Chauvet SlimPar 64 LED Pro DJ RGB Lights (4 Pack) w/ Obey 3 Controller & CHS-SP4 Light Case : 4 x Slim-Par64 Mega Pack : VMInnovations.com (http://www.vminnovations.com/Product_16135/Chauvet-SlimPar-64-LED-Pro-DJ-RGB-Lights-4-Pack-w-Obey-3-Controller-and-CHS-SP4-Light-Case.html)

Did I mention I hate these lights, no really, I hate them. Cheap, they look horrible and grate on my cameras at weddings. I wish DJ's would use higher quality lights. No I really hate them.

Ok, vent over.

So Steven, how do you really feel? lol
I agree, they are turrible! The problem is, that's what a lot of them use and there's no way around it.

I even told the last DJ about the blue and how it degrades not only video but photos, and I promise, he like used stay on blue for a lot of the major dances. If they would just mix in white, it would help. I know enough about lighting, that color is used to accent, but you still have to have whites to do the actual lighting.

I agree, but my feeling is, it's his deal and who am I to say anything BUT I may casually mention to the B or G about the lighting just so they know that while I am good at what I do I am not, for the most part, a miracle worker and if they are blue or green or magenta, that's how it is.

I understand your rant. Unlike you, however, I never tell a DJ how to do his job or how to use his equipment, or what he should buy.

The way it looks is the way it looks, as Don says.

The problem is that blue lights look great in real life, probably because the human eye has less sensitivity to blue.

I actually come from the DJ side of things (32 weddings a year) (for video, I'm 2nd shooter to my wife, and do the editing) and can tell you, it's OK to be pissed or annoyed about the DJ lights - same way as a DJ I don't like the local photogs who setup 3 bright lights and flood the dance floor all night so it's bright like the sun...

When I DJ, I'll ask photog/video folks if the lighting is OK, both the house lights being dimmed, and my parcans (these things). I usually assume that I need to use white light for special dances or events, and a dim/soft white or red for slow songs - this is about both pictures, and guests so if I can, I have lights on all 4 corners of the dance floor. During open dancing, the lights are set to chase mode, so the color changes a lot (though I use indirect lighting, bouncing off the ceiling or in fabric wrapped towers).

Really, I consider this so simple and easy, to try and make the reception good for EVERYONE by making a small effort. When all of us vendors work together, we make each others night (and work) so much better. The folks who won't be at least a tiny bit considerate, whether they're a DJ, or a different vendor, can bite me.

Personally, I find the red ones to be much worse. It's extremely bad at times. Almost to the point of not being able to use the footage.

Robert makes a good point. It's unprofessional just to 'not care' about how someone else will impact you. That's why we always communicate before the wedding and try our hardest to work with other vendors. My point is not that lighting is not good, infact, good lighting even colored lighting is really cool. My point is cheap lighting brings cheap results. I run Frezzi lights that do well, but not when it comes to bright LED's that do nothing but color.

The image below is a perfect example, why would you want solid blue, without white to actually light the floor..

I do love these rants about other people's areas of work. The reason everyone in the lighting side loves LED lighting is because for the first time, you can throw loads of really saturated colour around. Before LEDs,you had to buy rolls of Lee 181 Congo, and lose most of the light as heat, and watch the damn things burn out. Now you hit BLUE and get it. It looks to the eye really lovely, as does red. Green is less used because it's not a nice colour. The lighting people do not like LEDs because they dim poorly, are not that even in beam, and tend to fail far more than the advertising suggests. They treat the photographers and video people as annoying, because they get in the way, ask for sound things with no pre-arrangement and often have overblown ideas of their own importance, and status at the event. Only when wedding planners arrange an event does anyone give consideration to issues that impact on the event as a whole. So the video people may well have a higher status when the client wants it, but other clients want the video as a supporting item, and think the party afterwards is more important to the guests. Unless anyone firmly controls status, then there is no way the DJ is going to spoil his 'input' to the event because a photographer asks. At best, you might get a small shift, but probably just a nod, and no action. LED fixtures are often incapable of giving a decent white anyway, if they are RGB sources. All on full produce something rather yucky, and gthe DJ/Lighting man will resist any request for 'white'. In a proper outside broadcast - someone is in charge of lights, sound and vision, and can control everything. At a wedding, it's a free for all - everyone working on their own, believing their bits are the most critical.
Did I mention I hate these lights, no really, I hate them. Cheap, they look horrible and grate on my cameras at weddings. I wish DJ's would use higher quality lights. No I really hate them.
On a DJ forum perhaps they'd have a different version?
Did I mention I really hate those cameras, no really, I hate them. Cheap, they can't cope with coloured light, only pretty shades. I wish video people would use higher quality cameras. No I really hate them.

The reality of course is that equipment is bought for a specific purpose - and we do not generally buy products to do thing others would like. We provide sound, lighting and video, but our focus moves to the areas the clients dictate. If we are doing video, and the client has commissioned exciting sets and a lighting designer, then our video work may well be last on the priority list - and I have to make the best out of what I consider inadequate lighting - but maybe the lighting is for 1400 people paying a lot of money for their seats, not a DVD few people will buy. Today is a party. The video and the lighting are number two on the status list. Today the photographer is top dog - with a bank of printers for almost instant prints for the punters. Video will really be 3rd on the list - just documentary style, in dim and murky lighting, with rotten sound because it's going to be loud, so everyone will be shouting!

They treat the photographers and video people as annoying, because they get in the way, ask for sound things with no pre-arrangement and often have overblown ideas of their own importance, and status at the event.

It's been my experience that it doesn't matter who the vendor is, DJ, photo, video, or even the cake, a fair number have an overblown sense of their own importance (the day would be ruined without the: entertainment! pictures! video!)

Fortunately they tend to be a minority, even though it's thoroughly annoying when you do run into them. When doing video, we complain about photogs and DJs.

On a DJ forum perhaps they'd have a different version?

yep. As DJs, we complain about photogs and video folks, since everyone knows a wedding reception would be ruined without a DJ (seriously, that's how many think, forgetting there are all kinds of clients with many different priorities).

In the end, we're all just cogs in a machine for the B&G, who care about their wedding day, and all of it working together, more than anyone vendor.

Problem is DJ's are judged on that night alone. Mostly, how crowded was the dance floor, and how good & relative to the crowd & ongoing mood was the song selection. OTOH photographers & video are judged essentially after post production. Sure, sometimes feedback might come up that the photog/video was soo nice, or a jerk, but in the end if the images & DVD are spectacular B&G's within reason will look aside from that & love the product & give referrals. Just as well if the guests say your photog/video was soo nice but the finished product is terrible they likely won't highly recommend them.

I got OT a bit but my original point was DJ's need to put 100% into right there/right now. Whereas photo & video are more concerned about "Oh how will these colors look when I'm editing them later this month". 2 different goals in mind.

I can relate to those lights, i did an event where i could do nothing but stare at my lcd and shake my head at how terrible it looked because of those lights

Yes there should be mutual respect for each persons's profession, but the argument of just turning it around and saying that us video people should use better cameras is a silly one. Cameras can only see what's there, and those DJ lights are typically of the poorest quality LEDs which only produce a fraction of the color spectrum. If the light isn't there, nothing can see it.

I can easily see the DJ side of it, i would imagine that would be the last thing i would think about when shopping for lights. Do they even post CRI ratings for DJ lighting equipment? the human eye may be less sensitive to certain spectrums than cameras, but if we couldn't tell the difference then why are household lights making such a push for higher quality LEDs?

I know nothing about the DJ lighting purchase world, but if they aren't making DJs aware that there are different qualities of light, and that both the people attending their events will notice a difference, and the resulting photographs and videos will see a huge difference, then some DJs might opt for the higher quality lights

And i'm not saying that i think the DJ has to care about what us photogs and videogs are doing, but we ARE connected, i almost always use a shot or two of the DJ doings his or her thing at events, and the better the photos/videos look, the better the DJ looks, and i've shared my final products with DJs who had good lights so that they can use that as a marketing tool for themselves.

What's wrong with them ???
I mean, come on...where can you buy something else to make people look carrot orange or all nice and smurfy blue ??? :-)

Apart from confronting the DJ and telling him to turn off all his lighting, all you can really do is work with it..that's what the bride chose so surely when he face does look like a smurf she must realise that it's the DJ lighting not bad camera work ..I had one first dance where the DJ was turning them blue, red, yellow and green sequentially so they really couldn't argue with that.

An on-camera LED light and keeping the B&G quite close does help a bit so at least their faces are a reasonably accurate shade of flesh tone (more or less)

For me it's all part of the wedding and I'm not going to get into a violent fight with the DJ due to his lighting.

All said, yep, the lights are indeed a pain but that's what we have to work with so do your best and just get nice clean shots of the smurfs

Chris

Disco lighting cycling through red blue green yellow etc isn't really a problem. It's the 'mood' lighting used by venues that renders everybody & everything a vivid magenta that is the real headache. The cameras react differently to the human eye & what looks like a pleasant rose glow gets recorded as a really deep pink cast on everything.

Here's my last point and then I'll shut up.

I had a really nice reception, great demo material because everyone was having a good time. I showed it to two prospective clients, both picked up on the blue/lower light issue. One person understood when I mentioned it was the DJ's 'wall blue lights' that were messing with the camera lenses, I booked that wedding. The other prospect didn't buy it and I didn't book that one. So yes, it does matter, not only to that client, but to our work product. And no, I don't bring floor lights, but I'm considering it since a lot of DJ's seem to be addicted to these types of lights. The best, and I mean the best DJ lighting setup I've ever seen was done with lasers, racks of non-led lights and mist. That dude rocked and you could tell he put money into his stuff.

The issue there is that many places won't let us use mist/fog because of the particle sensor fire alarms in the rooms. Without it, lasers and most lighting effects are worthless. That's how the wall lighting (usually called 'up lighting') came about.

I had thought you were referring to the dance floor lighting, and realize now you meant his kind of room lighting. Get used to it. Hotels and halls are starting to supply it, too. Someone who has done it well can control the color from across the room (ahem, like me) and have the color suit the moment.

Usually, though, the bride has it matched to her wedding color.

From now on I'll be switching it to whites during special moments.

This is what i would call the biggest clusterf**k of lighting that i've ever shot, but for the type of video i was making it worked brilliantly. I know the client paid a ton for the lighting company, and look at all the variation and detail that went into it. the robot was the biggest love/hate which you can spot with the flicker lines. No shutter speed could fix it and there's some shots i got which were like venitian blinds. his leds were changing speed, color, and frequency, making it impossible to get a consistent picture out of him, if i were supposed to be filming his activity long form, those scan lines would be a huuuuge issue and likely have the client say WTF. But in this case they loved the end product, and this is one of those videos that i shared with the lighting company.

2012 Refi Rock spring fling central park on Vimeo

This is what i would call the biggest clusterf**k of lighting that i've ever shot, but for the type of video i was making it worked brilliantly. I know the client paid a ton for the lighting company, and look at all the variation and detail that went into it. the robot was the biggest love/hate which you can spot with the flicker lines. No shutter speed could fix it and there's some shots i got which were like venitian blinds. his leds were changing speed, color, and frequency, making it impossible to get a consistent picture out of him, if i were supposed to be filming his activity long form, those scan lines would be a huuuuge issue and likely have the client say WTF. But in this case they loved the end product, and this is one of those videos that i shared with the lighting company.

2012 Refi Rock spring fling central park on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/45733410)

Hey Darren, what cam did you use? Just curious, I'm going to need to replace a cam or two in the future, I thought yours did a great job in the low light color etc.

5D2. all the night stuff is either 28 1.8, or 50 1.8, ISO up to 3200. that flying overhead stuff is gopro 2

i'm eagerly awaiting the next type of event like this, since i know my C100 can laugh at anything but pitch darkness.

5D2. all the night stuff is either 28 1.8, or 50 1.8, ISO up to 3200. that flying overhead stuff is gopro 2

i'm eagerly awaiting the next type of event like this, since i know my C100 can laugh at anything but pitch darkness.

C100, wow, nice. Nice video btw. I bought a pair of Nikon D800s last year, and I've been moving them into the rotation of various projects.

you might have misread that, that video is all 5d mark 2, i now have a c100, but have yet to use it on an event like that

you might have misread that, that video is all 5d mark 2, i now have a c100, but have yet to use it on an event like that

Yeah, that C100 looks nice, too bad Nikon doesn't have an equivalent. I have a lot of Nikon glass. Although aren't there rumors that Nikon is going to move to video? Maybe that's just a pipe dream of mine.

I spotted the overhead stuff. It looks good for a GoPro but the light level is adequate. Is it just stuck on the end of a boom?