Dissertation Research

[Heather Readdy]

1353760224[/url]' post='458096']

I've spent the last 24 hours desperately trying not to just post:

 

1353667907[/url]' post='457984']

Should [iT] be taught before any student picks up a light?

 

No no no no no no no!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

But as a moderator I would have to censor myself and that wouldn't be good!

 

So I feel I should expand.

 

Lighting design is an art. Programming is a science. If a student is expected to be doing nothing but programming then yes, let's teach them IT skills first, but what use would that be - a programmer who doesn't know about design? The best programmers get to know what designers are thinking and start to get ahead of them. So the designer gets as far as "could you give me..." and the programmer has already done it! Someone who just presses buttons isn't anything like as much use as someone who understands what the designer is thinking. One of the top West End programmers is Rob Halliday who is much in demand for his programming skills (credits include Oliver!, Martin Guerre, Les Mis, Blood Brothers, Mary Poppins, Evita etc.) but look at the list of shows he has designed for too: My linkhttp://robhalliday.com/Design/Design/DesignResume.html.

As Rob says on his own website

"Programming is taking what the lighting designer - the artist - wants to have happen, and dealing with the computers and the mechanics of the lights to make it happen, all with an artistic eye so you know what they mean by 'a leafy blue blob over there'.

(My bold).

Everyone working in lighting should be starting with what the lights can do not what the IT can do.

 

 

1353667907[/url]' post='457984']

What type of people do you think they should use? Should they use people that are unfamiliar with it?

Why would that help?

 

1353667907[/url]' post='457984']

Do you think developers should know something about lighting?

How could you possible design anything at all without knowing about your subject?

 

 

I think you may have to work very hard to convince us that IT comes first in a lighting world. IT has done wonders for lighting and allows visualisations, makes it easier to draw rig plans and generate lists, allows multiple moving lights to all do different things at the same time and many other wonderful things, but give me a room full of generic lanterns and a manual lighting board and I can still light a show, give me a computer and no lanterns and I can't.

 

A bit of background about me- I am a student studying lighting programming and I'm more interested in the science side rather than the art side of things. My dissertation is more to help me learn about the software programming side of things because this is something that I wish to take further in the future.

Now I totally get that some of my questions are some what provoking some strong opinions, but this was my aim I want some strong opinions in order to help me further my research and a lot of the comments that people have written have been extremely helpful and interesting to read. It's funny you should mention Rob Halliday I am going to interview him as part of this project and have had master classes with him at uni. He has even said that he doesn't particularly agree with my premise which I totally respect.

And when I say developers I mean software developers. I wasn't sure if you knew what I ment so sorry if you did know.

I am currently reading Richard Sennett's book the craftsman and the human computer interface by Brenda lorrel. If you know of any other books that may be of any use to me I would really appreciate it

Thanks for your message

 

 

1353692228[/url]' post='458035']

I'll chip in on this one from the perspective of a software developer who has dabbled in a bit of lighting so I'll answer the development questions and leave the lighting ones to others. For background I'm currently doing my masters in Computer Science so I am reasonably proficient although this has been for academic projects and some limited external work.

 

First off I think you need to separate IT from development - they are very different things. Personally I'd say basic IT skills would be useful for a programming a show as consoles are becoming more and more computer like each year.

 

Development is should be a highly structured process following a particular methodology. This wiki gives you a bit of a taste of some of them. Basically they boil down to design, build, test, deploy and you loop round those four until you're finished. Not how most would program a show.

 

With beta testing it's common to put the application into the hands of the users (be it internal staff or limited members of the public) because by that point a huge amount of testing and reworking will have already been done. Beta software should be almost ready to go with only minor bugs, the unit testing & alpha stages should have picked up more major problems.

If they used testers who are unfamiliar with programming, how would developers know whats a bug and what's a user problem (people not operating it properly)?

 

In my opinion, beta testers should be the extremely proficient users who will exercise the most number of features of a new console OS to find the bugs. They're also more likely to contact the manufacturer and be able to actually describe the problem as opposed to the dreaded "it doesn't work" fault reports.

 

Should developers know about lighting? That depends. If they're responsible for the design stages then yes they probably should. Once the design is complete and a solid set of requirements defined then there's no need to have a lighting-savvy developer. They should just be following plans - it's often possible to sub-contract the coding out to a 3rd party too.

 

I hope that's been some help. Feel free to ask away if there's something you'd like to know about software development but it's not as simple as it appears from the surface.

 

John

Thank you for this you make some interesting points

 

 

 

 

1353721858[/url]' post='458074']

I'll put answers below. Firstly to give you some of my background, which seems relevant, although I'm here as a lighting person and undertake quite a bit of lighting work (and indeed beta test for a couple of console manufacturers) I have a background in software development and worked as a developer and IT person for many years after studying Computing at University. Ironically whilst that was well paid, I'd far rather do lighting... ;)

 

Do you think in order to get onto a lighting course; one of therequirements should be to have good IT skills?

 

To be honest to get into most courses these days, good IT skills are almost a prerequisite, as others have said skills like spreadsheets are more appropriate - and many lighting designers will use packages such as Wysiwyg, Vectorworks, Lightwright etc - so some computer skills are useful for this, not so much for the operation of lighting desks.

 

Should it be taught before any student picks up a light?

 

No, actually (note I'm not an educator!) I think picking up a light should be one of the first things - let people handle them, and work out how they work for themselves - understand concepts such as focus, shutters, gobos, barndoors etc before teaching the theory behind using them - I've found in my limited 'teaching' roles (e.g. trying to train others working with amdram groups etc who are interested in it) that familiarity with the tools in person is far more useful than trying to explain them

 

Do you think companies are using the right type of people to betatest their software?

 

Well I'm one of them , and I know others on here are , so I'd say probably :)

 

What type of people do you think they should use? Should they usepeople that are unfamiliar with it?

 

Anyone beta-testing lighting software should be familiar with lighting ... Just the same as anyone beta testing software for video editing should be someone with some knowledge of video production.

 

Do you think developers should know something about lighting?

 

If they're devleoping lighting software - yes - If you want an example of a recent (high profile) situation why this is necessary look at the deployment of new IT systems within organisations like the NHS - designed and tested by people that have no experience in the role of the people who will actually be using it (e.g. GPs, Support Staff etc) and as a result you often end up with products that aren't fit for purpose.

 

Hope the above is of use to you, don't hesitate to drop me an eMail if you have any other questions, and congrats on some well thought out questions (and listening to the answers) compared to many of the multiple choice 'questionnaires' we see on here :)

 

Thank you so much I really appreciate everything you have said. And I do have a few more questions to ask if that is ok.

What do you think the expected level of specialism and ability that a student graduating from a lighting program should have?

 

When you go to beta test a piece of software do you think you are given enough time to do so?When doing your testing what are the kind of questions that you have to go through?

When reading these quotes would you agree or disagree with them?"If you want to talk to a programmer, it is important to know that you will not be trusted unless you have written a program"And "When priorities are threatened, survival is threatened"

(They come from a book by Brenda Lorell)

Thanks again Heather

[paulears]

I'm finding the link between software development and the job content of a typical lighting contra programmer thin, if not almost invisible? Lighting programmers don't write the software for their own controls, they're predominately users, aren't they. Even if somebody could write, say, a specific piece of software to perhaps a specific job - like maybe recreate the flickering of a bonfire - the current crop of controls don't support them. In fact, it's odd nobody has invented the lighting version of Virtual Instruments, or processors as our sound colleagues have been using for years. A common plug in format that could then be created outside of the manufacturers software, and sold separately. This would be a link between software and lighting - but we don't have this yet?

 

What do you think the expected level of specialism and ability that a student graduating from a lighting program should have?

The only real requirement would be for the programmer to be fully competent on a specific control - but this probably ties them to a particular designer or even venue. Is it possible for a programmer to be fully effective on more than one operating system, or is it more likely that in-depth skills tie the programmer down to one control?

 

Realistically the programmer can be seen as an extra expense, and it's very difficult to justify - as production companies may see a designer who 'needs' a programmer as an expensive choice. I've seen work going to programmerless designers, as they offer better value, even though plotting sessions are longer without one?

 

 

"If you want to talk to a programmer, it is important to know that you will not be trusted unless you have written a program" - surely this is rubbish when applied to theatre and events lighting, but probably accurate in her field, which has little to do with lighting does it? She's eminent in a totally different field - which seems a bit alien, lighting people simply do not write their own software - they're users.

 

"When priorities are threatened, survival is threatened" - a truism, surely?

 

For a programmer, survival is threatened when the designer cannot get what they want - so a key feature for a programmer would appear to be empathy, and the ability to communicate, acting as the translator between the designers mental process and the physical results of the lighting.

 

I would have really thought that the primary skill set of a lighting programer is theatre or events lighting. A real in depth knowledge of the art, the craft and how lighting is constructed and implemented. Then they use their mastery of the control to use these skills in the way that supports the designers intentions. I honestly can't see the need for a programmer to know anything about what goes on inside the software the control uses.

 

As for beta testing - if I employed a programmer and found out s/he was using my production to test out somebodies software, I would be pretty unhappy. I want a stable system. In the past I have stopped venues installing the latest software into a control when it was mentioned. I'd like the stable version please - let them risk a beta on somebody else's show, not mine! It happened 6 or 7 years ago to me when somebody did an 'upgrade' before the dress, and it fell over, twice!

 

Programmers are clever, skilled, reliable board ops. At least, that is how I see them. We have cast, crew, creatives - which box would programmers see themselves in?

[Heather Readdy]

1353862109[/url]' post='458203']

I'm finding the link between software development and the job content of a typical lighting contra programmer thin, if not almost invisible? Lighting programmers don't write the software for their own controls, they're predominately users, aren't they. Even if somebody could write, say, a specific piece of software to perhaps a specific job - like maybe recreate the flickering of a bonfire - the current crop of controls don't support them. In fact, it's odd nobody has invented the lighting version of Virtual Instruments, or processors as our sound colleagues have been using for years. A common plug in format that could then be created outside of the manufacturers software, and sold separately. This would be a link between software and lighting - but we don't have this yet?

 

What do you think the expected level of specialism and ability that a student graduating from a lighting program should have?

The only real requirement would be for the programmer to be fully competent on a specific control - but this probably ties them to a particular designer or even venue. Is it possible for a programmer to be fully effective on more than one operating system, or is it more likely that in-depth skills tie the programmer down to one control?

 

Realistically the programmer can be seen as an extra expense, and it's very difficult to justify - as production companies may see a designer who 'needs' a programmer as an expensive choice. I've seen work going to programmerless designers, as they offer better value, even though plotting sessions are longer without one?

 

 

"If you want to talk to a programmer, it is important to know that you will not be trusted unless you have written a program" - surely this is rubbish when applied to theatre and events lighting, but probably accurate in her field, which has little to do with lighting does it? She's eminent in a totally different field - which seems a bit alien, lighting people simply do not write their own software - they're users.

 

"When priorities are threatened, survival is threatened" - a truism, surely?

 

For a programmer, survival is threatened when the designer cannot get what they want - so a key feature for a programmer would appear to be empathy, and the ability to communicate, acting as the translator between the designers mental process and the physical results of the lighting.

 

I would have really thought that the primary skill set of a lighting programer is theatre or events lighting. A real in depth knowledge of the art, the craft and how lighting is constructed and implemented. Then they use their mastery of the control to use these skills in the way that supports the designers intentions. I honestly can't see the need for a programmer to know anything about what goes on inside the software the control uses.

 

As for beta testing - if I employed a programmer and found out s/he was using my production to test out somebodies software, I would be pretty unhappy. I want a stable system. In the past I have stopped venues installing the latest software into a control when it was mentioned. I'd like the stable version please - let them risk a beta on somebody else's show, not mine! It happened 6 or 7 years ago to me when somebody did an 'upgrade' before the dress, and it fell over, twice!

 

Programmers are clever, skilled, reliable board ops. At least, that is how I see them. We have cast, crew, creatives - which box would programmers see themselves in?

 

Hi paul,

Thanks for your message again, From all of your messages I get the distinct impression that you are rather against the job of a lighting programmer which is fair enough this is your opinion. In my opinion with how fast software and control systems are advancing I believe that the lighting programmer is a very necessary aid to a production these people are the ones that learn all the new features/control systems they are there not as a hindrance but as assistants to the designer, I therefore think that the role of the programmer should go in the box with the creatives. And as for lighting programmers being purely users there are some in the industry that have written software to aid them with thier work not all programmers are solely users. At uni we are told we should know at least three desks but one we should know really well. Can I ask what is your background? so that I can understand a little better where you are coming from.

Heather

[paulears]

I'm not against, Heather, but I do wonder about the job opportunities for programmers? If we look at professional theatre in the provinces, or for short or long term touring, then money is very tight. I don't see programmers as creatives, that is what the designer does (in my humble view). The programmer's job, if my understanding is correct, is to be an efficient, quick and skilful operator - and operators are not normally considered creatives. Nowadays, I rarely do the Designers job, although I am a professional member of the ALD - my design jobs are rarer, and for what I do - I personally have no use for a programmer. Looking back at my last eight years of being production or company manager for professional theatre only twice have I had a lighting designer use a programmer, and although I remember the LDs names, the programmer was just the person making things happen. I did notice how they worked, piling things potentially useful to the LD into the desk, ready for the request - but these people seemed very introvert, and almost passive people. The LDs seemed to use them as an extension of themselves - the LD working with the Directors, and the programmer just being a means of making things happen quickly. I have a great deal of respect for the people doing this role, but my opinion, after watching them work was that they were working for the LD - and were not part of the team as a whole. I prefer working with LDs who operate the desk themselves, or use the venue people who know their own control inside out.

 

I quite accept that for some LDs, the programmer is essential, and if you don't book the programmer, you don't get that LD. However, the ALD have been concerned about maintaining fees for the LDs, and adding an extra person for less than the big status shows is not going to work in many cases.

 

The traditional lighting designer has rarely had benefit of an assistant or associate on less than No1 productions, so my humble view is that the job market for programmers is limited. Lighting Designers can work on low budget production, doing much of the work themselves. Paying a programmer seems to be a feature that almost ensures programmers have a much more limited range of projects to work on.

 

If a programmer considers themselves a 'creative' in terms of input, then surely they're an associate or assistant designer? A programmer is a member of the production team without any design responsibility - because programming is a reactive process, isn't it?

 

From your comment about programmers writing their own software, I'm really interested in this side of their role - I really was not aware that any specific software was being written for individual productions. What was it they have to produce that isn't in the controls? I'm interested in how specifically written software is used in the system, as I'm not aware of any controls that can have externally written software incorporated? How does this work~? Like the audio people's plugins, or as stand alone software? How does this integrate with the common control systems? Taking DMX and modifying it on the way to the fixtures, or by working on ethernet directly inside the control. Intriguing .

 

My negativity comes from your promotion of the fact that programmers need IT skills rather than lighting ones, which may not be what you mean, but your posts do seem to suggest you think IT is more important than lighting - which seems odd. Rose Bruford have had a good reputation for lighting courses - always pushing the art components over the technical. I got an invite from Nick Hunt, a few years ago now, to come and see some work, and was pretty impressed by the designers, but a bit less so by a group of third years who were unable to patch their own control into a guest speakers equipment. At the time, they were explained as being design students who hadn't yet done this, all programming up to then being done by the people on a different course.

 

I'm sure that RB are turning out decent lighting people - but I do worry a little about the stratification into jobs with less than universal appeal. Obviously, there are jobs for programmers, but there seem to be far more for designers and operators nationally. The bigger music events seem to user LDs who very much do their own programming. Outside of the West End status shows, programmers are rarer. fair enough, the big name designers - the Patrick Woodroffe status LDs have a structured system with Associates who are LDs of their own designs, and they have programmers of course. I'm also an educationalist, and my concern is that education seems to be promoting programming as a dedicated career path, when to me, it's a very narrow one - and I wonder if there really is the work out there to keep graduates engaged in programming. Hopefully, I'm wrong to worry, and there is work out there. However - my own perspective, as we go into panto season, is that programmers are not doing very much work on what is a pretty big chunk of the performance activity for the next two-three months.

 

I'm just one of around twenty odd productions in my group. I'll see how many have programmers attached to their LD. I'm not expecting my LD to arrive with a programmer, I'll check with some of the others?

 

If the LDs are working without one - is this a good thing?

[Heather Readdy]

I am not promoting the fact that IT is more important than lighting skills more that it is a useful skill to have as a programmer I find that knowing the processes behind what I am trying to create a useful thing to know because it helps me to understand it better I am by no means trying to promote it at all! There is more to being a programmer than just programming lights per say for example I am interested in media server programming as well which is in my opinion a little more technical than just pushing the buttons. Of course lighting skills are useful I'm not saying they aren't my research project isn't based around that its whether someone with out a lighting background could program a show and thanks to many of the people on here I am building a large base of research and things that I can look further into you have taken one part of my research and gotten negative about it I am also asking whether software developers that are involved in developing for the lighting industry should know something about the industry the are developing for! Rossmck makes some very valid points in his post. I apologise if my choice of research has caused some negativity as I said before I expected it would and the responses I have received I am very appreciative of and they will enebitably help me with my project .

[paulears]

Please - what software is being written by the programmers. I've had a search around and I can't work out what you mean?

 

I have to say the hippo course was one of the most interesting I've been on, and reinforces my view that programming IS very much pressing buttons. Anything involving pixel mapping and media servers is pretty tough going. I did my first combined video and lighting project quite a few years ago - using Arkaos and I found it VERY hard going, and for this kind of thing I do see a real use for the programmer - same in TV, where it's very common. Anybody who actually enjoys doing this kind of stuff deserves credit - because it's not really lighting at all - it's as you say, computers! Maybe it's even justification for the importance of IT - I'm still not sold on the idea that you do the IT before picking up a light - unless you want to divorce traditional lighting from this clever stuff.

I am also asking whether software developers that are involved in developing for the lighting industry should know something about the industry the are developing for!

I can't think anybody would say no to this one!

 

I think the confusion is to do with the definitions of things like 'software developer' - I guess that in Avo, ETC, Chamsys etc are people with that job title, writing the software for the next generation of controls - but I don't understand the link with games development and other non-theatre/events you mentioned?

 

Please don't think I think there's no merit to your work, or chosen profession, but your posts are confusing me - I just don't quite understand what you are seeking to do - as a research project. Remit and definition seem a bit wobbly.

Can you give me some examples of what you have already looked at in the lighting software development area? Looking back to your original post - goalposts seem to have moved a fair bit.

 

You did say

I literally want to hear everything anyone has to say about this

[ImagineerTom]

I'd argue you're asking a slightly irrelevant (almost wrong) question when you ask "....whether someone with out a lighting background could program a show" as the answer to this is yes, but when how or why would they ever?

 

I could do the dying swan dance in Swan Lake at the Royal Opera House, it wouldn't take much tuition to teach me the mechanics of how to do it.... but I'd not be very good at it and I'd never actually be asked because they'd ask a proper ballet dancer with proper ballet experience to do the job; you wouldn't employ someone un-qualified to do a job when there's 1000 qualified people ready to do it. As others have mentioned there are fringe situations (artists designing an art installation that incorporates theatre lighting) where someone with no industry knowledge could be required to program a lighting desk but otherwise I can't think of how any situation would arise where someone without a lighting background could be put in a position where they'd have to program a show.

 

Perhaps you could clarify the situations by giving some examples of how and where these situations you're talking about would occur?

 

 

[Heather Readdy]

its more about how software has improved and made things easier and possible for anyone to understand for example green hippo their software I know it is media server but it is an easy interface to understand and accessible for anyone of any level of ability .

[ImagineerTom]

Then you're making a massive, fundamental mistake by confusing ease of use with ease of understanding and assuming this means non-trained persons could (or would) suddenly swap industries. In the past few months I've been completely flummoxed by a hippo media server and a couple of "latest release" lighting controllers that Techs have been raving about as being amazingly easy and intuitive. They may be /easier/ to use but I still didn't have a clue how to use them, nor do they in any way replace the creative input that you only get from industry experience. Anyone can be taught how to play notes on a piano in a matter of seconds but that doesn't mean you can play in a band or compose a symphony.

[rossmck]

its more about how software has improved and made things easier and possible for anyone to understand for example green hippo their software I know it is media server but it is an easy interface to understand and accessible for anyone of any level of ability .

 

Not really ... not unless you have some understanding of what you're trying to achieve.. Final Cut Pro is really easy to use and understand, at least I think so, but it's not going to make me the next Scorsese or Soderbergh.

 

Lighting Design is a creative skill, even as someone who has an IT background (and therefore I perhaps find it easier than some with no IT experience to get my head around complex desks - that said, I still probably know the Strand 500 series better than anything else ;)) I don't think that helps me with the design aspect at all.

 

Likewise I have a number of good friends who would happily spend some time getting to know a lighting desk and plot cues into it but wouldn't feel confident designing those states themselves. For this reason I imagine there is a role for a lighting programmer (indeed Rose Bruford, probably others too, offers a very good course in *just* lighting programming) however as others have said in all but the biggest shows and events I would expect there is rarely the budget to hire an LD and a programmer (it's bad enough how many smaller theatre companies try and get people to work for next to nothing or free, let alone asking for them to take on TWO people where traditionally there was just one)

[Ashley R]

Ill just put this out there, but my first reaction after reading through the entire thread is da faq?(Or What on earth is going on?)

 

Paul - I do know of one touring show where someone has had written a custom bit of software in order to control the lighting. Forgotten the name of the programmer, but the designer was AJ Penn, on Linkin Park's A Thousand Suns tour. The Custom bit of software is what links the Martin M1, to the ramshackle of Behringer Fader board, a midi Keyboard and a Abelon Live touch pad, all kept in time with Pro Tools. I forget exactly how it all worked, but theres a nice Entech video explaining it all.

(Only reason why I remember this, is I was on location when they filmed this, and also had a nice chat to AJ about it.)

 

 

In my opinion, is it not show critical that the Lighting Programmer knows how all the 1's and 0's and the lines of code work within the console, all they need to know is ballyhoo @ 100, offset 20 is going to create something that looks like what the LD wants, and how the various consoles would like this input fed into them.

 

A Software coder making software for a console, need not know a single thing about lighting. No need, as all the specs have already been drawn up.

 

A software designer, the one putting together the spec for the Coder, definitely needs to be aware of the target audience for their product.

 

On everything except the largest shows a dedicated programmer is not needed/there is not enough $$$ to go around, to warrant yet another crew member.

[kerry davies]

Don't be upset Heather, having tried to follow this thread it seems that you are approaching things from the opposite end to the usual requirements of theatre. Yes, non theatre people can write the software or programme the boards but unless they start from what it is they are trying/tasked to deliver it is of little use.

 

A little tale you may not be familiar with follows.

The technogeeks in the US once designed a missile that flew round mountains, took real-time evasive action to threats, flew below radar and landed a nuke on a handkerchief because they had developed all this fancy techno stuff bit by bit. Problem was that the tech made it so heavy it never reached the enemy and ran out of range over our allies. Crap end result.

 

Starting from what the technology can achieve without keeping the required outcome firmly in mind causes all sorts of problems. We are there to realise concepts, often those of others, which is where the art enters the equation. The end result is more important than how we get there and though there may be a role for dedicated programmers it will be in limited numbers.

 

The basic fact is that a chef with no sense of smell is a hazard and a programmer with no sense of the show is not ideal.

[paulears]

Update!

 

My LD turned up - with a programmer! So I took ten minutes to have a chat with him about this subject. The reason he is on the show is that the LD wants to be creative and not be bogged down with the technology, and between them, they've made the money and time work. I explained the topic here, and he was amazed. Know lighting, then learn the control was his take on it. He can't programme code, and has no interest in it whatsoever - he couldn't understand this topic at all!