# Source Four Jr. vs. 360Q



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

For those who haven't seen my previous post, I'm trying to do some lighting on the cheap for my church's theatrical stuff. We have a small stage in a social hall with no permanently installed lighting of any use. There is basically no budget so cost is a major issue. The biggest problem is the throw distance; as of yet there is no convenient place to mount the lights up close. I've attached a crude diagram. Sometimes we will build out the stage some and I have to put the lights farther back, but in general I calculate a throw distance of about 40 ft. (That's from 30 feet back to the center of the stage (30 feet over).) I was hoping to make do with some NSP PARs, but now I'm thinking we would be better off with some (cheap) ellipsoidals. We don't need anything fancy. I was excited about the price of the S4 Jr. until I saw the narrowest field was 26 deg. Then I saw the 360Q, which has narrow beams for the same cost as the 'regular' ones. I've read a lot of posts in this forum with both pros and cons of both lights, so am a bit torn. I saw a mention of a "shootout" by "ship" but searched and searched and couldn't find it.

But then I looked at the specs. I've attached a table in a Word doc. I've included a regular 19 deg S4 as well. Both specs are with a 575W short-life bulb. The one thing that stands out is with the S4's the beam angle is about 80% of the field angle, whereas with the 360Q 6x12 and 6x16 it's less than half the field angle, so you get a hot spot in the middle. And even though the specs show them as brighter most of the field may be dimmer than their counterpart S4. So I'm thinking maybe 6x22's for small areas and S4's for larger areas, although I'd rather stick with the same brand. I wish they had an S4 Jr. in the 19 deg size. Or I could just get larger 360Q sizes and shutter them down. Not sure how good all that heat will be for it though.


----------



## MNicolai (Oct 18, 2010)

I'll talk about what I know, which are Source Fours. I'll leave it to others to discuss how they compare to the 6x22, something I've not used.

You can always use a 26° Jr. with an iris or an aperture-limiting gobo. The downside is that it doesn't put as much light on stage as a genuine 19° would, but it's the same principal as shuttering while maintaining a truly circular shape for the beam.

Any specific reason you chose ERS fixtures over PAR's? You can buy four Source Four PAR's for every three Jr.'s and they're be cheaper and brighter than something with an aperture-reducing gobo or shutter cuts.


----------



## Grog12 (Oct 18, 2010)

Each light should ideally have a 8'-15' field onstage. Generally this will give you the appropriate lumens so the instrument doesn't seem dim. I would stay away from 26 degree S4's and S4 Jr's.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

Thanks Mike, very interesting thoughts. I have used the Source Four PARs a little, and they are certainly much better than a normal PAR. I was thinking if I'm going to spend that much I should go for ERS's, but the PARs would put a lot more light on the stage at the expense of some control. The interchangeable lenses are a plus, although I found them difficult to change. Adding an iris to a Source Four Jr. wouldn't be cost effective; I'm not sure what a gobo would cost, but I think I'd be better off getting a true Source Four 19. But in many cases a square shape works best anyway. But I think I'll probably still need some 6x22's for the really small stuff.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

Grog12 said:


> Each light should ideally have a 8'-15' field onstage. Generally this will give you the appropriate lumens so the instrument doesn't seem dim. I would stay away from 26 degree S4's and S4 Jr's.


Thanks, I agree.


----------



## Les (Oct 18, 2010)

I've been advocating the 360Q a lot lately (not that I prefer working with the 360Q!) but in this case, I feel like a 6x22 lamped to 750w would be a better fit than a Source Four Jr given the long throw. The best light for you would probably be the Source Four 14 or 19 degree, but the 6x22 is easier on the budget. Used ones crop up on eBay all the time also. There's one right now I believe for under $50 buy-it-now. Search "Ellipsoidal", "Leko", or "Altman Light".


----------



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

Awesome, thanks, I'll check that out. I see the Source Four PARs have the same beam vs field angle as the 360s, but are half the cost of the Source Four 19. Unfortunately the 14 and under Source Fours are even more expensive. I think it would be best to stick with all one brand for lamp consistency. I'm hoping to have more power run to the lighting locations but I'm not sure when that will be.

The interesting thing about the 360Q is that the 6x22 and 6x16 have the same beam angle and center illumination, so I'm wondering if I should just get 6x16s for more flexibility.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

My local dealer says he hasn't sold a 360Q in 15 years. Wow. I see that Altman also makes a PAR like the Source Four with interchangeable lenses and the same lamp as the 360Q. I wonder if I should use that for general stage wash. It's not much cheaper, but appears about twice as bright, and it's half the weight. It's beam isn't as even though. Why are the narrow beam ellipsoidals so inefficient?


----------



## Les (Oct 18, 2010)

The narrow beam Altman ellipsoidals lose efficiency because of a variety of reasons. One is the distance between the gate and the lens. A lot of light hits the inside housing before it reaches the lens, hence the units get very hot about midway down the barrel. Another reason is that photometric readings are usually taken from further distance from the lens, and you will lost some intensity when light has to travel that far. 

As far as beam angles go, the only ones you should be concerned with are these: 

Field / Beam

4.5 - 55/22
6x9 - 37/16
6x12 - 26/11
6x16 - 19/8.5
6x22 - 11/8 

I'm not sure why the StarPar appears "twice as bright" as the ETC Source Four Par, but I highly doubt that it is. Keep in mind that there are a host of lamps available for both units which will have an effect on how much light the instrument puts out. 
I wouldn't worry too much about the evenness of the beam. Light meters are much more sensitive than the eye, and pars aren't generally known for having an even beam.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

Thanks very much for the info, I appreciate it. I've tried to find info on how to interpret the illumination specs but it only confused me further. And I'll remember to keep my hands off the barrel when it's on!

I believe those are the angles I'm referring to; was there something else I said?

Actually I meant that the StarPar was twice as bright as the 6x22, not the Source Four Par, sorry. The specs and my local dealer both say the Altman is a somewhat brighter than the ETC, but I don't know by how much. So my main dilemma now is do I go with 6x16s instead of 6x22s for narrow beam, and do I go with PARs instead of ERSs for the wider beams. I was planning on going to LDI Friday to look at stuff, but it looks like I need to get these ordered this week.


----------



## Les (Oct 18, 2010)

Anything front light (for lighting areas), I would exclusively use ellipsoidals if possible. Ellipsoidals mixed with pars will give very uneven light. Keep in mind also, that pars (especially short pars like the Source Four Par) will create more glare (often referred to as flare), which may be distracting to some audience members.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 18, 2010)

OK, thanks. And I didn't think about the glare issue.


----------



## Les (Oct 18, 2010)

hemismith said:


> OK, thanks. And I didn't think about the glare issue.


 
You could compensate for this by using tophats or barn doors in the pars, but then you're just buying more gear which would most likely start costing about the same as if you were just buying ellipsoidals in the first place. Save the pars for top light, but don't forget about fresnels. You can get an Altman 65Q (which is an all-around decent unit) for about $100. 
-Less than a Source Four/Star Par and with better blending and control. Fresnels will have a softer edge than the pars, but you might want that.


----------



## derekleffew (Oct 18, 2010)

Random thoughts/comments:

Les said:


> ...
> Field / Beam
> 6x16 - 19/8.5
> 6x22 - 11/8


Something about those beam angles doesn't seem quite right. Altman has never been known for its precise photometric data. Compare Altman's information with that published for the Source Four. Further, in practical use, one can pretty much ignore beam angle information. To the eye, the pool of light emitted from any ERS is almost even all the way to the edge.


Les said:


> ...Fresnels will have a softer edge than the pars, but you might want that.


Fresnels are great for overstage applications, but the amount of flare (even with barndoor/tophat) and loss of intensity makes them unsuitable for FOH or long throw positions.

hemismith, based on your drawing, I'd likely use 6x12/26° for the near shot and 6x16/19° for the far shot. I'd also try to mount the fixtures as high as possible. I don't think I'd recommend buying new 360Qs, unless your purchasing regulations prohibit buying used. There are always lots of 360Qs on the used market, for $50-100. If buying new, I would only consider Source Fours. Note that your lighting positions are in the worst possible place for shutter cuts, and you're really going to depend on that rotating barrel, if you have it.

A top hat or half-hat is appropriate on an ERS used FOH as well.


----------



## Les (Oct 18, 2010)

derekleffew said:


> Random thoughts/comments:
> 
> Something about those beam angles doesn't seem quite right. Altman has never been known for its precise photometric data. Compare Altman's information with that published for the Source Four. Further, in practical use, one can pretty much ignore beam angle information. To the eye, the pool of light emitted from any ERS is almost even all the way to the edge.



You know, the numbers seemed weird to me too. I can't understand why the 6x16 and 6x22 appear so similar on paper, when in reality, they're not. I ran a search and came up with this thread:

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/2643-altman-360q-beam-field-angle.html

The photometric data was pulled from SteveB's post, which he retrieved from the Altman website. 


derekleffew said:


> Fresnels are great for overstage applications, but the amount of flare (even with barndoor/tophat) and loss of intensity makes them unsuitable for FOH or long throw positions.



Yep, that was my idea also. Try to scratch using pars for any kind of front light; especially at such distances and angles in relation to front/center of the stage. I hadn't seen any talk of fresnels for toplight, so I figured I'd throw that in there. Thanks for reinforcing my post  . 

Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems like the older generations of 360Q's are built a little better than the newer units. The rear pineapples (lamp housing) are pretty much the same, but the barrels seem more sturdy on the older fixtures. Even if you find a bunch of old brown 360Q's that are difficult to work with, the most work they will probably need is four new shutters and more than likely a new lamp socket. Most other parts stand up pretty well to the test of time. Even the reflectors tend to hold up pretty well unless they were constantly used as worklights running a 1k FEL lamp.


----------



## ship (Oct 18, 2010)

Les said:


> Maybe it's my imagination, but it seems like the older generations of 360Q's are built a little better than the newer units. The rear pineapples (lamp housing) are pretty much the same, but the barrels seem more sturdy on the older fixtures. Even if you find a bunch of old brown 360Q's that are difficult to work with, the most work they will probably need is four new shutters and more than likely a new lamp socket. Most other parts stand up pretty well to the test of time. Even the reflectors tend to hold up pretty well unless they were constantly used as worklights running a 1k FEL lamp.



Could be my imagination also. This other than the older style has the clutch break that breaks and is no longer available, and the more modern style has a clutch cam that works better and is still sold. No way to upgrade a 6x22 to clutch cam either.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 19, 2010)

Thanks everyone. I'll stick to ERSs for front light then, and PARs or Frenels for top light. And maybe used is indeed the best option here. Of course, maybe used Source Fours could be an option, but I doubt there are as many of those available.

That's good to hear about the light appearing even despite the photometric data. I won't worry about it. The specs in that thread are the same that I posted though; am I missing something?


----------



## jhdesynz (Oct 19, 2010)

hemismith said:


> Thanks everyone. I'll stick to ERSs for front light then, and PARs or Frenels for top light. And maybe used is indeed the best option here. Of course, maybe used Source Fours could be an option, but I doubt there are as many of those available.
> 
> That's good to hear about the light appearing even despite the photometric data. I won't worry about it. The specs in that thread are the same that I posted though; am I missing something?


 
Hemi, take a look at the L&E Leko, its almost identical to the 360Q's, but much cheaper. Also, as much as I hate to promote it, Lightronic's Leko is actually pretty decent and you could get a true 19 deg. Both leko's are affordable options that would help you stretch your budget.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 19, 2010)

Interesting, thanks, I'm not familiar with those others. I guess the Lightronics is a Chinese knock off of the Source Four. Their list prices are all the same as the 360Q though. I'll have to do a little more research.

Oh, and Derek, yes, one of the big problems is getting the lights up high enough. I'm hoping to get some permanently installed mounts up higher but that'll be a while. I guess the 360 doesn't have a rotating barrel? I tried to download the manual from Altman but you get Shakespeare manual instead.


----------



## HansH (Oct 19, 2010)

hemismith said:


> Interesting, thanks, I'm not familiar with those others. I guess the Lightronics is a Chinese knock off of the Source Four. Their list prices are all the same as the 360Q though. I'll have to do a little more research.



These threads give a bit of background on the relationship between the Lightronics ellipsoidal and the Source Four....

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/lighting-electrics/8221-patent-infringment-lawsuit.html

http://www.controlbooth.com/forums/news/10508-etc-lightronics-lawsuit-settled.html


Hans


----------



## Grog12 (Oct 19, 2010)

hemismith said:


> Interesting, thanks, I'm not familiar with those others. I guess the Lightronics is a Chinese knock off of the Source Four. Their list prices are all the same as the 360Q though. I'll have to do a little more research.
> 
> Oh, and Derek, yes, one of the big problems is getting the lights up high enough. I'm hoping to get some permanently installed mounts up higher but that'll be a while. I guess the 360 doesn't have a rotating barrel? I tried to download the manual from Altman but you get Shakespeare manual instead.



No the 360Q is from the previous "generation" of lights. While its certainly a workhorse some of the features it lacks are a rotating barrel and a accesories slot. I would suggest purchasing either new 360q's or used S4's. There's a lot more of those available than you think.


----------



## Les (Oct 19, 2010)

jhdesynz said:


> Hemi, take a look at the L&E Leko, its almost identical to the 360Q's, but much cheaper. Also, as much as I hate to promote it, Lightronic's Leko is actually pretty decent and you could get a true 19 deg. Both leko's are affordable options that would help you stretch your budget.


 
Interesting, I've always found that the 360Q and the L&E version are always within ~$10 of each other. Note that many dealers list the 360Q at around $225. I can find them easily for $198 new. 

Re, the Lightronics - I wouldn't go there. There are a lot (and I mean A LOT) of used Source Fours on eBay and professional used gear networks that are in good shape for equal to or less than the price of the Lightronics.


----------



## WooferHound (Oct 19, 2010)

I use the Source 4 Jrs, 360q's and Source 4 PARs regularly. If it was my choice I would use the PARs with medium lenses. The oval beam would fit the stage almost perfectly at 40 feet and it would be plenty bright. Only 1 from each side would be enough and 2 on each side would be more than enough using medium lenses.


----------



## shiben (Oct 19, 2010)

WooferHound said:


> I use the Source 4 Jrs, 360q's and Source 4 PARs regularly. If it was my choice I would use the PARs with medium lenses. The oval beam would fit the stage almost perfectly at 40 feet and it would be plenty bright. Only 1 from each side would be enough and 2 on each side would be more than enough using medium lenses.


 
I couldnt disagree more. Wont be bright enough.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 19, 2010)

Thanks everyone! I do prefer to buy name brand and American if possible. I see that Lightronics had to give up a couple features. It appears they cost a little more than the 360Q. I'm surprised that there would be many people unloading Source Fours, but I'll take a look at the used market. What I've seen are still fairly expensive. The biggest problem is the 10 degree units that I would want some of.


----------



## ship (Oct 19, 2010)

Back to the do you really need 6x22 question from these locations? Would more than say a few 6x22 really be best for you?

Don't know the height of the boom or the height of the stage in actual throw distance (five feet above the stage), but at least some of the FOH lights should be 6x16 in more of a wash than area spot. You have a hard position to focus from given only one set. You will also find that 6x22 are fairly rare for used fixtures no matter the brand. Long throw S-4 Junior??? Possibly one. never seen one and have no idea. Why is the S-4 Junior in consideration for you given your long throw needs?

While harsh in angle, I might also sugguest some rear of audience position that will do a stage wash in covering and filling. Less of an angle of course but more useful in getting the job done of lighting. 
A Method of Lighting the Stage" is a method and doesn't always work perfectly if you don't have enough positions so as to do it properly. Dogmatically following that 45 from left and right with only two positions will not make for the concept. Instead perhaps with more booms from the rear of the audience you can get another say stage left location from house left that's more accurate in projecting from that location the other side of the stage. that type of thing, and or in geneal, supplementing what you need for coverage in not fighting the holes in lighting it.


----------



## ship (Oct 20, 2010)

*Re: Source Four Jr. vs. 360Qe*

Another way to look at your needs:

Here is a concept to test in your theater in discussion.

You need two people on stage to stand around center left and right of it, and two or three people with some form of MagLights or other lights in the audience. No other lights. Substitute with what ever you have available to light with in being fine overall in getting the concept from one side of the audiece in lighting.

One or two to stand where the box boom (hopefully bolted and safety cabled in so it cannot fall) is to go, another somewhere around the back of the audience and in in assuming a continental audience, near the door in position.

First person with mag light at maximum focus in lighting both people and hitting the proscenium from both edges. Don’t have to be perfect - lots of lights from this position to light the front and rear opposing side of the stage with. Just kind of getting an idea here of optimum light from that side of the audience in intensity and coverage. If you have that second person, have them start from the opposing house side and do the same thing in lighting both actors on stage in doing the same. That to get a mental image such as lighting daylight from one side of the stage, or worse yet moonlight from them if on the opposing side but they travel at some point. This more about the intensity across the stage from nearer one side of the stage to another in having equal weight, and overall coverage across the stage as they move as they will.

If you have a second person, have them once the initial lighting is done, come back to the first boom and split the stage between them from that position in seeing what two lights from that position is like. (Better coverage but the far actor is a bit more dim but better in overall coverage. Nearer actor better lit but less so in overall coverage.)

Turn out the flashlights and have someone in the rear of the audience spot from the Mag Light the actor on the opposing side of the stage. Have that person move towards the center in finding most efficient light for lighting that person and both with and the stage in general. Study that, than have the other two turn back on their lights for helping light the actors on their marks. Have that rear of house go back to lighting the remote person and switch over to the nearer person also.

Is this remote focus MagLight person from the rear of house now helping light the remote actor and dependant on where placed more helping get that McCandeless concept in lighting for you? Two fixtures of longer throw might equal one of shorter throw. The one of shorter throw / wider beam spread might also wash the stage a bit more if wider in beam spread if in getting closer to that two fixture of longer throw concept. Also helping as a position somewhere to light the stage in general? Remember - unless you can see their eyes - and in seeing them they are not frightning (unless intended to be so)... unless you can see their eyes and in a proper sense for intent, you lost your purpose for lighting them as amongst a few rules of lighting design. Can supplement even with strip and foot lights or side lights, but mostly I think you are short on FOH lighting positions given only two and only 6x22 in discussion.

Look really close to the rear of house angles in budget by way of how well a more center focus fixture could cover all, verses one at more of an angle could cover less of the stage but better light the acting area. That could be a budget thing in perhaps adding more positions nearer to center in covering more of the stage in balance with say just seperating the acting areas into two for your purposes now.

I’m thinking that in addition to just 6x22 or 10 degree lenses as so far discussed, you need more lighting positions and at least 1/3 of what you buy as 6x16. This not even going to two or three fixtures or color scrollers for change of location, or time of day. FOH, don’t know how many fixtures your goal but there is a lot from one or more positions to shoot from in doing the work.

Just concepts expressed to present. Hope they are of use to consider or debate.

On PAR Cans... if you don't have talent in finding their mark... sure turn on flourescents to light them in my opinion.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 20, 2010)

*Re: Source Four Jr. vs. 360Qe*

Thanks very much for the suggestions. I actually was planning on having a couple 19 degree fixtures as well as a couple 10 degree fixtures per side, or a couple PARs instead of the 19 degree fixtures. I thought about the 26 degrees, but actually a 19 degree will create an oval the width of a 26 degree on the vertical plane due to the angle. In fact, just 10 degree lights might actually suffice, but it’s pushing it.

I’m not sure how even the light will be – I calculate distances of 39 and 46 feet to the center of each half, so I don’t know if that justifies two different lights or not. Sometimes they erect platforms out front on either side of the stage, in which case I would probably need a 10 degree and a 26 degree. But it sounds like you can change out the lens train, so perhaps I can get a few extra lenses. I was planning on just using the 10 degree lights for small areas, but I guess that would give a brighter light so perhaps I just use all the same size and shutters as needed.

I don’t think I can set up any rear lights at this point. The hall actually extends twice as far back as the diagram shows. At the rear of the diagram though there is a support beam/wall on which I hope to mount some lights in the future, but I probably can’t right now. I thought about some strip lights but we'll see. There is also a place right in front of the stage up high That I might be able to mount a few, although it’s difficult to run the cables to. I have a few PARs I will mount on the back side of the proscenium. This is just a start; eventually I hope to double the number of FOH lights and get better lights on stage.

P.S. I apologize if I don't use all the right terminology. I've read quite a bit but I'm new at lighting.


----------



## hemismith (Oct 30, 2010)

*I've seen the light ...*

I rented a 19 deg Source Four last weekend to test out. What a nice light! Turns out it is the perfect size. Perhaps in the future I might, but right now I don't think I need anything tighter than that. That changes the picture a little, as it is the 14 and 10 degree versions that are so much more expensive. And yes, they are twice as bright as my 500W PAR64's. And even though my NSP PARs have a small enough beam width, the total visible field width is about 32 feet so it spills all over. By the time I get twice as many, NSP bulbs, barn doors or whatever, they just aren't worth it. I wanted to rent an S4 PAR, but I assume it's probably a similar situation, just brighter and smoother. I haven't been able to actually look at a 360Q, as I haven't found anyone locally that still has any and I didn't make it to LDI. The S4s are still a lot more, but at this point based on the feedback I'm leaning towards S4s, new or used, as I don't like buying something I haven't been able to look at. I'm waiting to hear back on budget though. Thanks everyone.


----------



## DuckJordan (Oct 31, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*


hemismith said:


> I rented a 19 deg Source Four last weekend to test out. What a nice light! Turns out it is the perfect size. Perhaps in the future I might, but right now I don't think I need anything tighter than that. That changes the picture a little, as it is the 14 and 10 degree versions that are so much more expensive. And yes, they are twice as bright as my 500W PAR64's. And even though my NSP PARs have a small enough beam width, the total visible field width is about 32 feet so it spills all over. By the time I get twice as many, NSP bulbs, barn doors or whatever, they just aren't worth it. I wanted to rent an S4 PAR, but I assume it's probably a similar situation, just brighter and smoother. I haven't been able to actually look at a 360Q, as I haven't found anyone locally that still has any and I didn't make it to LDI. The S4s are still a lot more, but at this point based on the feedback I'm leaning towards S4s, new or used, as I don't like buying something I haven't been able to look at. I'm waiting to hear back on budget though. Thanks everyone.




I'm surprised someone didn't say this before. The effective light that comes out of an Ellipsoidal such as a 19* S4 is going to be more focused and generally harder edge than something you would get as a par.

Their are 3 distinct lighting instrument types

Flood
Pars, cycs, Scoops, strip

Focusable Flood
Fresnels, parnels, a couple others


Focus
Ellipsoidals, Spots, Most movers.

The reason you see brighter light coming out of a source four is more about the lens than the fixture itself. I'm not sure if this is common knowledge but it seems to have been overstepped on this thread.


----------



## hemismith (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*

Thanks very much. I'm a little familiar with some of the different lights, and knew that the PAR wouldn't have a distinct edge like an ellipsoidal, but I was shocked at what I saw. The beam is given as 7x12 degrees, with the field at 14x19 degrees, so similar to the ellipsoidal. But whereas the ellipsoidal stops there, that last 10% of the PAR more than doubles the lighted area.


----------



## gafftapegreenia (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*


DuckJordan said:


> Their are 3 distinct lighting instrument types
> 
> Flood
> Pars, cycs, Scoops, strip
> ...



Never heard that sort of division. I usually just hear Floods and Spots. Sure, PARs and Fresnels can "flood", but they are still relative spots when compared to Cyc's (asymmetrical floods), Broad's, actual "Flood's" (symmetrical floods) and all manner of work lights. Furthermore, is a 70 degree ERS a "Focus" or a "Flood"? What about a Zoom Ellipsoidal? Additionally, classifying "most movers" as Focus is just sloppy, as there are all manner of typical moving lights using Fresnel, Pebble Convex, Plano Convex and Micro-Fresnel lenses, as well as movers that don't have lenses at all. 


Perhaps you tried to simplify things for the sake of the beginner, but it is the goal of CB to teach people the right terms and knowledge the first time around.


----------



## DuckJordan (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*


gafftapegreenia said:


> Never heard that sort of division. I usually just hear Floods and Spots. Sure, PARs and Fresnels can "flood", but they are still relative spots when compared to Cyc's (asymmetrical floods), Broad's, actual "Flood's" (symmetrical floods) and all manner of work lights. Furthermore, is a 70 degree ERS a "Focus" or a "Flood"? What about a Zoom Ellipsoidal? Additionally, classifying "most movers" as Focus is just sloppy, as there are all manner of typical moving lights using Fresnel, Pebble Convex, Plano Convex and Micro-Fresnel lenses, as well as movers that don't have lenses at all.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you tried to simplify things for the sake of the beginner, but it is the goal of CB to teach people the right terms and knowledge the first time around.



Considering it would take two 40 minute lectures just to cover the basics of the different lighting instruments and how manageable the source can be, I would refer them to a book instead of a web forum for that information.


----------



## Les (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*

Source Four's are great. But the 360Q is better.









For thawing a pizza 
(If given a 6x9 and a 6x22, which one would you grab first??)


----------



## DuckJordan (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*


Les said:


> Source Four's are great. But the 360Q is better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For a Pizza? Deffinately the (6x9) I like my crusts soft (slow cook pizza)


----------



## Van (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*


Les said:


> Source Four's are great. But the 360Q is better.
> 
> For thawing a pizza
> (If given a 6x9 and a 6x22, which one would you grab first??)


 
By far the Old School ' Beam Projector ' is the best instrument for thawing, cooking and keeping warm, a Pizza. As a matter of fact a good size pizza pan fits right into the gel frame and provides an excellent proof against accidental reflector damage from dripping cheese. 
a 1k BP on 10-15% < depending on the trim of your dimmers> will keep a pizza warm for hours without too much drying out.


/sarcasm off


----------



## derekleffew (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*


Les said:


> (If given a 6x9 and a 6x22, which one would you grab first??)


I suppose it depends on the throw distance and the field diameter of the pizza.

 In MY day, we used these

for warming pizza.
Yes, I've actually done it, circa 1977. Single plate resistance dimmers didn't get the nickname "pizza dimmers" by accident, you know. One of the few benefits of those dimmers.


----------



## hemismith (Nov 1, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*

Seeing as I rarely get to eat when doing a show, these tips might actually be pretty useful!


----------



## ship (Nov 2, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*

Beam projector, how brilliant in perfect for a dinner. Normally I just hear about eggs, dogs or burgers for a fixture, but I do believe you are absolutely correct in noting that a good beam projector would make for a great pizza oven.

Now back to the day... how many of us were paid sufficiently to attempt such a thing in perhaps loosing dinner in such an experiment, too broke to try such a I was in my case, (in ha, ha, I'm not that old at least  ) or them too young in still wearing Underoos at that point of theater fixture cooking development at best still to get the old timer joke I'm on the cusp of?


Dave our webmaster... Underoos croud or is a PAR 64 a good dog?

Humorous in that it's a generational thing and funny also in it as it. Me, I never cooked off a lighting fixture... persay, perhaps something in a can at one point, but definately generational. And also living the theater or lots of time one one's hands at that point. Fascinating.


----------



## Van (Nov 2, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*

Ship it was precisely because I wasn't getting paid, it was in College. That's what I loved about college you got to experiment with all that gear that wasn't yours.....


----------



## hemismith (Nov 23, 2010)

*Re: I've seen the light ...*

Just to follow up, I still haven't gotten budget to buy any new lights, but we got some Source Fours donated by a local theater for one show. Then while at the lighting store I saw a couple dusty, cobweb-infested top hats for my PAR64s and figured it was destiny. They helped immensely for another show; I was surprised. I also got some 8" heater ducting and made a couple top hats. I experimented with different lengths, and in some cases they actually made things worse before they were painted black on the inside.


----------

