A Theatrical Challenge - slightly O/T

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 00:14:39 -0000, "Chas Gill"
wrote:

D'you know I think you're right! I don't think the off-axis issue will be
too problematic - as long as it's a TV and not a computer monitor - but
light in the eyes of the performers will almost certainly be a problem.
Having said that I've seen TVs used in the professional theatre for exactly
the function I want. Might they have been plasma (brighter than LCD) or
even CRT?


Just about every West End musical - and an increasing number of
smaller scale productions - has monitors mounted FOH - typically on
the front of the Dress Circle - for this purpose. I often see crt
screens being used, presumably for the better brightness and angle of
view.

It's also standard practice for the stage managerment console to have
a monitor fed from a FOH camera. In single-camera/single monitor
setups I've never seen anything more complicated than a cheap camera
connected directly by coax cable.

Distribution amps come into use where multiple monitors need to be
used. Perhaps other technical operators lack a full direct view of
the stage. When the pit is understage or backstage the MD (and maybe
other key members of the orchestra) use monitors.

As a theatre MD myself I much prefer being in a
traditionally-positioned orchestra pit. If I MUST be behind the
action, my first priority is reliable audio monitoring. But it's a
sad fact that monitoring, even if set up perfectly during rehearsal,
tends to disappear inexplicably (well the operator always SWEARS he
changed nothing:-) when the show starts. If I'm in the same
performance space, we can manage. If in a separate room, we're
f***ed.

I remember a college production of "Cabaret". Just me on keyboard
plus a drummer. Plan was to hide us round the back with video and
audio monitors. I objected strenuously and was grudgingly allowed to
"make the place look untidy". Lucky I did. The radio mics arrived,
as always, at the last minute. Inexperienced performers,
inexperienced operator. All went remarkably well until the girl
playing Sally came to her big number. You know - the one with
stockings, suspenders and a bowler hat? Which went on her head -
right over her microphone. We, of course, immediately played at
half-volume and she got away with it. If we'd been "round the back" -
disaster.

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 13:19:52 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:


A long time ago in a galaxy far away I recall dealing with a company called
Savilles for hire of audiovisual equipment, sometimes with, and sometimes
without somebody to set it up (depending on what it was). The look of their
website suggests that they are in the big league now and wouldn't be interested
in anything less than a fully crewed multicamera rock concert, but it might
still be worth an enquiry. Failing that, just Google "video equipment hire" and
you'll find dozens of other possible candidates. If all you want is a couple of
day's hire of a couple of monitors and a locked-off camera with cables, you'll
probably be able to find somebody who can do it.

http://www.gradav.co.uk/

hire simple systems with up to 100m of cable. If the catalogue
doesn't have exactly what you want, talk to them.

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:20:43 +0000, Jim wrote:

It's a case of looking at the stage lighting design and see what is
being used, really. It's probable that if the monitors are kept low, in
the footlights area, and there are no footlights, then they will be OK.

Mount front and up if you can. Singers need to be looking that way,
not at their feet.

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:20:43 +0000, Jim wrote:

It's a case of looking at the stage lighting design and see what is
being used, really. It's probable that if the monitors are kept low, in
the footlights area, and there are no footlights, then they will be OK.

Mount front and up if you can. Singers need to be looking that way,
not at their feet.

Thanks to a really nice TV repair man in the next town, we have 2 x 21" CRT
TVs for a bit of advertising and a couple of complimentary tickets.
Everything else came from CPC in Preston and it looks like we'll get a
result and save some money to boot.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread so far. I'll let you know
how it goes - and if you happen to be in the area, we're on at the Harlow
Playhouse 18th - 22nd November. See www.bsmtc.org.uk if you'd like to know
more.

Cheers

Chas

On 2008-11-07, Owain wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:
I suppose any loss counts as a form of brevement.
Oh my goodness.

Would a 50% loss be a semibrevement?

25% would be minimal.

Just don't get crotchety about the 12.5% loss.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/

Of course you wouldn't but these people are trying to ring up something
temporary with a budget of zero, so beggars can't be choosers. Lot's of
old camcorders lurk in cupboards, with mechanical recording-type faults
but a perfect actual camera.

The OP said he had a budget up to £175, I'll agree with your statement above
BUT when I was a young student I used to do all this stuff and try and rig
up systems like this, used camcorders, had green monitors etc, spent hours
trying to work out what was wrong with each bit of kit. As soon as I got
employed in this field and used the correct kit - I thought why did I bother
wasting my time before.

I detect slight technical snobbery here.

Not at all, as previously said I am just trying to pass on my experience in
these parts.

I know for a fact that the BBC uses an old knackered camcorder as a webcam
at one particular location. Now you wouldn't say they were wrong would
you?

Not allowed to say anything bad against my part* employer

* (Look up 3sixtymedia in Manchester and you'll see why part employer)

In article , Soruk
wrote:
I suppose any loss counts as a form of brevement.
Oh my goodness.

Would a 50% loss be a semibrevement?

25% would be minimal.

Just don't get crotchety about the 12.5% loss.

Better if you could treble it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Bill Wright wrote:
I suppose any loss counts as a form of brevement.
Oh my goodness.

Would a 50% loss be a semibrevement?

Excuse me gentlemen. I'm just off to put my head in a bucket of cold
water.

No stay, they'll be gone in a minuet.

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Alan Pemberton" wrote in message
ve.co.uk.invalid...
Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article 1ipy32j.s51qkp1rpaxwaN%
lid, Alan Pemberton wrote:
A monitor that accepts a BNC AV input should also be able to loop it
through to a second monitor. So you'd want 1 x 50M + whatever the
distance between the monitors is. It may be the case the the output
stage in the camcorder is not capable of driving a 50m cable correctly
and so you'd need a DA to do that. But you're not looking for super-fi
HD quality, are you? Just need to see the white stick.

If the impedance of the cable is the same as the output impedance of the
camera (75 Ohms is usual for video), it doesn't matter what its length
is, and a distribution amplifier would make no difference. An infinite
length of cable would be electrically the same as a 75 Ohm resistor.

Indeed, as would be the case with a professional bit of kit designed to
push 1V down a 75ohm cable. But I'm not entirely convinced that the
output stage in the average camcorder would be, hence my caveat, though
I have no evidence to support that, never having needed to do it. I'm
just an old cynic. No one seems to use cathode followers these days to
reduce the Miller effect.

--
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me

In this case I intend to use two TVs, their AV inputs driven by 2 separate
BNC cables of 50m from a cheapo (1 in 3 out) composite VDA (from CPC),
itself driven by the camcorder. Won't know until I get all the bits and
have a chance to lash it all together whether or not it will work - hence my
original question, which was to avoid as many banana skins as possible. We
shall see.......or not, as the case may be.

Chas

"Alan Pemberton" wrote in message
ve.co.uk.invalid...
No one seems to use cathode followers these days to
reduce the Miller effect.

Is that Glenn Miller?

Bill