# Source 4 or Shakespeare



## jyenish (Nov 26, 2005)

I have a question for the community, 

As far as I can tell the Source 4 and the Shakespeare luminaries are pretty much the same light. The Shakespeare is more expensive for some reason, can anyone tell me why? What about the Shakespeare makes it worth the cost over the source 4?


----------



## moojoe (Nov 26, 2005)

as someone who owns both of them, there is no reason why the shakespeare is more expensive.
infact, the shakespeare, compaired to the S4, sucks majorly.

Its heavier
it can be a bitch to focus
getting the damn gel clip open is hell
getting the damn lens barrel out is hell
the shutters piss me off
its not as easy to get a sharp image
i dont like the lamp
the reflector isnt as good
did i mention that its freeking heavier?!
its more expensive
its not as widely used thus parts are slightly harder to get
they have this great tendincy to kinda drop a few cm. especially during focus
Altman customer service has nothing on ETC
i think, though froget, that theyre slightly bigger

the only thing that the shakespeare has over the S4 is that the accessory slot has thumbscrews compaired to actual screws, making it a lot easier to drop a glass gobo or iris into the unit while in the air.


----------



## JP12687 (Nov 26, 2005)

I just did some work with the Strand SL series, and was actually pretty impressed, mostly because of the fact that the entire unit can rotate, not just the barrel.


----------



## propmonkey (Nov 26, 2005)

the newer s4 have grips on the screws of iris cover so you dont need a screw driver to losen them. i just dotn make them really tight so i can losen them with my fingers


----------



## moojoe (Nov 26, 2005)

ah, did not know that. nice feature. then the shakespeare has nothing over the S4. also, i dont think i mentioned this, the lamp is cheaper for S4s, and you can dimmer double.


----------



## jonhirsh (Nov 26, 2005)

this is just a guess but i think the reason there cheeper is because they are not as widely excepted so they havent sold as many units and when you make a product buying materials in bulk makes the end price cheeper. thus if they sold more of them it might be cheeper to make thus cheeper to buy. 

JH


----------



## moojoe (Nov 26, 2005)

wait, you said that the cheeper product isnt as widely excepted, was this a typo?


----------



## jonhirsh (Nov 26, 2005)

ok here is my corection


cheeper = wideley excepted because materials are bought in bulk. 


more expensive = less excepted because they cannot buy as much of the materials.


----------



## ship (Nov 27, 2005)

Lamps being cheaper is also something of a it all depends question.

Have to agree with the concept of more S-4 fixtures being sold thus their cost. I'm yet to use a Shakespehere so I can't comment on it being better or worse.

On the other hand, there is more lamps available for a Shakesphere than for a S-4 (dimmer duplexing lamps excepted). The most modern lamps that can be used in a Shakespehere kick the rear over that of a HPL for output and efficiency.

Given I have not used the fixture, I can not say what the fixture can do with these lamps. They are also standardized lamps as can be also used on the SL line of fixture. (Given the SL is only rated for 575w if I remember correctly which seriously limits them.) This standard type of lamp in crossing brands, along with Gel Frames etc. are selling points for the Altman line.

Other than that, the S-4 at this point is for the most part a industry standard. Given this, it's normally wise to get something that everyone else is buying or expectating to see.


----------



## kingfisher1 (Nov 27, 2005)

i heard somewherre that Altman lost a patent battle to ETC because the shakespere was very similar to the Source 4, now altman pays ETC a couple bucks for every Shakespere sold. that could acount for the extra expensive. now this could be totally inacurate, i'm jsut repeating what some one said to me once.


----------



## tenor_singer (Nov 27, 2005)

I had friend who sold theater fixtures in the Cleveland area tell me that despite the fact that Strand was cheaper, it was also harder to find replacement parts. I think his direct quote to me was "don't become 'STRANDed' for centuries looking for parts".

Could this be the reason?


----------



## jfbach (Nov 27, 2005)

Another thing about SL's is that without a 5-inch gel extender, you will burn through gels instantly.


----------



## sandals1621 (Nov 27, 2005)

The Shakespeare IMO is an inferior product.... Altmans answer to the Source 4. Ive had the 2 side by side and feel the output of the Shakespeare is less of the Source 4, and it feels as if any adjustment on the shakespeare is awkward.
And with the amount of Source 4's in rental inventories across the nation if you ever need to supplement your equipment, need excess barrels etc they are easily accessible.


----------



## jonhirsh (Nov 27, 2005)

as much as i love the s4 we have to get our facts straight, the s4 was the answer to altmans fixture not the other way around. 



JH


----------



## JP12687 (Nov 27, 2005)

"don't become 'STRANDed' for centuries looking for parts"

I love the irony of that

The strand part is funny, but what makes it even better, is if i remember correctly Strand used to be century lighting....


----------



## jyenish (Nov 27, 2005)

Just to clear something up, the S4 was released at LDI in 1992, the Shakespeare was released at the 1993 LDI. Advertisements for the S4 hit TCI magazine in early 1993, while the Shakespeare didn't show advertisements until 1994. So which came first for shure?


----------



## moojoe (Nov 27, 2005)

JP12687 said:


> "don't become 'STRANDed' for centuries looking for parts"
> 
> I love the irony of that
> 
> The strand part is funny, but what makes it even better, is if i remember correctly Strand used to be century lighting....



thats exactly what i thought when i read it.
though wasnt Century another company that was bought by Strand, then kinda shut down a few years later?


----------



## fosstech (Nov 28, 2005)

Yep, Strand bought Century. For a while, their instruments said "STRAND CENTURY" on them. The theatre at my old school was full of Strand/Century lekos, fresnels, borderlights, and scoops. It was built in I think 1986.


----------



## ship (Nov 29, 2005)

The Strand/Altman/ETC debate on which followed the others and which became the other might be more a source for term paper question in research. While the ETC might have come out first, about all these fixtures in a third generation of Leko were it would seem under development and by way of study of the other past products produced following another brand. Leko (Lekolight) stems from the Century brand name which Strand bought out and retains.

Now girls, you are all pretty. Some research into TCI/Theater Crafts at the time and Lighing Dimensions will prove useful to read in addition to especially what lamps for them gained “Widget of the year” in articles about them. The ETC fixture followed a study of the Altman and Stand second generation fixtures as an improvement to the downfalls of them for the most part. Was this first era of S-4 a huge improvement? Yes in some ways optically and in other ways, but it also featured a non-standard gel frame size, unique lamp and most important it was only rated for 575w as a maximum lamp rating. The Shakespeare in waiting a year was rated for the more normal 750w rating and took in addition to improved lamps, the older second generation lamps in all around being a more standard for what is already out there fixture that did not have to wait a few years to get more output and other improvements to it’s design. Such improved lamps could also be as a standard, used on any second generation fixture no matter the brand. This Times Square, L&E, Altman, or Strand as major suppliers all using the same lamps and gel frames as that of a 6" Fresnel or PAR 56.

So it would seem as a initial point, the S-4 came out first, but needed upgrades in at least wattage the Shakespeare did not. That 575w line of S-4 did not last long in production. This than cannot be considered the same fixture in what came out first but is no longer the same fixture. The Altman on the other hand has not changed for the most part since it was introduced.

All are good designs, and with the Euro based Selecon all brands have good values to them. Granted ETC is the third generation fixture, it is in a Altman/Strand debate of the 1980's any much different in not being a perfect fixture or in having features the others don’t do better or that it does better than.

All are good fixtures as a in-general. All in a few years will be replaced by something more better.


----------



## SteveB (Nov 29, 2005)

Well Ship, that's one take on it. 

Altman licensed the S4 design to produce the Shakespeare. I assume they still pay a fee per fixture.

The S4 had the 575w lamp for a few years before a re-design that increased the wattage to 750. Shakespeare did allow use of a 750w lamp, but it wasn't as bright as the 575 !, so nobody used it. Remember too that one advantage of 575 was 4 lamps per 2400 watt dimmer. And the original lamp(s) for the Shakes - HX600's, FLK's etc.. were miserable lamps in terms of shock resistance as compared to an HPL. The 750 watt HPL lamp in an S4 is much brighter then anything available in the Shakespeare and it'a a mystery why there isn't a 750 watt lamp with the filement design of the GLC as example for the Shake. 

When the S4 came to the market, it was a HUGE improvement over ANYTHING else out there. Yes it had a different frame size, but you could get 9 cuts off a gel sheet vs. 6 with a 7.5" frame. 

- It was smaller
- It was brighter, as bright as a 1Kw 360Q, which wasn't rated for 1kw anyway
- It had front end rotation
- It had the dichroic reflector, which cut down on heat at the gate, etc...

All of the improvments were quickly recognized by the industry and the unit has become the industry standard, for good reason, so while there may be a good bit more lamp options in the Shakespeare, it's like saying a Ford accepts more types of tires compared to a Lexus. So what. Putting a great lamp into a so-so fuxture still doesn't get you a fixture as good as the S4 

Just for reference. I have 48 Shake 30 and 40 fixtures, as well as 20 Shake 15/35 zooms, plus 24 S4 19, 26 and 36, as well as 72 S4 Jr. Zooms. I use all daily, with my opinion that the S4 is a vastly superior fixture in day-to- day use. I've purchased my last Altman ellipsoidal.

SB


----------



## SteveB (Nov 29, 2005)

Well Ship, that's one take on it. 

Altman licensed the S4 design to produce the Shakespeare. I assume they still pay a fee per fixture.

The S4 had the 575w lamp for a few years before a re-design that increased the wattage to 750. Shakespeare did allow use of a 750w lamp, but it wasn't as bright as the 575 !, so nobody used it. Remember too that one advantage of 575 was 4 lamps per 2400 watt dimmer. And the original lamp(s) for the Shakes - HX600's, FLK's etc.. were miserable lamps in terms of shock resistance as compared to an HPL. The 750 watt HPL lamp in an S4 is much brighter then anything available in the Shakespeare and it'a a mystery why there isn't a 750 watt lamp with the filement design of the GLC as example for the Shake. 

When the S4 came to the market, it was a HUGE improvement over ANYTHING else out there. Yes it had a different frame size, but you could get 9 cuts off a gel sheet vs. 6 with a 7.5" frame. 

- It was smaller
- It was brighter, as bright as a 1Kw 360Q, which wasn't rated for 1kw anyway
- It had front end rotation
- It had the dichroic reflector, which cut down on heat at the gate, etc...

All of the improvments were quickly recognized by the industry and the unit has become the industry standard, for good reason, so while there may be a good bit more lamp options in the Shakespeare, it's like saying a Ford accepts more types of tires compared to a Lexus. So what. Putting a great lamp into a so-so fuxture still doesn't get you a fixture as good as the S4 

Just for reference. I have 48 Shake 30 and 40 fixtures, as well as 20 Shake 15/35 zooms, plus 24 S4 19, 26 and 36, as well as 72 S4 Jr. Zooms. I use all daily, with my opinion that the S4 is a vastly superior fixture in day-to- day use. I've purchased my last Altman ellipsoidal.

SB


----------



## soundlight (Nov 29, 2005)

I've go the old century strand 2331 ellipsoidals and i agree completely with that irony.


----------



## sandals1621 (Nov 29, 2005)

jonhirsh said:


> as much as i love the s4 we have to get our facts straight, the s4 was the answer to altmans fixture not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> JH



In emails I have just received back from Altman and ETC....

The Shakespeare was released for sale in 1994

The ETC Source 4 and Sensor dimmer rack were released for sale at LDI 1992


----------



## moojoe (Nov 29, 2005)

SteveB said:


> Just for reference. I have 48 Shake 30 and 40 fixtures, as well as 20 Shake 15/35 zooms, plus 24 S4 19, 26 and 36, as well as 72 S4 Jr. Zooms. I use all daily, with my opinion that the S4 is a vastly superior fixture in day-to- day use. I've purchased my last Altman ellipsoidal.
> SB



what exactly is the difference between the S4 and the S4 Jr? ive never really been told this.


----------



## SteveB (Nov 29, 2005)

S4 Jr:

- Only rated for 575w. 

- The front end does not rotate. 

- Lense tubes are not interchangable

SB


----------



## jonhirsh (Nov 29, 2005)

relesed for sale yes but which one was created first?

JH


----------



## SteveB (Nov 29, 2005)

The S4 ellipsoidal was developed by David Cunningham for ETC. DC also created the Sensor dimmer, ENR dimmer for Colortran, Prestige console series for Colortran and the Strand Light Pallette.

Altman licensed the S4 design concept from ETC and produced the Shakespeare. 

Thus the S4 came first.

SB


----------



## ship (Nov 30, 2005)

Agreed on most points, or agree to disagree on some details: 


SteveB said:


> Altman licensed the S4 design to produce the Shakespeare. I assume they still pay a fee per fixture.



Had not known this. What I did know was Altman put a lot of work into their own fixture, and in a past article about the S-4, it was based upon the advantages and disadvantages of the past fixtures including and especially the 360Q which was more my point. Info I have about the Shakespere came from what was described to me about the development of the fixture and lamp in a long past phone conversation about it with one of the developers. The ETC fixture or licence was never mentioned.



SteveB said:


> The S4 had the 575w lamp for a few years before a re-design that increased the wattage to 750. Shakespeare did allow use of a 750w lamp, but it wasn't as bright as the 575 !, so nobody used it. And the original lamp(s) for the Shakes - HX600's, FLK's etc.. were miserable lamps in terms of shock resistance as compared to an HPL. The 750 watt HPL lamp in an S4 is much brighter then anything available in the Shakespeare and it'a a mystery why there isn't a 750 watt lamp with the filement design of the GLC as example for the Shake.




A EHG and a HX-600 and a GLA in testing at least for shin busters in a 360Q seemed the same but that's te extent I have tested these in comparison. Agreed on the shock resistance of the HX-600 especially dependant upon the brand. Forget which brand a old TD of mine would curse, but he would take alternatives to that brand. Filament of the FLK/HX-600 is also less efficient - it did win the widget of the year however still. - I am guessing 1994. I also still have my pre-market Thorn lamp sample which has never broken due to shock. The Ushio HX-800 lamp while short on it's actual wattage for a detail amongst other things and short lived I think in still being produced pre-dates the advent of the HPL 750 lamp by memory. It's a catalog somewhere burried within a pallet of stuff from my desk so I won't be able to confirm which was first for a few weeks.

Point I made I think still correct that the Shakesphere did not have to have an upgrade to 750w in being a finished product - even if the more efficient 750w lamps were not out on the market yet, the current S-4 fixture did.

Within the last two or three years, GE/Thorn has come out with the HX-754 and HX-755 series which is now GLD and GLE lamps. They are the rough equivolent of the 750w series of HPL and of similar construction to the GLA/GLC. (Ushio also might or might not still be making the HX-800/801 line of lamp which should also be similar.) Better than these for high output would be the Philips #6981P 750w/115v lamp designed for the High End Systems Color Command fixture. It is the highest output and most efficient 750w lamp out there and will work in a Shakesphere.




SteveB said:


> When the S4 came to the market, it was a HUGE improvement over ANYTHING else out there.



Agreed and I am not debating if S-4 is better than Shakesphere, or which came first in not having been around the Shakesphere. I was only making the point that the finished improved product of the S-4 is different than what was first to come out and the Shakesphere has not had to be improved. Thus was the intent of my point.



SteveB said:


> All of the improvments were quickly recognized by the industry and the unit has become the industry standard, for good reason, so while there may be a good bit more lamp options in the Shakespeare, it's like saying a Ford accepts more types of tires compared to a Lexus. So what. Putting a great lamp into a so-so fuxture still doesn't get you a fixture as good as the S4



Agreed the ETC is an industry standard over other fixtures at this point. I would like at some point to do a shoot out of a HPR 575w/115v and #6981P lamp in a Shakesphere verses that of a HPL 575/115v and HPL750/115v lamped S-4 fixtures. If I am correct the Shakesphere will have a better output given these lamps. This given even if more efficient with the newer lamps, it would not matter because it would still be smarter to buy a standard for the industry fixture probably.

Contact me off line and I will attempt to hook you up to do a play test comparison if interested.


----------



## SteveB (Nov 30, 2005)

Hey Ship

"Within the last two or three years, GE/Thorn has come out with the HX-754 and HX-755 series which is now GLD and GLE lamps. They are the rough equivolent of the 750w series of HPL and of similar construction to the GLA/GLC. (Ushio also might or might not still be making the HX-800/801 line of lamp which should also be similar.) Better than these for high output would be the Philips #6981P 750w/115v lamp designed for the High End Systems Color Command fixture. It is the highest output and most efficient 750w lamp out there and will work in a Shakesphere"

I have to say that I have yet to meet anyone in the industry who knows lamps as you do !. I'm always impressed.

I believe the original Shakes were rated at 750 to allow usage of the Med 2 Pin lamps, of which EHG was the one I used (in other fixtures). Like all Altman products though, I wonder how well the fixture lasted with that lamp, before the reflector melted and the lens shattered. I have a lot of the Altman 4.5" zoooms, of which I'm very fond, all were rated at 750w and had many, many, many lenses shatter at that wattage. Perhaps the Shake fares better, with the dichroic reflector keeping some of the heat out of the front end. As I have no need for the intensity out of my current Shakes, I'll pass on the taste test.

As to side by side comparasions, I am of the opinion that the S4 is a better designed and built fixture. I have fewer issues with stripped screws, etc... with ETC. Thus I'll stick to with ETC.

SB


----------



## ship (Nov 30, 2005)

I have a few people I ask questions to that know 100 times more than I, but when I need to I have the flexibility in job as the buyer to sit at my computer all day and study them should I wish. That helps in staying one step ahead of the masses. Yesterday I was shown a print out of the new Philips Mac 2K lamp the boss was interested in buying. As if a new lamp, I already knew about the lamp over a year ago and play tested it six months ago. Nice lamp, now if they want to pay to have us conver all our 6K color temperature lamps to the 75K ones, that's fine with me. Otherwise it's not worth switching unitl a lot of designers start asking for their fixtures to be brighter. In other words, it's my job to stay one step or a few months ahead of the boss' great ideas or the challenges of getting new fixtures and suddenly needing lamps for them at the last minute when while buying the fixtures someone forgot to buy spares to them.

Agreed on all you have said - teoretically. About a thousand S-4 Lekos in the inventory tends to slant my view on what I see in problems with them. On the other hand, while reflectors will loose their coatings and need to be replaced similar to all fixtures, it's very rare a shutter will melt down or lens break. Than there is the Euro verses Domestic ones that somehow got slipped into our inventory in causing headaches with replacement screws and interchangable parts. Amongst other slight things about them. But this verses no Shakespheres in the inventory, it tends to weigh more on what you and many others have said about their usefulness of the S-4 over the Shakesphere when one has both fixtures to compare with. 

This other than in the lamp where as seen, a lamp developed for a HES fixture or the GLC (debatably for the SL ???) will also fit in this one or any of the type. This is a selling point with me as it has always been. This in addition to my own 3.5Q6 fixture out punching a S-4 Leko with a similar wattage lamp. Granted the "Altman Dark Spot" could not be gotten rid of completely.

Advances in lamps will probably first be seen in the Medium Bi-Pin G-9.5 series of lamp over that of theh Medium Bi-Pin G-9.5*HS series of lamp. Same basic lamp - the origional GLA series of Philips lamp with the removable heat sink proved it. Different filaments but not by much. 

I like a standardization of lamps concept where given a mixed new verses old fixture inventory they can still use the same lamps. Not that much wrong with the HPL in general, they have had some good improvements to them and all brands at this point have about the same output and dependability. - I do debate if it or any HX-600 is providing 1kw worth of output rather than about 850w with a higher color temperature more seeming that way. At least by the lamp itself. In comparison with a FEL with it's huge inefficient filament, anything has to be better.

A shame you don't want to play test. I have no doubts that you would give it a good test to answer my own questions with the new 575w and 750w lamps.

As for me, my current challenges are in finding conversion lamps for domestic tours getting ready for their Europian leg of the the tour. Sometimes conversions between 120 and 230v will be easy, other times it takes a lot of leg work to find a substitute. Hours of trolling the Euro lamp manufacturers website part of the net due to their or most brands lack of ease in searching them. Type in a part number you found to a lamp a few minutes ago and you get "lamp don't exist." 

Otherwise as of today I was searching for a XBO 4500w/HS.OFR for a new wiggle light fixture. Problem was the only place the lamp exists is on the Euro Osram website. Has not made it to the Sylvania American version of the website yet. Much less there is not much info published on it yet even on the Euro website sufficient so I can find alternative brands to it yet. Doesn't much matter, in pricing it out, one lamp costs almost as much as a medium quality moving light. Very expensive lamp.


----------



## soundman (Nov 30, 2005)

I was thinking, I know nothing about photometrics and lamps, was this something you picked up on the job or was it somethign you learned elsewhere?


----------



## ship (Dec 4, 2005)

Most text books have some decent information on photometrics. This especially the older books on stage lighting - look in your used book stores for stuff published before moving lights or modern fixtures.

On lamps, GE website has a decent enough "Lighting Institute" section of the website http://www.gelighting.com/ with a good place to start in general lighting terms and what makes up a lamp.

Osram such as http://www.osram.com/lighting/principles.html and other vendors will also have stuff like design and notes such as Dr.Bulb from Ushio, and other tips and concepts easy enough to read thru.

After this for higher learning, Osram has their PDF of Engineering Bulletin - Technology and Application - Tungsten Halogen Low Voltage Lamps Display/Optic. 

http://ecom.mysylvania.com/ Do a search and find any lamp such as a EVR or HPL or something. After the lamp's specifications are pulled up there will be an option of further readings. Clicking on this will show the above PDF. Very good and recommended text.


----------



## soundman (Dec 5, 2005)

Thanks now I will have somethign to read after I finish my final papers.


----------



## Lightingguy32 (Dec 9, 2006)

jonhirsh said:


> as much as i love the s4 we have to get our facts straight, the s4 was the answer to altmans fixture not the other way around.
> JH


How are you sure of this? Then how come Altman owes 7 dollars to ETC for every shakespeare they sell instead of ETC paying Altman?


----------



## Jezza (Dec 9, 2006)

Bigger fan of the S4 than the Shakespeare, however one thing that I feel both manufacturues could improve upon...the easy of focusing the instrument. Sometimes, especially when you've got a snoot and a gel frame up front, much less a scroller, running the barrel can be kind of a chore with the added weight, the barrel really doesn't run smoothly. I wonder if there is a way to incorperate captive ball bearings into the tube assembly that won't fall out with a lense change?


----------



## SteveB (Dec 10, 2006)

Jezza said:


> Bigger fan of the S4 than the Shakespeare, however one thing that I feel both manufacturues could improve upon...the easy of focusing the instrument. Sometimes, especially when you've got a snoot and a gel frame up front, much less a scroller, running the barrel can be kind of a chore with the added weight, the barrel really doesn't run smoothly. I wonder if there is a way to incorperate captive ball bearings into the tube assembly that won't fall out with a lense change?



I agree that sometimes the barrels can be hard to move, requiring a 2 handed operation.

But, I think it best be left alone. The original design concept for the S4 and Shakespeare is to make it easy to swap out barrels for different degree choices. Adding a ball bearing assembly to the front end makes swapping much more difficult and I can guarantee you that the rental shops will scream bloody murder !.

FWIW, the S4 came out first and was
designed for ETC by David Cunningham, who also designed the vintage Light Pallette console for Strand (1980), the Colortran Prestige console, the ENR dimmer for Colortran, which became the Sensor dimmer for ETC.

The Shakespeare is and was a license of the S4.

SB


----------



## DarSax (Dec 10, 2006)

Semhijack but not.

I have completely obselete second gen lekos at my theater, at least 30 years old made by a company that hasn't existed for 20 years. I recently rented an entire rig of source fours.

...and now if someone approached me offering 30 source fours in exchange for my soul, I just might consider it...


----------



## jason0 (Jan 4, 2007)

source 4 definately. Shakespeares are probably more expensive becasue teh bodies are freakin massive. They use more material.

I would like to add one more reason to the list already given. I have had to fix a dropped shakespeare, and a broken s4 jr. Now, it is a junior, but its similar quality of construction.

The shakespeare was dropped between 10 and 12 feet onto a plywood deck. The lens tube casting was completely broken, the lens's plastic ring was messed up, and the glass was out of place. The shutters were bent, the barrel rotation doesnt lock down properly, and the lamp and socket were broken, and the reflector was damaged although usable. Total repairs: 2 hrs, the pieces i could scavenge from another broken one, and a lot of epoxy.

the s4 junior, dropped 19.5 feet onto much harder wood, lost its lamp, and the reflector was knocked out of place but not damaged. one shutter handle was bent, but because of the assembly bending it back was fine. the lamp socket was not damaged. total repairs: 20 minutes and a new lamp.

This shows quality of construction. And, the s4s focus over a much better area, where the Shakespeare the glass needs to be moved sometimes.


----------



## ship (Jan 5, 2007)

Ever have to remove a bloted lamp from a S-4 Junior? Have to take apart the entire fixture meaning getting at some screws in the barrel that are not easy to get at in order to divide the fixture in half so as to remove the lamp. The S-4 Junior is not a real S-4 fixture for comparision.

Had some real S-4 Lekos that even I could not in any way get bench focused properly - just not enough adjustment sufficient to in following all the steps at times to get a fixture to do a proper bench focus at times on some of them. Lot number issues, problems with getting Euro fixtures mixed up in your U.S. inventory - gee was that a #8-32 screw or a M4 screw I just stripped the hole in finding out about? Getting 575w lamp caps in a 750w inventory and by chance that one 575w fixture out on a show where it needed to be a 750w fixture... 

Stripped screws in the lamp base cap assembly requiring only me in the shop with a lot of pressure and a Klien screw driver, yoke breaks that get stripped and sieze up requiring a bench vise and vise grips to loosen up, focus knob assemblies that sieze up, lamp base retaining assemblies that are slightly out of alignment, lens train glides that fall off, changed lot numbers of lens trains that don't align with other ones... On the S-4 fixture, we are talking about lots of cast aluminum and lots of lesser grade bolts or brass fittings that at times don't work well. Heck, believe it was PRG that changed at one point the size of the S-4 PAR yoke for the industry to the point that one could not 180 degree swivel the fixture in the yoke any longer due to a certain shortening of it. ETC in a big mistake did not shorten the lamp cap knob sufficient that you could have a 1/2" bolt mounting the yoke to what ever and swing the fixture with the lamp cap retaining knob past that knob in clearance. Ever have a lamp cap retaining knob sieze up and strip the hole on you? The S-4 fixture is a good advancement but it's not perfect either.

The ETC S-4 fixture and line of fixture is a good brand of fixture, don't get me wrong, it's what almost 15 years old now however in production. The 360Q is what... 25 years old now and also still in use and sold also. The S-4 fixture by way of all "Theater Crafts" type articles about it's design was based upon the 360Q and other fixture and made as a new generation fixture to solve the problems of the second generation lighting fixture just as the 360Q solved the problems of the 360 once halogen lamps came out and became economic. For Second generation fixtures, Altman 360Q line really made it's way in the industry as a more economic but quality product over the optically better Strand fixtures at the time also a standard in the industry. Before this, Strand was about the king of Leko I believe would be about proper in any history. 

First in history the Leko, next the efficient halogen lamp, than the refined optics and lamps for the third generation lamp/fixture most companies are in now. Fourth generation lamps are out there for use in most non-ETC fixtures now and I believe ETC is working on a fourth generation lamp also now. Lots of concepts in what's going to become the newest standard in fourth generation leko lamp - lots of technology out there to look into for what's going to become the next say HPL or HX-600 on the market. Seemingly there is a rule in what becomes important. Refine the lamp first, refine the optics next, than refine the fixture. The company that does all three best is often the one that sells the most popular next generation of fixture. Watch for them liquid cooled internal reflector, dichroic coated globe, electronic balancing or transformer lamps. Find what fixture they go into and you know what's probably a fixture 20 years from now the best. Perhaps by the time most people get out of college, they will be looking into some form of Leko that has a controlled ionized self dimming by way of alignment of ions lens that dims without loosing color temperature, that dichroic filters and or neomodium coats and color corrects by way of adjustment the amount of amber shift that light puts out and you won't even need dimmers or the dimmers perhaps will get into even more avanced than sine wave chopping and data stamping technology. Perhaps in the size and weight of a S-4 fixture you will be able to change the focus and shutter cut remotely without much added cost beyond inflation and technology costs. By that time perhaps the 360Q at some point won't be made any longer either... perhaps. At this point they are still made and a decent fixture also still.

Also getting about time that ETC, Altman and others come out with the next generation of Leko given some limitations to the S-4 have no doubt been noted over the years which could withstand refinement. The Selcon line like the HPR line of lamp is probably the more advanced start to fourth generation equipment for the theater, but under development I'm sure and hear mention of is even more advanced gear TBA. Who knows who will have the next best fixture ten years from now. Could be Altman, could be say Times Square. Thing is that it's science and technology plus marketing. All are good fixtures out there in some way or another by way of product or balance of product with cost. Big following for the Selcon fixture line out there in the industry, I hear about small knobs on them. Still in the industry, it's not an ETC product that many love in addition to the following of the S-4 or what ever brand including Strand still in as third generation, it having a following.

Heck, I was looking at some form of Elation wiggle light today. Looked kind of like a S-4 PAR - but a VeriLite version of it on one of their moving light base. Thought at first it was like a new VL-5. Nope, it's just for all intensive purposes a S-4 PAR on a wiggle light frame. A Elation S-4 PAR that's a wiggle light and using a MSR 575/2 lamp. Can you say a lot of heat for a S-4 PAR clone reflector? Ever have silver confetti blow out of a S-4 Leko after the demise of it's reflector? Happens... But perhaps Elation/American DJ will have the next new Leko or moving light everyone must have. Wide open market from across the world. Lots of technology for fixture suppliers also just as lots of lamp companies out there.

ETC, Strand, Selcon, Altman, L&E, Times Square, Leviton... plus more brands, they all have these days a third generation Leko on the market. All have fan clubs, all produce a quality product. TBA is what is next and all brands have a play in what even five years from now will start replacing the S-4 Leko in our inventories. Anyone note that snippit I posted in the question of the day about lamp technology? More efficient lamps with fixtures that take advantage of the advanced lamp technology, added to more refinement in ease of use of the lamp and fixture, and you have a new generation of fixture line. Look at all the "quick change" type fixtures out there. On the Martin TW-1 fixture, my Phillips vendor rep sent me the pamphlet (with typo) on the "Phillips Fast Fit" line of new lamps designed around the quick change concept. Interesting lamps - and there is a few of them that don't even have fixtures they can be used for yet in the pamphlet - meaning that someone is working on new fixtures that will use them we don't know about yet. Constant upgrades in the industry.

Monumental was the S-4 line of fixture as was the 360Q line of fixture for different reasons. What's next we should discuss and debate because fourth generation fixtures and lamps are just a summer or two away.


----------



## Schniapereli (Jan 6, 2007)

Yea verily.

I know that the Shakespeare's have concave lenses, but I heard that they are harder to focus...are they?

(and to the 360Q's use concave lenses?)


----------



## Lightingguy32 (Jan 7, 2007)

Schniapereli said:


> Yea verily.
> I know that the Shakespeare's have concave lenses, but I heard that they are harder to focus...are they?
> (and to the 360Q's use concave lenses?)



Shakespeares use a combination of concave and aspheric lenses. All of the 360Qs use plano-convex lenses.


----------



## ship (Jan 9, 2007)

Adding to my notes on stuff that ETC and others could improve about their fixtures.... just had to remove without a hammer a reflector. By the manual, you insert some "extra" reflector retainers into the latch of the reflectors so as to release them. Hopefully in doing so you don't chip or crack the lens.

I have a set of reflector retaining latches that I added some 1/4"x1"x3" aluminum handles to at the shop for doing this but still find it difficult. Tip is to flatten out the latches some in making them less sharp an angle. 

At that point, it's still an effort to get the reflector out. We are talking about one of the most huge pain in the rears that I can think of - serious design flaw on the part of ETC. It wold be easier to de-rivet the reflector retaing clips than get an extra set to work as described in the instructions. How hard would it be to put a weld nut on these retention clips and drill thru the fixture body for screws? Wouldn't solve the problem of inserting the lens but would on removing it in-tact - say when part of the body of the fixture has a broken casting but the reflector is still servicable.

Than that - luckily intact reflector had to be installed into a new body - not an easy process. Chipped more than one of these lenses, ruined more than one base spring / heat sink under the reflector, and wasted a bunch of time over the years in attempting to do this.

Today after three tries to get the thing in - dead on by way of fist in the center of the reflector and pushing down, I gave up. That darned spring just kept getting caught up in the rear casting. Decided on the last attempt that I was close and used a kind of like crochet like hook tool I use for extracting wire out of a hole in a lamp bar pipe to push the spring into position. Doing this allowed the reflector to go home on the other two clips. This was the first time ever that it took less than at least a half hour to install a new lens. This granted normally I take a hammer to extract the lens is still way more difficult than it should be.

Another thing to improve on the S-4 fixture - those reflectors are while decently held in, a royal pain in the rear to replace.

In this case, it was not even one of our instruments I was doing this on. Another lighting company sent their light to us to pay our people to do so - the price we charged was worth them paying given their tech person had attempted this type of thing before. We break the reflector in removal or install, he gets a new one - good investment, say insurance policy in addition to time saved for the money it cost us/me to do it for him.

Than on this fixture it was stuck yoke mounting bolts that we were removing - I had to remove. After I loosened them, I remembered who it was I was doing the project for... wait a minute, let me ding the screw, add thread locker and let's put those screws back in. We were not getting paid to loosen his bolts for him... (The tech paying us was a former employee and good friend - thus me doing such a thing to spite him would be in the spirit of him sending a light to us that I wound up fixing.)

I don't normally service ETC fixtures, we have an entire department that preps and maintains incandescent fixtures, but I almost always have to change reflectors to them. Such work is much more difficult than it shoud be. Must be a better way.


----------



## highschooltech (Jan 10, 2007)

The S4 is a much better light. Having worked with both at my church i can say the S4 is better. It is lighter, brigther, and easier to use and focus.


----------



## bmiller025 (Jan 11, 2007)

I agree with Ship about the reflector assemblies in S4s. I have only once had to remove an intact reflector from one though. Several hours of work! The rest of my experiencde with reflectors were replacements of broken ones after instruments have been dropped. Not a difficult task at all.

I have never heard of needing to replace an unbroken reflector before!

I also put in my vote for the S-4 over the Shakespeare. Better design all around.

S-4 Jrs are a lot more compact than their big brothers. Perfect for small venues where space is at a premium! 
I think the S-4 Jr. 25-50 Zoom is the best designed lighting instrument I have ever used! If only the barrel rotated...

I also think the main difference in quality between the 360Q and the S-4 is the reflector. Once the reflector in the former has been jarred once or twice, you will never get it back to ideal again. S-4s last a lot longer in this manner. 

I have also never had any trouble bench focusing S-4s. Could something else have been out of whack? Something in the socket assembly?


----------



## Lightingguy32 (May 23, 2007)

jonhirsh said:


> as much as i love the s4 we have to get our facts straight, the s4 was the answer to altmans fixture not the other way around.
> JH


Actually that is incorrect, Dave Cunningham of Entertainment technologies sent out the design of the ETC Source Four to ETC in 1993, the Shakespeare came out about 2 to 3 years later.


----------



## icewolf08 (May 23, 2007)

Removing the reflector from a Source 4 is not that hard. First you take the lamp cap off, and the remove the body of the unit from the gate and lens assembly. Then find a nice patch of wood floor, turn the yoke 90˚ and bash the body on the floor. It may take a hit or two, but usually the reflectors pop right out. This is one of those ETC solutions (like gaff tape on the Revolution scroller), but it works, and I haven't broken any reflectors this way.


----------



## skienblack (May 4, 2010)

In my high school we were in the process of migrating our VERY aged inventory of 6x ERSs into source fours. Though at my current college theatre, they almost exclusively use shakespeares, this includes zooms and fixed degree units. We have 5 S4 which I have been told by fellow students were purchased as a test and they decided to purchase the shakespeares over them. Why would they do this? I haven't asked our TD their reasoning yet, is there any logical reason for this?


----------



## MNicolai (May 4, 2010)

skienblack said:


> In my high school we were in the process of migrating our VERY aged inventory of 6x ERSs into source fours. Though at my current college theatre, they almost exclusively use shakespeares, this includes zooms and fixed degree units. We have 5 S4 which I have been told by fellow students were purchased as a test and they decided to purchase the shakespeares over them. Why would they do this? I haven't asked our TD their reasoning yet, is there any logical reason for this?



Personal preference. I know some people that love the Strand SL, while I couldn't hate it more (obviously they've never seen the plastic barrel rotation ring break, allowing the light to fall and the safety cable around the yoke to become useless).

Some people are going to find things they like that others don't. It's also possible someone was given a really good bulk discount on Shakespeares. As far I'm concerned, the Shakespeare is doesn't compete (yes, Altman put a lot of research into theirs, but ETC still did it better and did it first). Typically, Shakespeares run a higher price, and come in sub-par in almost every category to the Source Four. Meanwhile, the only thing the SL has (IMO) over the Source Four is the 360deg barrel rotation. But again, I've seen that barrel rotation feature fail in ways that could get someone killed. Also, most SL's I've come across are missing knobs, screws, or other pieces. So while they do allow for 360deg barrel rotation, that doesn't mean very much if the knob to lock the rotation in place has been broken off.

Everyone will find different qualities they like that others might not agree with. If you use a fixture for a couple months while it's brand new, your likes/dislikes will change after you've been using those fixtures for a decade. There are a lot of factors that are in play, from different physical features of the fixtures to the politics of how projects and installs get bid.


----------



## Les (May 4, 2010)

MNicolai said:


> Personal preference. I know some people that love the Strand SL, while I couldn't hate it more (obviously they've never seen the plastic barrel rotation ring break, allowing the light to fall and the safety cable around the yoke to become useless).
> 
> Some people are going to find things they like that others don't. It's also possible someone was given a really good bulk discount on Shakespeares. As far I'm concerned, the Shakespeare is doesn't compete (yes, Altman put a lot of research into theirs, but ETC still did it better and did it first). Typically, Shakespeares run a higher price, and come in sub-par in almost every category to the Source Four. Meanwhile, the only thing the SL has (IMO) over the Source Four is the 360deg barrel rotation. But again, I've seen that barrel rotation feature fail in ways that could get someone killed. Also, most SL's I've come across are missing knobs, screws, or other pieces. So while they do allow for 360deg barrel rotation, that doesn't mean very much if the knob to lock the rotation in place has been broken off.
> 
> Everyone will find different qualities they like that others might not agree with. If you use a fixture for a couple months while it's brand new, your likes/dislikes will change after you've been using those fixtures for a decade. There are a lot of factors that are in play, from different physical features of the fixtures to the politics of how projects and installs get bid.



For the record, I am also not a fan of the SL. The fixture's overall concept is great -- it's the build quality that was lacking. 

Having said that, while I've seen and worked with fixtures with the broken bushing that locks in the fixture's rotation, I've never seen it as being a safety hazard. More of an annoyance. From what I gathered last time I took apart an SL (to replace this very part), the plastic piece can break and move to other areas within the collar so that the knob's bolt can no longer apply friction, which holds the fixture in place. The reason I say it's not a safety hazard is because the instrument's body is grooved all the way around, and several 'keys' on the collar fit within these grooves. Unless these keys break off, or the collar comes apart at the seams (the collar is held together on the top and bottom using machine screws), I don't see how the light could fall out of its cradle. Maybe you could enlighten me?

I will say this: The compact size of the SL Zoom is awesome. No bigger around than a fixed focus, only about 4-6" longer with no huge cannon-sized barrel. I wish ETC or Altman would do that!


----------



## MNicolai (May 4, 2010)

Les said:


> For the record, I am also not a fan of the SL. The fixture's overall concept is great -- it's the build quality that was lacking.
> 
> Having said that, while I've seen and worked with fixtures with the broken bushing that locks in the fixture's rotation, I've never seen it as being a safety hazard. More of an annoyance. From what I gathered last time I took apart an SL (to replace this very part), the plastic piece can break and move to other areas within the collar so that the knob's bolt can no longer apply friction, which holds the fixture in place. The reason I say it's not a safety hazard is because the instrument's body is grooved all the way around, and several 'keys' on the collar fit within these grooves. Unless these keys break off, or the collar comes apart at the seams (the collar is held together on the top and bottom using machine screws), I don't see how the light could fall out of its cradle. Maybe you could enlighten me?
> 
> I will say this: The compact size of the SL Zoom is awesome. No bigger around than a fixed focus, only about 4-6" longer with no huge cannon-sized barrel. I wish ETC or Altman would do that!



The collar itself snapped in half. It was an FOH catwalk fixture at a theatre I worked at a few years ago. I don't remember much else about it so I'd be willing to admit that there is a possibility that there is some sort of safety mechanism in place, but I remember thinking we were really lucky to find it before it fell.

That theatre taught me everything I know about the SL, including how to take an inventory of 100 fixtures with various amounts of missing and/or broken parts and turn them into ~80 fixtures that are almost fully functional. That doesn't include the reflectors, though. With reflectors under consideration, they had maybe 30-40 fixtures that weren't complete trash, bu we had plenty of fun going through and tallying up and categorizing them all. I believe our categories were Good, Cracked, Really Cracked, Broken, Shattered, and Missing.


----------



## Les (May 4, 2010)

MNicolai said:


> The collar itself snapped in half. It was an FOH catwalk fixture at a theatre I worked at a few years ago. I don't remember much else about it so I'd be willing to admit that there is a possibility that there is some sort of safety mechanism in place, but I remember thinking we were really lucky to find it before it fell.



If the collar/cradle/whateveryawannacallit snapped, you are definitely lucky! The failure you describe was probably caused by the fixture being hit or dropped, or unlikely - maybe by over tightening the rotation knob. One thing about those SL's was that the castings were awful thin. I want to say 1/8" think and that's being generous. Good thing they came with that integral safety attachment point --- too bad no one uses them. Of course, knowing the thickness of the castings, who knows what good it would do. 

My other gripe with those was the bayonet style lamp cap. Great when it worked, but frustrating and dangerous when it didn't. Many failed to lock, others failed to unlock. A lucky few worked just right. This was out of about 100, all only a few years old back in 03-04. I was there to unpack them. Some were straight up temperamental fresh out of the box. I returned to the venue recently to do some freelance programming work as a favor, and many of the instruments have now baked the paint off the lamp and reflector housing.


----------



## Scarrgo (May 4, 2010)

But I was told(by whom I dont remember) that ETC bought out LMI for their dimmers, so that they wouldnt have to start from the ground up, added some of their own goodies and now they have their own dimmer line 

Sean...


----------



## SteveB (May 4, 2010)

Scarrgo said:


> But I was told(by whom I dont remember) that ETC bought out LMI for their dimmers, so that they wouldnt have to start from the ground up, added some of their own goodies and now they have their own dimmer line
> 
> Sean...



Yup. "Have their own dimmer line" is an understatement, if there ever was one. 

Hey Kirk/Steve T./Dave N./ Anne V./ Sarah C.

Somebody in Wisc. should ask Fred how many SR48's he's sold and lets us know, if it's not a trade secret.

4,000 dimmers in Salt Lake Mormon Center, about as many at Disney Japan, etc....

SB


----------



## Raktor (May 5, 2010)

icewolf08 said:


> Removing the reflector from a Source 4 is not that hard. First you take the lamp cap off, and the remove the body of the unit from the gate and lens assembly. Then find a nice patch of wood floor, turn the yoke 90˚ and bash the body on the floor. It may take a hit or two, but usually the reflectors pop right out. This is one of those ETC solutions (like gaff tape on the Revolution scroller), but it works, and I haven't broken any reflectors this way.



Had to do this the other day, finally. Didn't go as smoothly as you mention... ended up just having to put on safety goggles and attack it with a big screwdriver and a hammer to smash it out. It wasn't all that easy getting the new one in either, the copper coil kept moving to where it wasn't supposed to go. It'll be simple the next time though, it was just a pain working it out for the first time.

And on the SL vs S4 debate... S4s take the cake in my book. SLs are our secondary stock, I don't mind them too much until bubbles need changing. S4s win every time for that.


----------

