Options
Related

DL2 vs. DL1

Okay, so I have a serious question to ask and I'm looking for straight answers and explanation.

I was told by someone at High End that the DL1 is not built to the same tolerance as a DL2.

There was no elaboration on this but I want to know...

Let's pretend I am not using the Media Server built into the DL2 but plugging in an RGBHV cable to the light. I want to know exactly where the DL2 is different from the DL1.


I am asking this question for several very important reasons. In the next year, I will be responsible for making the decision to install as many as 20 media server and moving yoke projector packages. Considering that's almost a half million dollars, I want to know what my choice gets me.

Here is my argument. I have promised the owners of the venues where I am doing these install designs that when the installation is finished, they will be able to have their programmer sit down and program looks on the media server without having to strike the projector lamp in the fixture to see a preview.

What this means is an LCD screen connected to the media server that would sit in front of the operator during the time the projectors are off.

Now my preference is to Have Axons installed in a rack and DL1's in the air. I would run a cable from the camera to the rack and another cable from the axon to the light. Of course I would split the signal from the Axon to feed to the preview monitor. (On and technically I will be using sVideo-over-Ethernet for the camera and RGBHV-over-Ethernet for the Signal to the PJ but whatever.)

Right now, if I use a DL2, it means I have to run two sVideo lines to each light for the camera out and capture in, but it also means I'd have to violate my High End DL2 warranty when I open the case and put a distribution amp inside, and cut an opening to run an RGBHV back to a preview monitor.

Yes, I love the LCD on the front of the DL2 but no, it's not useful for this specific application.

Besides, I would rather have the Axons on UPSs so I can protect them better. The projectors I would just have on surge protectors.
Parents
  • 0
    Todd,

    If my first post I had a major brain fart, so let me come at this at a different angle.

    Positional precision is not really dependant on the encoding system of the fixture. The encoders are there mainly for detection and correction of positional error. When a new DMX value comes in for a movement (pan or tilt) the movement distance is calculated in motor steps, and the motors move this set distance. The encoders only come on after the movement has occured to verify that the correct amount of distance was traveled. So, as long as the motors do not misstep (which really only occurs by a physical force acted upon the head of the fixture), the encoders don't come into play.

    Having said that, something I should have mentioned before (please excuse the brain fart) is that the motion drive ratios on the two fixtures are different. The DL.1 has a 6:1 drive ration while the DL.2 has a 10:1. Given this fact, the DL.2 movement is more precise because we have a finer control of the head.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the DL.1 was conceived and designed before the Collage was, and so it wasn't really designed for that purpose. I have done some limited testing here in the office with Axons and DL.1s for Collaging, in which everything worked quite well, but this was only at a throw distance of ~12 feet.

    [quote=SourceChild]As an eventual point of failure, I would anticipate a need to replace pan bearings when movement and indexing showed inconsistencies that were no longer within the user's acceptable tolerance.
    Albeit replacing a bearing every couple or years is perhaps reasonable. I still remember the headaches of changing pan belts on Spot 250s simply because it was tedious.
    I don't think these should be considered points of failure. When I mentioned that the DL.2 pan bearing was more robust, this statement was aimed more at torsional rigidity. Hanging a unit sideways puts an enormous amount of stress on a bearing in a way that is doesn't like. With the fixture sitting box down or hung box up, the stress on the bearing is well within tolerances and these should not fail.

    [quote=SourceChild] Here are my questions... [quote=SourceChild] Can I order my DL.1s with the same digital encoders and pan bearings that come on a DL.2?
    No, you can't, but given the above information, this is pretty moot.

    [quote=SourceChild]Or Can I order DL.2s without the Media Server at a reasonably proportionate cost to the DL.1?
    Again, no.

    If FOH preview is absolutely required, one option is DL.2s in the rig (for the motion precisioin) and Axons at FOH for preview. Patched correctly, the Axon's will display the exact same thing as the DL.2s in the rig. Splitting video signals from the Axons or hacking into the DL.2s (besides voiding the warranties) gives more points of failure and may lead to more problems than it solves.
Reply
  • 0
    Todd,

    If my first post I had a major brain fart, so let me come at this at a different angle.

    Positional precision is not really dependant on the encoding system of the fixture. The encoders are there mainly for detection and correction of positional error. When a new DMX value comes in for a movement (pan or tilt) the movement distance is calculated in motor steps, and the motors move this set distance. The encoders only come on after the movement has occured to verify that the correct amount of distance was traveled. So, as long as the motors do not misstep (which really only occurs by a physical force acted upon the head of the fixture), the encoders don't come into play.

    Having said that, something I should have mentioned before (please excuse the brain fart) is that the motion drive ratios on the two fixtures are different. The DL.1 has a 6:1 drive ration while the DL.2 has a 10:1. Given this fact, the DL.2 movement is more precise because we have a finer control of the head.

    One thing to keep in mind is that the DL.1 was conceived and designed before the Collage was, and so it wasn't really designed for that purpose. I have done some limited testing here in the office with Axons and DL.1s for Collaging, in which everything worked quite well, but this was only at a throw distance of ~12 feet.

    [quote=SourceChild]As an eventual point of failure, I would anticipate a need to replace pan bearings when movement and indexing showed inconsistencies that were no longer within the user's acceptable tolerance.
    Albeit replacing a bearing every couple or years is perhaps reasonable. I still remember the headaches of changing pan belts on Spot 250s simply because it was tedious.
    I don't think these should be considered points of failure. When I mentioned that the DL.2 pan bearing was more robust, this statement was aimed more at torsional rigidity. Hanging a unit sideways puts an enormous amount of stress on a bearing in a way that is doesn't like. With the fixture sitting box down or hung box up, the stress on the bearing is well within tolerances and these should not fail.

    [quote=SourceChild] Here are my questions... [quote=SourceChild] Can I order my DL.1s with the same digital encoders and pan bearings that come on a DL.2?
    No, you can't, but given the above information, this is pretty moot.

    [quote=SourceChild]Or Can I order DL.2s without the Media Server at a reasonably proportionate cost to the DL.1?
    Again, no.

    If FOH preview is absolutely required, one option is DL.2s in the rig (for the motion precisioin) and Axons at FOH for preview. Patched correctly, the Axon's will display the exact same thing as the DL.2s in the rig. Splitting video signals from the Axons or hacking into the DL.2s (besides voiding the warranties) gives more points of failure and may lead to more problems than it solves.
Children
No Data

www.etcconnect.com