to match a HPL on a dimmer, it would make short work of matching them up on any desk.

Personally, though we have become accustom to non-linear dimming, amber shift, and a ramp up/down on bumps, I never really considered these to be "features" but, more like side effects. Sometimes they have desirable effects, but I would rather have the option whether or not to use them.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 3, 2016)

Could we use a 1K T12 on an autotransformer as the basis please?


----------



## DELO72 (Mar 3, 2016)

I find it fascinating how meters matter for Film & TV, but don't matter one iota for Theatre or live events. So for a camera, yes- the data on the meter matters. For Live events meters are USELESS in determining what is brighter. For live events, the only thing that matters is audience perception. Back in grad school myself and three other grads. tried to switch from FELs in our ERS fixtures over to GLCs/FLKs. Our professor's argument was that because the FEL put out so much more lumens, it was not a comparable switch. Our argument was that because the FLK/GLC operated at 115V (thereby having a higher CCT when operated at 120V) and had a more compact coil design (allowing it to be collected more efficiently in the reflector), that they put out as much or more PERCEIVED light. So we did a shoot-out. We put two fixtures side by side, and we all agreed the one on the left (with the 575W lamp) was visually brighter to the eye than the one on the right with the FEL-- however our professor metered the two, and the one with the FEL put out more ACTUAL lux. Our argument was-- perception always trumps reality when talking about light. Unless the audience is sitting on stage and all holding light meters, the fact that the meter registered more was 100% moot. It's what the EYE sees and interprets that matters. (At least for LIVE events.)

So for theatre use, I guess my point is, who cares what the meter says? If it looks as bright, then it IS as bright. Perception > reality in the realm of light.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 3, 2016)

I agree with Mark on this. Perception is all in live theatre. I recall the introduction of the S4 at an LDI (I think - maybe a USITT) and it seemed brighter using a 115 volt lap on same power as the 120 volt lamp units in the shoot out, but it was actually "whiter" or higher color temp. (You could also read a newspaper with the light leaks - I think the most noticeable difference - but they soon fixed that.) Not to take away anything from the major advancement of this, which looked "better" to some, which is all that matters. (I grew up pre-quartz, primarily T-12 and T-20 incandescent, liked the color temp and a lot of amber nearly red drift, and especially liked the hot centers and nearly 50% less light at the edges - but that was then.)

Shoot outs - preferably in a space with which you are familiar - is the only good way to judge - and with your eyes primarily.


----------



## robartsd (Mar 3, 2016)

BillConnerASTC said:


> You could also read a newspaper with the light leaks - I think the most noticeable difference - but they soon fixed that.


When I was first starting out with theater lighting and I heard someone call a fixture a "LEKO" I thought it was a nickname based on the amount of light leaking out through the vents. It was quite a while before I learned that LEKO was what some people call an ERS. (Perhaps the fixture was a genuine LEKO, I don't know.)


----------



## RickR (Mar 3, 2016)

I too believe in the eye for live events, especially when combining the venue and multiple lights. It's the end result that matters. 
For cameras the meter is a closer guide to how the camera will see.

However, I prefer a meter to a video anytime.


----------



## TuckerD (Mar 3, 2016)

The most interesting thing to me from the video is how much more even the field is on the S4WRD. It's not hugely different, but it was noticeable. And depending on the lens barrel and throw it could be a big deal. I was really surprised to see that, and IMO that is a huge bonus for the LED retrofit.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 3, 2016)

robartsd said:


> When I was first starting out with theater lighting and I heard someone call a fixture a "LEKO" I thought it was a nickname based on the amount of light leaking out through the vents. It was quite a while before I learned that LEKO was what some people call an ERS. (Perhaps the fixture was a genuine LEKO, I don't know.)


Not to insult anyone, but just to spread some historical context, its a leko because it was invented by Joseph Levy and Edward Kook - LEvy and KOok - of Century lighting in like 1933? It was a significant step forward from what was available before that, and the basis for today's Source 4, which I still occasionally and inevitably refer to as a leko, or a Source 4 leko when feeling snarky.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 3, 2016)

TuckerD said:


> The most interesting thing to me from the video is how much more even the field is on the S4WRD. It's not hugely different, but it was noticeable. And depending on the lens barrel and throw it could be a big deal. I was really surprised to see that, and IMO that is a huge bonus for the LED retrofit.


Interesting, since I thought the greater flatness of the S4 when introduced was unfortunate and that LEDs greater flatness is an even more unfortunate development. But then I like 5K a Dynabeam. (Dynabeam should be in the wiki.)


----------



## theatricalmatt (Mar 3, 2016)

The deal with having an even field is that it's much easier to adjust an even field to being uneven -- ie, fuzzing out the edges -- than the inverse.

I wonder how templates look with the 4WRD. Every once in a while I hit on a template that doesn't look great in a Lustr, due to the LED matrix and how certain color LEDs are distributed in the fixture. Usually resolvable by rotating the template, although that's not always desirable either.


----------



## SteveB (Mar 3, 2016)

theatricalmatt said:


> The deal with having an even field is that it's much easier to adjust an even field to being uneven -- ie, fuzzing out the edges -- than the inverse.
> 
> I wonder how templates look with the 4WRD. Every once in a while I hit on a template that doesn't look great in a Lustr, due to the LED matrix and how certain color LEDs are distributed in the fixture. Usually resolvable by rotating the template, although that's not always desirable either.



The video shows a generic breakup side by side.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 3, 2016)

theatricalmatt said:


> The deal with having an even field is that it's much easier to adjust an even field to being uneven -- ie, fuzzing out the edges -- than the inverse.
> 
> I wonder how templates look with the 4WRD. Every once in a while I hit on a template that doesn't look great in a Lustr, due to the LED matrix and how certain color LEDs are distributed in the fixture. Usually resolvable by rotating the template, although that's not always desirable either.


Well, I have never considered evenness across the field to be the same as sharpness of focus - shutter curs and templates, etc. I like the natural hotspot towards the center of the pre S4 ers. Beam angles to centers gave a very even wash across the stage very easily, not to mention actors hit the hot spots as intended.


----------



## TuckerD (Mar 4, 2016)

Sometimes I have found myself wanting a really strong hot spot. So I certainly understand that thinking. But I've usually been able to get close enough by lamp adjustments. I would say that if one of the theaters I work with was going to get a bunch of these I would keep around a few of the regular S4s just for cases like that. 

Long post made short, I can relate to what you are saying Bill.


----------



## RickR (Mar 4, 2016)

Blending S4s is much harder than older ERSs. Is that a bug or a feature?

Has anyone perfected the hole in gel trick, with diffusion to compensate? I haven't gotten that desperate yet, but a rig of super flat beams might drive me to it.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 4, 2016)

RickR said:


> Blending S4s is much harder than older ERSs. Is that a bug or a feature?



I'm glad you said it. I though I was pretty good in my teens and 20s and even into my 30s working with pre-axial ers fixtures. The change to S4s and now LEDs nearly relegates me to a museum as far as actively designing lights for productions. Maybe with a young assistant......


----------



## SteveB (Mar 4, 2016)

I guess I'm in the minority, but I prefer a flat field ERS and have no issues with most of the S4's. I think my 19's and 26 deg. units don't get soft enough at certain distances, but have no issues with gel burnout, as with an earlier generation.

I recall as well my Colortran 6" 15/35 zooms, that had a cupped washer on the lamp alignment cap that allowed a true flat field. Wonderful light and easy to blend area lighting. 

To each his own.


----------



## Michael K (Mar 4, 2016)

TuckerD said:


> Sometimes I have found myself wanting a really strong hot spot. So I certainly understand that thinking. But I've usually been able to get close enough by lamp adjustments. I would say that if one of the theaters I work with was going to get a bunch of these I would keep around a few of the regular S4s just for cases like that.
> 
> Long post made short, I can relate to what you are saying Bill.


The S4WRD still has the field adjustment knob on the back (see PDF page 11 of the manual) I didn't think to try it out at the demo, but I would think it would have at least as much range as a regular HPL S4.


----------



## techieman33 (Mar 4, 2016)

I think that these days you almost always have to take cameras into consideration. You may not be recording video, but someone will be taking selfies and other pictures to post on social media. If your doing straight theater maybe you don't care though. I don't like pictures of shows and events that I'm lighting being posted all over the internet and looking bad.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 4, 2016)

techieman33 said:


> I think that these days you almost always have to take cameras into consideration. You may not be recording video, but someone will be taking selfies and other pictures to post on social media. If your doing straight theater maybe you don't care though. I don't like pictures of shows and events that I'm lighting being posted all over the internet and looking bad.



And flatter fields or not flatter make them look not bad?


----------



## MikeJ (Mar 4, 2016)

BillConnerASTC said:


> And flatter fields or not flatter make them look not bad?


I think this was more of a response to perceived light vs actual


DELO72 said:


> I find it fascinating how meters matter for Film & TV, but don't matter one iota for Theatre or live events. So for a camera, yes- the data on the meter matters. For Live events meters are USELESS in determining what is brighter. For live events, the only thing that matters is audience perception. Back in grad school myself and three other grads. tried to switch from FELs in our ERS fixtures over to GLCs/FLKs. Our professor's argument was that because the FEL put out so much more lumens, it was not a comparable switch. Our argument was that because the FLK/GLC operated at 115V (thereby having a higher CCT when operated at 120V) and had a more compact coil design (allowing it to be collected more efficiently in the reflector), that they put out as much or more PERCEIVED light. So we did a shoot-out. We put two fixtures side by side, and we all agreed the one on the left (with the 575W lamp) was visually brighter to the eye than the one on the right with the FEL-- however our professor metered the two, and the one with the FEL put out more ACTUAL lux. Our argument was-- perception always trumps reality when talking about light. Unless the audience is sitting on stage and all holding light meters, the fact that the meter registered more was 100% moot. It's what the EYE sees and interprets that matters. (At least for LIVE events.)
> 
> So for theatre use, I guess my point is, who cares what the meter says? If it looks as bright, then it IS as bright. Perception > reality in the realm of light.



For theater, I agree to an extent, measured output does not matter as much compared to audience perception, but I would not recommend that a theater currently using 750w lamps, switch to the S4WRD. For EVERYTHING ELSE, that is not theater(with no cameras or photography) it is very important. Events without video? Do those exist anymore? In a world where high output projection, and LED walls are commonplace, overall output and BALANCING sources are vital. Throw some 3K xenon spots into the mix, and even 750w HPLs and 2k fresnels look like nightlights.


----------



## techieman33 (Mar 4, 2016)

BillConnerASTC said:


> And flatter fields or not flatter make them look not bad?



I was refering to further up the page where you were discussing fixture brightness and the human eye versus a light meter. 

As far as fields go I like having a little bit of a hotspot.


----------



## theatricalmatt (Mar 5, 2016)

If I recall correctly, newer Source Four lamp caps aren't compatible with early-generation Source Four fixture bodies, as there are two (or four) prongs that set the cap off from the body.

Any idea if the 4WRD is backwards-compatible with early-generation fixture bodies?


----------

