# ETC Colorsource PAR vs Chauvet Rogue R1 Wash



## TJCornish (Dec 13, 2015)

That may sound like a strange comparison, but stick with me for a minute.

I posted a thread a while ago about mid-grade LED pars with a decent tungsten white. I got some great feedback and researched several models that I wasn't familiar with. The Martin Rush Par 2 is attractive for its brightness and zoom capability, but it's pretty big, which after looking at how I'm going to put these in road cases, seems to be somewhat of a concern.

Anyway, I started looking at the Chalet Rogue series, and it's getting generally good reviews, and is actually in the price range of non-mover PARs. I like the ETC Colorsource Par because it fits my road case scheme, but it requires extra lenses which will push the cost fairly close to the Rogue R1. The Rogue R1 is a little taller than I'd like, but actually is reasonably compact, and I could make it work case-wise, where LxW are more important than height.

So...

My intended application is front wash of people for mid-level corporate-type things. I need a half-decent tungsten look, and would really like to have one fixture able to do both warm white and colors. I previously hadn't considered a mover in this application, but the fixture zoom capability as well as not having to bounce the truss to focus the light definitely is attractive.

How does the R1 Wash do for tungsten white? Any guess as to relative output? Amy I crazy for thinking about this?

I really wish fixtures were more commonly rated in lumens rather than the mush of lux/distance/beam angle/field angle, etc.

Thanks!


----------



## Thetechmanmac (Dec 14, 2015)

TJCornish said:


> My intended application is front wash of people for mid-level corporate-type things. I need a half-decent tungsten look, and would really like to have one fixture able to do both warm white and colors. I previously hadn't considered a mover in this application, but the fixture zoom capability as well as not having to bounce the truss to focus the light definitely is attractive.



I would say that the colorsource is going to have a better warm wash, and more of an effect of a gelled par. As for white, the rogue line has very nice, bright, and even whites. But, it would take some tweaking to get good worm light, instead of just straight amber.

I would just buy one of each and do a side by side comparison!


----------



## JohnD (Dec 14, 2015)

Paging @Ford or other Chauvet boffins, the OP would be a great person to demo this. A few years ago he did a great test of the slim par pro at soundforums.net (which probably sold a lot of those fixtures). I also wonder how the COLORado tour zooms would work in this situation.


----------



## MikeJ (Dec 14, 2015)

The Rogues do a very nice "tungsten" white, even for video. I have used the R2 a lot. I saw the R1, but it was a little small for my needs. When I decided to buy them, they had to satisfy my needs for a good rock and roll light, as well as a good front wash fixture; they fill both rolls quite well. 

I have not seen the color source line of fixtures. Chauvet just released a new Colorado 1 solo and Colordash S-par fixtures that look very promising. I'll be seeing a demo soon. I might try to scare up a colorsource for comparison, but ETC is completely off the radar for any part of the industry that's not theater or dance.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 14, 2015)

A question would be is the ColorSource bright enough for the expected use ?.

We have 32 in 2 spaces where the typical throw is 16 ft or less. I would not be using them in our main rental hall with a 20+ ft throw, but would instead use ETC's Desire D40's or 60's. 

Note that the color is fantastic excepting in the extreme deep blues and indigo. That's just a limitation of the design and choices made to do acceptable colors in the tints within a specific price point. They do put out terrific colors for theatrical use and the lensing options are the best in the business.


----------



## MikeJ (Dec 14, 2015)

Actually, I was wondering if the R1 would be bright enough; its a small fixture, but again, I have not seen the ColorSource. What are the different lenses, and are they easy to change? A lower output fixture will a good zoom range can easily outperform a brighter fixture with a fixed angle, given a long throw.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 14, 2015)

The ColorSource has a double frame slot on the front, like a regular S4, so in addition to lenses you can add any 7.5" accessory such as a top tube. You slide a lense in like a color frame. There are 12 different lensing options.


----------



## soundlight (Dec 15, 2015)

I'd go for the R1 Washes in a hot second. I've gotten a great warm white out of them, and they're way brighter than I expected. And especially for corporate, when things move, you can just tweak the light from the desk, you don't have to fly in a truss or crank in a stand or go out there with a ladder or a carp focus tool and touch it. Get a demo from Chauvet and see what you think, but I would recommend them without reservation. The R1 Washes will *only* be providing you a circular beam of light though, so if you need oval filtering, you're probably going to have to stick in static PAR-land.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 15, 2015)

soundlight said:


> The R1 Washes will *only* be providing you a circular beam of light though, so if you need oval filtering, you're probably going to have to stick in static PAR-land.



Or and as stated, go ETC, whose LED Pars offer a lot of assorted round and oval lenses.


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 15, 2015)

Thanks for the thoughts - I'm encouraged about the white quality of the Rogues. RE brightness and R1 vs R2, I'm on the fence about this. On one hand, the R1 is a bit smaller and I can chain more units together per circuit. For my smallest shows where I currently use my 36x1w Chauvet SlimPAR Pros for (poor quality) front light, I'm confident the R1s will be better in every way, and more smaller units is probably better. For larger events I use 575w S4 fixtures as front wash. They're usually brighter than I need. I've been meaning to start lamping those down to 375 - I think I would be happy there most of the time, but the R1s may not have the guts to replace even a 375w fixture for white.

The argument for the R2 wash is that I can probably replace more fixtures than with R1s: i.e. 1 [email protected]° = 2 [email protected]°. I'll give up some beam angle control trying to hit a larger spot from a single fixture, but it might be worth it.

I'm not overly concerned about beam shape; I will still hang on to my lekos for more demanding stuff, but if I can provide a general wash via inexpensive LED movers, that would be hugely great.

I would appreciate hearing any additional comparisons anyone else has had a chance to do.

Thanks!


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 15, 2015)

SteveB said:


> A question would be is the ColorSource bright enough for the expected use ?.
> 
> We have 32 in 2 spaces where the typical throw is 16 ft or less. I would not be using them in our main rental hall with a 20+ ft throw, but would instead use ETC's Desire D40's or 60's.
> 
> Note that the color is fantastic excepting in the extreme deep blues and indigo. That's just a limitation of the design and choices made to do acceptable colors in the tints within a specific price point. They do put out terrific colors for theatrical use and the lensing options are the best in the business.


Please allow me to ask a dumb question. Why do people talk about "throw" relative to fixture brightness? It seems meaningless to me, as a wide fixture with a short throw and a narrower fixture farther away will put the same light on the same area (small optical efficiency variations aside). Is there some standard beam angle I'm supposed to assume as standard for comparison?


----------



## TheKid (Dec 15, 2015)

TJCornish said:


> Please allow me to ask a dumb question. Why do people talk about "throw" relative to fixture brightness? It seems meaningless to me, as a wide fixture with a short throw and a narrower fixture farther away will put the same light on the same area (small optical efficiency variations aside). Is there some standard beam angle I'm supposed to assume as standard for comparison?



Knowing the projected throw of your fixtures helps determine what lights you need to put where in a space. Let's say you have a bunch of long throw fixtures which have been working fine so far, but then you show up to a space where the lighting positions are not far enough away for your lights, and now those narrow beams that blended perfectly from 20 feet leave a bunch of dark gaps at 15.

The other idea is that a certain fixture might look really bright and colorful as basic wall uplighting, because it's right up against the surface it's lighting. However, once you start using those fixtures as top light, they all get washed out and appear less bright since they're now 20 feet away from what they're lighting.


----------



## derekleffew (Dec 15, 2015)

TJCornish said:


> ... Why do people talk about "throw" relative to fixture brightness? ...


Easy answer is because "intensity is inversely proportional to throw distance squared, [FC=BCP/d^2]." But regardless of intensity, one probably wouldn't want to use a 50° fixture at 50', nor a 10° fixture at 10'; infact exactly the opposite. OTOH, a 26° at 26' may be just right. Whether we're talking about beam angle or field angle is a slightly different discussion.

Choosing intensity vs. pool size is kind of a chicken-egg situation. Correct intensity may result in too large (fix with beam shaping) or too small (fix by adding fixtures). Correct pool size may result in too bright (fix by easily dimming) or too dim (fix by adding fixtures?).


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 15, 2015)

derekleffew said:


> Easy answer is because "intensity is inversely proportional to throw distance squared, [FC=BCP/d^2]." But regardless of intensity, one probably wouldn't want to use a 50° fixture at 50', nor a 10° fixture at 10'; infact exactly the opposite. OTOH, a 26° at 26' may be just right. Whether we're talking about beam angle or field angle is a slightly different discussion.
> 
> Choosing intensity vs. pool size is kind of a chicken-egg situation. Correct intensity may result in too large (fix with beam shaping) or too small (fix by adding fixtures). Correct pool size may result in too bright (fix by easily dimming) or too dim (fix by adding fixtures?).


Exactly. So why do people say "this fixture is only good at XX throw distance", which seems to me pretty useless information, as the lux/fc per pool size is what matters, not the arbitrary distance between the fixture and the object, which can be compensated for by lens changes. I can easily add a different lens to the Colorsouce Par to make it wider, the tradeoff being brightness. I don't want to pick on SteveB as I've heard other people say similar things; I'm assuming that since I have more of an R&R background rather than a theater background I'm missing some piece of convention - i.e. you always talk about a 10' diameter pool @ 50fc - that is obvious to you all.


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 15, 2015)

TheKid said:


> Knowing the projected throw of your fixtures helps determine what lights you need to put where in a space. Let's say you have a bunch of long throw fixtures which have been working fine so far, but then you show up to a space where the lighting positions are not far enough away for your lights, and now those narrow beams that blended perfectly from 20 feet leave a bunch of dark gaps at 15.
> 
> The other idea is that a certain fixture might look really bright and colorful as basic wall uplighting, because it's right up against the surface it's lighting. However, once you start using those fixtures as top light, they all get washed out and appear less bright since they're now 20 feet away from what they're lighting.


Once again I understand that a given light gets dimmer and the pool gets larger as you move farther from your object, and vice versa. I'm just trying to understand why fixtures - especially zoomable ones are discussed as "this one only throws 16'" rather than some more objective language.


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 15, 2015)

I spent a few minutes pulling data from spec sheets and doing my best at getting things into a comparable form. Huge caveats: 1. It's been a long time since math class, 2. Spec sheets are pretty inconsistent, 3. I'm a bit sleep deprived and possibly error-prone due to a late gig last night, but I did the best I could in 45 minutes of quick calculation.

Submitted without further comment. Corrections welcome/appreciated/expected.


----------



## TheKid (Dec 15, 2015)

TJCornish said:


> Once again I understand that a given light gets dimmer and the pool gets larger as you move farther from your object, and vice versa. I'm just trying to understand why fixtures - especially zoomable ones are discussed as "this one only throws 16'" rather than some more objective language.



I believe the metric is an 8' diameter pool of light (please, correct me if I'm wrong). The point of telling people that a certain instrument has a throw of 16' is to tell them that 16' is the optimal distance at which you will get an 8' pool of light with optimal illumination. However, I feel like 'throw distances' are a more outdated method of talking about what your beam of light does, which is why it's more likely to hear someone give you an instrument specification in degrees (19, 26, 36, etc). Optics quality has become much more reliable and consistent and the industry standard fixtures can be expected to perform just as well for many different functions throughout your hang space.

Also, although on a much less specific scale, the throw type of an instrument is a pretty good indicator of what you can do with that particular unit. A short throw unit (let's say an S4 36*) will tend to me more for general washes and area light whereas a long throw unit (19* for this example) will do a good as a special.

EDIT:
But then, that's talking about ERS units. I don't think I've ever heard a differentiation between 'long' or 'short' throw wash-specific units, except for lens type.


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 15, 2015)

TJCornish said:


> I spent a few minutes pulling data from spec sheets and doing my best at getting things into a comparable form. Huge caveats: 1. It's been a long time since math class, 2. Spec sheets are pretty inconsistent, 3. I'm a bit sleep deprived and possibly error-prone due to a late gig last night, but I did the best I could in 45 minutes of quick calculation.
> 
> Submitted without further comment. Corrections welcome/appreciated/expected.View attachment 12789


Found my first error - the 3 S4 PAR entries are for 750w, 575w, and 375w, respectively. The input watts column is correct, the fixture column incorrectly lists the 575w version twice. Third line is the 375w. All other values in that row are correct.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 15, 2015)

TJ, sorry for all the confusion, I can see where I am being less then specific and helpful.

When I question the value of a ColorSource for your intended use, I am of course making a judgement call based on my own experience, which is not at all useful to you.

I know how much punch I get out of my wide flood S4 Pars at 750 watts at +20ft. I see that every day in my space so I'm familiar with that fixture at that throw with that lens and field size. I can see that a ColorSource is not going to give me the same intensity at the same throw with a lens matched to the same field size. My very subjective judgment tells me that in the smaller theater where we use ETC LED Pars, they are about the same intensity as a 6" fresnel at 750 watts, when the ColorSource is using the wide round lens, which is supposed to be about a 70 deg. spread. Thus for my use in the larger theater I would spec. a Desire and probably a D60 as too much intensity can be dimmed where as you cannot get more light out of a fixture then what it comes with.

Thus the best answer for you is to do a real side-by-side test, unit next to unit against what you already use, but in general and as I look at the spec's and price of the Chauvet R1, that is the fixture I would go for in your application due to the fact that it moves and zooms. That's probably going to be a huge time saver over a static fixture and will have many additional uses besides a face light front light on a truss. Consider the issue you can encounter frequently when the rig is up, the client makes a major change and getting a Genie out or lowering the truss a few times for focus is difficult. Having a mover with zoom is huge advantage.

From what I'm seeing on assorted spec. sheets, the Chauvet has pretty good punch as compared to a ColorSource, when zoomed in, but like all units loses intensity quickly when you go full zoom out. My Aura's do the same, FWIW.

But the bottom line is color and how it reads on faces, if you follow your original stated intent as a truss front light for corporate events. ETC is known for the best color out of their LED's especially for "other then R&R saturated" colors. Not sure you'd get the same refinement out of a Chauvet and I know I cannot get the range of the ColorSource from my Aura's.

@ ETC in general. You guys really need to be putting the ColorSource and Desire Pars into a zoomable and moving head unit. You own the color part, what's missing big time is the moving and zooming.


----------



## MikeJ (Dec 15, 2015)

If you are currently using Slimpar Pros as a front wash, then the R1 will be a very good improvement in, output, color quality, and versatility. I have used Slimpar pros for just about everything, but now they are pretty much just used as truss toners, or uplights(when I can't have WELLS). The R1 wash, as far as output and coverage area will easily replace 2 slim pars for wash purposes. If you are using these to replace the SlimPars, then I think you will be pretty happy with them. The R2 wash does offer almost triple the LED's, but a lot of times more smaller fixtures is better than less big ones. For corporate flash, a US row of 10 R1 wash for ballys and chases during award presentations or walkups, will look more impressive than 6 R2's. Output does not make that much difference but more fixtures gives effect shapes and chases more impact and definition. 

You can always add R2's to your inventory later, if you feel more output is needed, and the R1's can still be used add a ton of value to an event for decor and effect lighting. 
You should try to get a demo of both though, It might make sense to get some of each. Find a local Chauvet dealer on the website, and give them a call. If they don't have any in stock their Chauvet rep can ship them some demo units, so you can take a look in person.

So, here is my further rambling argument for movers over Static pars.

Even if you only have say 8 units as a stage wash replacing SlimPars, a lot of times you can leave 2 on the presenter, then still use the other 6 as a bally for an award walk-up, and have them settle into a full stage wash as soon as the recipient gets to the stage. This setup is faster, because you focus from the board, looks a ton better on stage than slimpars, and being able to do effects and decor lighting during dinner or cocktails, adds a lot of value to your services compared to using static pars. Corporate clients don't have any Idea about Brands, model number or CRI; they want the end product to meet their vision for an event, and they could care less what tools you use to accomplish that. 

For my money, and for your application, I think that the R1/R2 offers much better ROI than a ColorSource Par, simply because its a versatile product. Most clients don't know 3200k from 5600k, or between a SlimPar Pro and a ColorSource Par, but they understand that one product lets you light the stage, and the other one lets you light the stage, and light the ceiling, and do ballyhoos and a bunch of other cool stuff.

When comparing the difference in color rendering between The ColorSource and a Rogue, yes CRI is measurable, and I don't know what it is on either one, but in reality and practical use, its subjective. The quality of the Rogue washes is very good, I would not hesitate to use them for most small to medium corporate events for a stage wash, and for rock and roll, no problems at all.

As far as the comment about ETC making a moving head LED, I don't know why they have not entered that market, but I don't like the look of either the ColorSource or the Desire as a mover.
Right now, Individual circle lenses on the face of an LED like the ColorSource, are a non-starter, look at the Rogue and Aura, both have lens segments between the circles for a much more unified look,
and the Christmas tree light face on the D series are reminiscent of first gen DJ moving lights; It would look like a joke.


----------



## MikeJ (Dec 15, 2015)

soundlight said:


> The R1 Washes will *only* be providing you a circular beam of light though, so if you need oval filtering, you're probably going to have to stick in static PAR-land.




SteveB said:


> Or and as stated, go ETC, whose LED Pars offer a lot of assorted round and oval lenses.



You know, I never really considered the oval beam of a Par to be a feature. I always considered it to be a natural artifact of the lens and filament shape, an not necessarily a desirable one. The MFL and WFL S4 has a less defined "bottle" than a par 64, and to me that was always a good thing, VN, and VNSP in S4 are circular, simple because of the shape of the HPL lamp compared to the long filament of a PAR 64.


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 16, 2015)

SteveB said:


> TJ, sorry for all the confusion, I can see where I am being less then specific and helpful.
> 
> When I question the value of a ColorSource for your intended use, I am of course making a judgement call based on my own experience, which is not at all useful to you.
> 
> ...


Thanks Steve, I appreciate your experiences.


----------



## TJCornish (Dec 16, 2015)

MikeJ said:


> If you are currently using Slimpar Pros as a front wash, then the R1 will be a very good improvement in, output, color quality, and versatility. I have used Slimpar pros for just about everything, but now they are pretty much just used as truss toners, or uplights(when I can't have WELLS). The R1 wash, as far as output and coverage area will easily replace 2 slim pars for wash purposes. If you are using these to replace the SlimPars, then I think you will be pretty happy with them. The R2 wash does offer almost triple the LED's, but a lot of times more smaller fixtures is better than less big ones. For corporate flash, a US row of 10 R1 wash for ballys and chases during award presentations or walkups, will look more impressive than 6 R2's. Output does not make that much difference but more fixtures gives effect shapes and chases more impact and definition.
> 
> You can always add R2's to your inventory later, if you feel more output is needed, and the R1's can still be used add a ton of value to an event for decor and effect lighting.
> You should try to get a demo of both though, It might make sense to get some of each. Find a local Chauvet dealer on the website, and give them a call. If they don't have any in stock their Chauvet rep can ship them some demo units, so you can take a look in person.
> ...


Thanks Mike. I'm glad you're familiar with the SlimPar Pros - that's a super helpful datapoint. 

I only use the SlimPAR Pros as primary white for very small events when it's the only choice. Normally some 575w S4 lekos do that job, however they are physically large and only one beam angle, so I have to stock two sets of lights for long/short throw and deal with external dimmers. Going to a variable angle par-style fixture for general wash (still need the lekos for gobo projection and shuttering sometimes) will save a lot of space and be significantly more flexible. 

I'm glad to hear the R1 is ~2x the output of the SlimPAR Pro, and that's approximately what my chart shows (which means my conversions may actually be worth something) and also that it can make a better white. I'm still on the fence about the R1/R2. As I mentioned, the 575w S4 level is usually too bright, so I don't need the full output of the R2 (assuming my numbers are right), but I may be able to replace more than 1:1 with the R2, where the R1 might be more of a fixture to fixture replacement of what I currently have.

Fixture cost matters of course, but looking at the longer view, R2 fixtures may cost me less in the long run if I can use them to replace more stuff.

Thanks for the thoughts!


----------



## JohnD (Dec 22, 2015)

MikeJ said:


> As far as the comment about ETC making a moving head LED, I don't know why they have not entered that market, but I don't like the look of either the ColorSource or the Desire as a mover.
> Right now, Individual circle lenses on the face of an LED like the ColorSource, are a non-starter, look at the Rogue and Aura, both have lens segments between the circles for a much more unified look,
> and the Christmas tree light face on the D series are reminiscent of first gen DJ moving lights; It would look like a joke.


It seems they are moving in the moving light direction:

http://www.etcconnect.com/Careers/Automated-Lighting.aspx


----------



## TJCornish (Jan 19, 2016)

Posting a followup - I am now the owner of some Chauvet Rogue R2 Wash fixtures. Thanks to all who responded here and also to @Ford for his information and help getting product in time for my show.

I'm glad I went with the R2 fixtures - I think the R1s wouldn't have been bright enough or as flexible, and I actually had a lot of fun with the pixel-mapping features of the R2.

The show I used them for was a youth event with not a lot of time to program as I was actually on stage performing, so after doing the initial setup, I handed the reigns over to someone else to operate the board. I have more shows coming up where I'll be able to be more intentional with programming, but for this show, they were perfect.

I used them as front wash, and found that with my board (ETC SmartFade ML), the fixture's 3000K preset looked better than what I could mix (SmartFade ML doesn't have an RGBW color model, so I used RGB and put the W on a color wheel channel). I was very happy with the color quality. I'm sure it's not Selecon-quality, but for my R&R-type purposes, it looked great.

The other use was for walk-in ballying and for the dance party part of the event. Due to very limited programming time, I relied on the internal color macros. They were really helpful to have, and made for a lot of fun with pretty minimal programming effort.

I'm really glad I went this way rather than a non-mover PAR fixture. The price of these fixtures is very reasonable for what they do. Hopefully I can grab another batch of these in the future.

When life calms down I will do a shootout of the fixtures I have access to for a comparison.


----------



## Ford (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm glad they worked out for you TJ!

I'd love to see the shootout data when you have the time.

-Ford


----------



## TJCornish (Jan 19, 2016)

Will do. My only complaint was the "Omega" bracket doesn't accommodate the standard 3/4" bolt head of the Light Source Mega Claw clamps I use. The hole size is fine, but the milling of the Omega bracket doesn't allow for the head of the bolt to turn, so I had to machine them a bit to make it work. It would be great to get that minor thing changed.


----------



## MikeJ (Jan 19, 2016)

TJCornish said:


> Will do. My only complaint was the "Omega" bracket doesn't accommodate the standard 3/4" bolt head of the Light Source Mega Claw clamps I use. The hole size is fine, but the milling of the Omega bracket doesn't allow for the head of the bolt to turn, so I had to machine them a bit to make it work. It would be great to get that minor thing changed.



Yeah, that fact that the bolt head is "locked" into the bracket is annoying. I use Mini-claws on these and with the...whatever the dome shaped washer is called, I can get them tight, but they are a pain to change if you need to rotate the clamp 90 degrees. 

One side note, If you want to hang these on a vertical pipe/truss, make sure you orient the omega bracket so it is vertical. While I don't think this is a published, it seems that there is a lot of stress on the receivers on the fixture of you have them horizontal, and they will sag a uncomfortable amount.

The washers on TheLightSource clamps with the fancy washer, have enough give to be tightened 90 degrees tighter/from the "normal"position, them back without any problem. I have hung them on a vertical truss in the horizntal position, then just twisted the fixture 90, and it worked out good. A little annoying though.

All things considered, Its a great fixture, and reliability has been really good for me. I hope you get some good use out of them.

@Ford It would be nice if the head of a bolt could spin freely in the omega brackets, just enough to fit a standard socket over the bolt head. This is really the only problem I have with the fixture.


----------



## Pie4Weebl (Jan 19, 2016)

MikeJ said:


> Yeah, that fact that the bolt head is "locked" into the bracket is annoying. I use Mini-claws on these and with the...whatever the dome shaped washer is called, I can get them tight, but they are a pain to change if you need to rotate the clamp 90 degrees.
> 
> One side note, If you want to hang these on a vertical pipe/truss, make sure you orient the omega bracket so it is vertical. While I don't think this is a published, it seems that there is a lot of stress on the receivers on the fixture of you have them horizontal, and they will sag a uncomfortable amount.



Good looking out on that. Ditto your complaint on the bracket, if you try and use the chauvet clamp you end up with "cut" hardware on both sides which makes it hard to get it right where you want.


----------

