Talk:Intelligent lighting

Name of article

This article also needs to have its name wikified, removing all capitals, since it's not a proper name

Charlie Richmond 17:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

and now that the merging dirty work is done I'd argue the proper name should be Automated lighting because most people agree it's not really very intelligent.... Charlie Richmond 20:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - I have worked in this industry for some time, and I have never seen moving heads called anything other than "intelligent lights". I wouldn't call myself an expert, but maybe an "experienced amateur". Anyway, history is littered with uses of terms which are technically inaccurate, improper or just plain wrong! Think of conventional current, for instance... They took a punt, got it wrong, and saddled children for the next thousand years with an enormous headache! But is still maintained because it's the most common way of describing it. Happy-melon 08:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this boils down to an American vs. European thing (although earlier versions of predecessor pages had a lot in them about how 'Intelligent Lighting' is an oxymoron) since I am looking at the front page of Installation Europe Magazine, April 2006, and the lead article is entitled "Moving in time: The past, present and future of automated lighting" - so I'd have to say that is definite proof that the industry does regularly refer to it this way. And with respect to an 'experienced amateur' I am an industry professional with 40 years of experience...

Charlie Richmond 09:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - it probably does boil down to some petty Anglo-American grammar conflict!! Moving the page won't really change any of the content - just need to swap a few sentences around in the introductory paragraph. You'll need to wait for the existing automated lighting article to be deleted though. Happy-melon 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is more than just petty though - there are frequent discussions about this on the stagecraft mailing list in which the vast majority of professionals there agree that, even though 'intelligent' is often used in many circles, it makes no sense and 'automated' is a far better description (as the article says even now) - but, just like all encyclopedias and dictionaries record common usage and don't prescribe preferred terms, we need to make sure the term 'Intelligent lighting' stays. It's just that I do think there is tendency now in the industry to use automated preferenctially.

Indeed. Inteligent lighting is the worst possible name for this, as it's entirely factually inaccuarate. It is not intelligent by any meaning of the word. My vote is for Automated. Or even "Robotic". Bryson430 16:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First computer-controlled fixture

I have done some research an I believe that the first computer controled inteligent light was the Vari*Lite VL Zero, a prototype developed by Showco for the band Genisis in December, 1980. The first marketed moving head would be the Vari*Lite VL1 then. However I could be wrong. Can someone back this up or challenge this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JWGreen (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 August, 2006 (UTC).

Vari*Lite was second on the scene. The first moving-head lights, Autoscan, were developed and marketed in 1981 by a short-lived company named Cause and Effects, based in Birmingham. Clients who bought or rented Autoscan include Gary Numan, Asia, James Last, and Billy Joel, and several nightclubs including the Hippodrome in London. It's uncertain who first used them. Vari*Lite appeared later, and dominated the market when Cause and Effects folded in 1983.

Nic Cave-Lynch invented the Autoscan moving lights when he was 21 and established Cause and Effects to build and sell them. When the company approached the major UK production houses and lighting equipment manufacturers to solicit investment in the product, it was apparent that no moving lights were being either used or marketed at the time. It's possible that Showco (which Genesis invested heavily in) had prototypes around then, but Autoscan was definitely on the market before Genesis first used Vari*Lite VL1 on their September 1981 tour.

Nic Cave-Lynch's part in the industry has been mentioned in an interview with Steve Warren - co-director of Avolites in London, former employee of Cause and Effects - published in Mondo magazine, Jan/Feb 2002. The article is reproduced online at [1] (scroll halfway down). Nic is now an electronics engineer in New Zealand.

Wendy Collings 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Von Ballmoos patent goes back to 1971, though those lights were never manufactured and sold on a large scale. Does any one have any pictures of the Autoscan moving lights? I would be interested in finding some. [Richard Cadena]

Terminology

I've always objected to the term "intelligent lighting," because it implies that the rest of what we do is, well, "stupid lighting."

Salzberg 17:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's neither intelligent NOR automated. The most accurate terms to use are either "moving lights" or more correctly "robotic lights" as the contemporary versions of these luminaires are based on the process of robotic control.

The term "intelligent light" could be most correctly applied to the hand operated open face lime lights (hot blocks of calcium carbonate lime heated by an oxy-acetylene flame) and early hand-fed carbon arcs that were each directly operated by a human being. Lighting rehearsals were held to choreograph the operators on the proscenium bridge and perches, so that they could all change the silk colours and refocus their lights on the cue signal. Every lighting instrument ever since has been very dumb by comparison :-) --Andy Ciddor 16:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's why I tried to use 'moving head' preferentially when I rewrote it. I agree with you, but that term is not as popular as "intelligent/automated lighting" in popular usage. Happy-melon 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with those who believe the proper terminology should be "automated" lighting. We will never eliminate popular usage (misusage?) of terminology, but at the very least we can prevent its propagation. [Richard Cadena, author "Automated Lighting: The Art and Science of Moving Light" Focal Press 2006]

One of the industry's most advanced moving heads?

I would be very inclined to disagree with the statement that the Martin MAC500 is "one of the industry's most advanced moving heads" surely this is extremely out-dated, they don't even have CMY! Any thoughts...... AndyP543 06:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right... a picture of a MAC2000 would be more appropriate. Does anyone have one available under GDFL? Happy-melon 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is done......however, although relatively advanced, I think it would be still incorrect to say that it was one of the best moving lights available.....however this is my opinion so didn't want to inflict this onto the wiki. AndyP543 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

THe only moving lights ive ever used are Mac 500s and Mac 550's. Now I will agree that the Mac 550 is better than the 500, but what makes the 2000 more advanced? Judging by the picutes here and on the martin website, the 550's case looks like the 2000's, and the main difference is 2000 having a brighter lamp. What is CMY? If it has to do with color mixing, well the 550 has 2 color wheels and it mixes color too! I will be running a show tonight, so I might take a picture of the 550 in operation. KeepOnTruckin 20:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

merge

I am proposing that the page Moving light should be merged with the page Intelligent lighting. I don't particularly have a preference what to ultimately call the article--I know there has been a big debate about what to call inelligent lighting/moving lights/automated lighting. However, the content on the page Moving Light seems easily mergable with the content on the Intelligent lighting and it seems a little unecissary to seperate out 'moving lights' from the broader catagory of 'intelligent lights' based on Wikipedia's policy which says "Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability."

I don't want to start any editing wars, so if you have a dissenting opinion, by all means tell me, but don't freak out. This is merely a proposal. I'm not going to fight anyone tooth and nail to force it on them. However, If I don't hear any opinions against it from anyone in a month I will merge the page (again, this is according to Wikipolicy).

Thanks y'all, be well.

Benjo 23:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me.... Charlie Richmond 02:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge is done and done. Hopefully everyone is happy. Benjo 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

question about the vari-light in the article

The caption for the image of the Vari Light says it has many advanced sensors. Is it one of the cool lights that follow people wearing a transmitter on stage independently of the light board? If it can, I might classify it as a true intelligent light or robotic light. (As opposed to automated or moving) KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 20:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any moving lights that have this facility built in. That Vari*lite doesn't, for sure. It requires an additional controller - essentially replacing the desk with multiple sensors, a transmitter and a box of tricks that spits out DMX. Clever engineering, for sure, but intelligent? Oh no. Bryson430 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mac2000profile.jpg

Image:Mac2000profile.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken out. Not really a problem as we have other pictures. KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it could have qualified for fair use anyways since there are free alternatives. -JWGreen (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Profile VS Wash heads

I think this article should have somthing in the diffeences between profile and wash lights, such as differing features (gobo etc lacking from washes but washes have CMY more often) I work with mac 250 krypton and entour (profiles) and 250 washes. and also mac 500 (profile) and 600 (wash). so could get some pictures of equivlant levels of profile and wash being used together.~Wilflet (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting 2 comparison shots is an excellent idea. The picture you put on the stage lighting page (Image:Valve Oct.jpg is a nice one. If you could get some more like that too that would be great. Ive got an intelligent lighting textbook so ill see if i can put in a bit about profiles vs. washes KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 01:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Movers"

I'm not prepared to argue this, not really being a lighting guy (I don't actually think 'Intelligent' is the proper description anyway....) but I have started seen more and more people in the stagecraft mailing list use the term 'movers' these days.... FWIW.... Charlie Richmond (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted mainly because 'moving heads' was replaced with 'movers'. -JWGreen (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Debate?!

This section of the current article seems very much out of place, and doesn't really add that much to the article in my opinion. Maybe someone could merge that content in with the rest of the article, or just get rid of it. --Freedo50 (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Patent Wars

I recall that back in the late 90s, Vari-Lite held a near-monopoly on moving head technology due to their strong patent portfolio. This was a big deal at the time, but does it warrant inclusion in this article? Smithderek2000 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Referenced Fixtures

I'm sorry, but this article is bugging me. I find it a bit biased to only reference the Martin Mac series. there are hundreds of other brands and makers, yet thats the only series mentioned or depicted in this article. 71.145.186.219 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are completely right a lot of lighting articles on wikipedia seem to have this problem, feel free to correct it when you see it.

--Keeper of the Keys (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I recall the LSD Icon was the main competitor to Vari-Lite before the entry of other companies into the market. (Vari-Lite had some very tough patents back in the day) Maybe this should be mentioned? Also the LSD Icon M was (IIRC) the first projecting moving head: it used DLP technology but was not very bright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithderek2000 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Lamp Types

Comparing this article to Stage lighting instrument there is a whole section discussing tungsten, HID, HMI, and LED sources in the latter, but nothing comparable in this article. Should something be added, espec. since Robe has introduced it's "plasma" series (I know it's technically just a variation on HID but my understanding is it's different enough technology to warrent separation.) Lightings not my area of expertiese so I can't really flesh it out myself. Just a thought. DJSparky ^huh? 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, as an aside (and I suppose pursuant to the above comment about Martin bias) there is no real mention of moving mirror fixtures outside of a blurb in the history section. I recognise moving yoke fixtures dominate, but with HIgh End "re-releasing" the Trackspot, and accessories like the Rosco I-cue, it could probably stand a section... DJSparky ^huh? 05:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

perhaps circuses should be mentioned

both of the biggest circuses in norway use such technology. most likely circuses in other countries as well but i havent been on any of them so i cant tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This Article Is Dreadful

It contains much outdated information, is written poorly with plenty of inconsistent terminology changes (the entertainment lighting industry is full of different terminology for the same things, depending on where you're from in the world.) It's difficult to read, and doesn't flow particularly well. There's very little mention of newer technology in a field that is moving very very rapidly. There's no mention of LED lighting, and 'intelligent' lighting is not just moving heads and moving mirrors - it's any light takes a DMX signal and processes that on-board (as opposed to dimmers & generics). What about LED battens such as PixelLine? LED parcans? Strobes? Also many laser systems take DMX as control. Even colour scrollers and smoke machines can be considered intelligent, if not technically lighting. If this article is ONLY about moving head lighting then it's name should be changed to 'Moving Head Lighting'.

All-round bad. I think this is probably because it seems like it wasn't written mainly by people that are genuinely experts in the field.

--Icecold.trashcan (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't dispute the statement that the article is outdated, the technology is changing ridiculously fast; the terminology changes I attribute to the nature of crowd-sourced articles. I would argue, however, that in my experience intelligent lighting typically refers to fixtures with features beyond simply generating light, typified by moving heads or mirrors, gobos, rotation etc., NOT on-board DMX reception. A S4 with an indexing gobo rotator has DMX at the fixture, but I don't know anyone who would call that an intelligent light. LED's are a greyer area, but outside of flexibility, there's little difference between a Color Block 2 and a fresnel with a scroller; my friends in the industry typically lump LED's either with intelligent lights if they move, their own category if they don't...

More to the point: regardless of its accuracy in the face of newer technology, the legacy term for fixtures whose defining feature is generally a moving head or mirror is intelligent lighting. Changing the article title doesn't jibe with large swaths of the industry DJSparky ^huh? 06:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Remit

The article authoritatively states intelligent lighting is stage lighting. NOT NECESSARILY. The term is also used to describe a related but different system of highly controllable low voltage domestic lighting systems and the beginning of the article should be changed to reflect the multiple meanings of the term intelligent lighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.228.156.103 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a hoax, and should be removed.

"Intelligent Lighting" has no scientific basement. All lights were created from evolution, from fire to LEDs.

I do have a fossil incandescent bulb, and museums are full of all the lines of evolutionary illumination artifacts: sticks, torches, whale oil, electric arc lamps, and quantum dots.

Wikipedia is source based, no fashion designer based. Delete this article immediately and ban the authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.5.187 (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intelligent lighting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125190606/http://www.mts.net/~william5/history/hol.htm to http://www.mts.net/~william5/history/hol.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)