
p15
Palette OS v10
Strand Lighting
Definition
The heart of this technology is our Universal Attribute Control Model or UAC for short. It is our
method of standardizing the language of communication with respect to intelligent lighting
control.
Elevating the means of control to an higher layer allows designers to once again think of their
lighting fixtures as merely tools available to get the job done. As the theatre embraced
moving light fixtures, it reluctantly accepted all of the idiosyncratic methods needed to control
them. The designers found themselves constantly adapting to the language imposed on them
by the manufacturer. Gone were the days of simply asking for lights and photons would land
on the stage.
Lets go back to the advent of computer controlled lighting to examine the issues that plagued
communication in the theatre. Before computers entered the theatre, the most popular
dimmer controllers were known as road-boards. These large devices had individual handles
for each dimmer and designers would ask operators to move a handle to a position to set the
light level. These 'move' instructions were written down as cues and with each one executed
in succession you had a show. The advantage of this system (which was only realized fully
after the obsolescence of road-boards) was that each move could be controlled at different
rates and multiple moves could be executed simultaneously by different operators.
Computer control first appeared on Broadway in 1975 when Tharon Musser used the
Electronics Diversified LS-8 console on A Chorus Line. This new technology allowed for
unprecedented repeatability and a huge number of cues executed in record time. As
processing power was very limited, decisions had to be made on how to execute these fades.
The technology and code development tools of the day dictated that each channel would be
recorded in each cue. This greatly simplified the process of playing back a show, or more
specifically, jumping from scene to scene during rehearsals. Remember, in the old days of
road-boards, getting to any place at random in the show almost always meant starting from
the beginning and executing each cue to ensure accuracy. LS-8 and others could do this with
ease. Kliegl quickly followed with the Performance and Strand with Multi-Q and Broadway
converted to computer control seemingly overnight. People were blown away with the
apparent new flexibility that these computers offered.
These early computer control systems did not emulate road-boards, but rather manual preset
boards. What designers eventually figured out, given a bit of experience on these consoles,
was that they could not achieve the complex cue timing that two or three road-board
operators did in the past. As these preset consoles recorded every channel in every cue, they
only moved from state to state. This resulted in robotic or non-organic fades. It was only
when Strand introduced the Light Palette that the technological problem that plagued these
fundamental concepts was realized on a computer (in North America at least).
People everywhere (and since) have praised Light Palette for marrying designer's desires and
computer control by using a common language. Almost every controller that has been
accepted on Broadway since has used core concepts introduced by Light Palette. With the
advent of intelligent lighting, so many more parameters have entered the equation that the
language conventions that have evolved are discordant and technologically inadequate. The
language must be overhauled. Conventional lighting control just worked in 2-space; Intensity
and Time. That is not so with moving light control. There are many many more parameters.
Moving light control has long suffered from the lack of this common language that designers
and programmers and manufacturers could use. To date, intelligent lighting control has only
stumbled along, managing to keep up with an evolving technology and never experienced the