Jump to content
Light-O-Rama Forums

C6 vs "Dumb" Pixel Mega Tree


magish01

Recommended Posts

Multiple questions here. I did a 16 channel 1 color spiral tree tree this year. 100 lights (50 up 50 down inverted "V". Basically looked like 2 strings per channel. Was thinking of doubling up the string upon itself so the lights (c6) are 2" apart, but only as 1 string, so I would have only 16 strings.

Has anyone gone this way? Did it look better as 2 strings per channel (32 spiral strings) or is 16 strings okay and fill the tree enough? My tree is 11' tall with a 5 1/2' base.

This leads me to my next question. If 16 strings would look okay, I was thinking of moving to "Dumb" pixel strings (12mm pixel every 4" -- Ray Wu) doubled up for 16 strings with 2" pixels spacing.

Any input of your experience about double strings (32 string) vs single string (16) would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a picture of your tree? 5.5 ft for a diameter seems thin for an 11 foot tree, IMHO. C6, are they LED's? if so, putting them on top of each other, if too close to the viewing public very well may show them pointing every which direction...I think 32 vs 16 probably will give you a cleaner, fuller appearance. Having gone from 16 to 48 to 96 channels over three years....I'm no authority, but i've looked at a few options for my own situation. I tried C6's and struggled with appearance, but my viewing public was close, and I had thme doubled up, not spiral, just straight lines, 2 days of looking, and I changed it to up and down with half strings, just like you/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 16 ft mega tree this year with 1 c6 strand 50 ct for each channel (16 channels). It looked VERY thin. I have WRGB super strings and I did not want to drop another $1000+ dollars to fill it in this year, so I lived with it. I plan to make it fuller this year.

I know this is not exactly you configuration, but thought the info might help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I find it hard to mix smart pixels with a dumb person. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around DMX, E1.31, etc. Plus all the networks, added power, programing etc. Don't need to control each pixel. Would be happy with not having to make "superstrings" and getting more controllers. $$$ = OUCH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a huge learning curve, no doubt. Here's a link to a number of introduction documents and videos to RGB lighting, both dumb and smart:

http://auschristmaslighting.com/forums/index.php/topic,1208.0.html

I had some smart pixels last Christmas, and plan to expand significantly next year. But it did take tons of research and work.

Using dumb strips is certainly an easier setup. However, you will still need a controller for low voltage DC currents. There are a number of options for this. To stay with LOR, you will need to purchase their DC board. But you will need to make sure you purchase an appropriate power supply for the dumb strings. That controller has 16 outputs, which would control 5 strings (one output per color). Outside of LOR, you can also get controllers from Ray Wu, but those speak dmx, so then you have to have output for that. He sells a 27 channel controller, which could handle 9 strings.

Either way you go (if you go dumb/smart), it's a steep learning curve and some hardware changes. Hope this was helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...