The bottom line is, that I work at a university, and in theory we're training the next generation of lighting board users. The interesting thing is that this generation of students doesn't see a moving light differently than a conventional, or a media server differently from a moving light. They know the differences, they just don't see how it should be any more complicated. They just make it go.
Certainly thats my point of view as well. My background is mixed sound, electrics and media (ie camera op and spark).
To me media and video in a theatre environment generally is lighting. How can you justify having a projector (that chucks light out the front onto the stage) being controlled by what is effectively a sound department with little or no reference to the lighting states onstage?
AmP wrote:I completely disagree with having a separate video op, or a desk just for the media server
I don't to be honest. Certainly a complicated video show with multiple projectors, surfaces and mix outputs takes far too much plotting time when your programmer could be working with the lighting designer plotting states. Seperate programmers perhaps a single operator once the show opens.
What I would like to see is a joined up approach, both systems using the same console software on different hardware eventually being combined onto the same desk and operator, through cue list merges probably. This is where the Palette falls down for me at the moment, how can you convince a video department to buy into a concept when they want a different desk?
Again, thank you all for the lively discussion ... and keep those comments coming.
Thanks for allowing it to happen. The politics of dealing with video and media can sometimes make me a little bit more forceful than I intended when reading back some of my posts.
I would certainly be interested to see you future developments on this.