Thoughts on RBG Mini Trees

[thevikester]

Switching this over this year to RGB...on a standard Tomato cage sized tree, with 4 inch spacing on pixels nodes, would 50 be enough, or would you recommend a 100...my thought is more is better, for coverage and effects...curious as to who else has already experimented with this and your thoughts on the look...these will be smart strings, I want to be able to make' em  dance 

[caniac]

Switching this over this year to RGB...on a standard Tomato cage sized tree, with 4 inch spacing on pixels nodes, would 50 be enough, or would you recommend a 100...my thought is more is better, for coverage and effects...curious as to who else has already experimented with this and your thoughts on the look...these will be smart strings, I want to be able to make' em  dance 

If I am wrong I am sure I will quickly be corrected but by the very nature of Pixels I would think more just means more programming and more difficulty too.  Would require that you really put thought into how you layout the pixels on the tomato cage because you will have to duplicate that in the sequence editor.  It is my understanding that each pixel = 3 channels from a sequencing standpoint.

[thevikester]

Perhaps I should have used Nodes as opposed to pixels, but from a programming standpoint, yes, its a bit extra work, where the majority of time it would almost act like dumb nodes or pixels, but on certain parts,  would like to make them chase up and down the tree itself...I have a bunch of 50 node strings at home, perhaps I'll wrap one and see what that looks like, if I don't like it, I'll get Ray to make me some custom length ones. 

[rainyoregonchristmas]

On my Rainy Trees, a 4 foot tree fits 100 CCP.  Physically as well as visually I wouldn't put less than that on them.  I did have a selection of pixels from a different maker with a smaller spacing so it took 168 pixels to line a Rainy Tree.  Honestly, both quantities looked the same.  Even though one had half as many more.  Also note if you want an element any of size, it is surprising how quick the pixels go when you start adding them to the element. 

 

Yes, programming can be tricky, here's a video of the Rainy Tree in action.  Not only do I have levels of branches, but I have the ability to control individual branches / pixels themselves.   I didn't show it in the video, but I've made some sequences where I "Spin" the branches on the tree.  It looks really neat, but once I get all the trees made, as Caniac said, I'm going to have to lay each tree out exactly the same.

 

http://sdrv.ms/12iaGsP

 

So short answer, if its more than a few feet, add more pixels.

 

Oh, and yes, the strobe effect at the end makes the CCP worth it vs a dumb node.

 

-RainyOregonchriStmaS

Edited August 21, 2013 by rainyoregonchristmas

[thevikester]

On my Rainy Trees, a 4 foot tree fits 100 CCP.  Physically as well as visually I wouldn't put less than that on them.  I did have a selection of pixels from a different maker with a smaller spacing so it took 168 pixels to line a Rainy Tree.  Honestly, both quantities looked the same.  Even though one had half as many more.  Also note if you want an element any of size, it is surprising how quick the pixels go when you start adding them to the element. 

 

Yes, programming can be tricky, here's a video of the Rainy Tree in action.  Not only do I have levels of branches, but I have the ability to control individual branches / pixels themselves.   I didn't show it in the video, but I've made some sequences where I "Spin" the branches on the tree.  It looks really neat, but once I get all the trees made, as Caniac said, I'm going to have to lay each tree out exactly the same.

 

http://sdrv.ms/12iaGsP

 

So short answer, if its more than a few feet, add more pixels.

 

Oh, and yes, the strobe effect at the end makes the CCP worth it vs a dumb node.

 

-RainyOregonchriStmaS

 I'll check this out when I get home...the link doesn't work, but it might just be my computer at work not allowing me to see it...that is a good point on making the trees look the same from a wrapping standpoint...

[caniac]

I would think by the very nature of pixels, you want say pixel 1-10 in the same exact place on each tree.  When wrapping with LED's location didn't matter, it was all about strands with more being better.  four strands of lights was four channels, with pixels 100 pixels = 300 channels so location matters.  In Rainey's video one part went top to bottom and using certain colors so if you are doing say 10 mini's then those pixels have to be in the same place on each tree.

[Gary Blair]

I have the 33" cages and I tested with 50 and then 100 pixels.  The 100 looked much better to me.  You may want to test both if you have the pixels.

Gary

[Dad02]

I like what these two guys did:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOqqxFDWrGk

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDwiQVG02LM

[rainyoregonchristmas]

Actually, the pixels up and down the tree were not on the same place on the string.  I actually counted pixels and used a hand drawn map to figure what was what.  Then programmed accordingly.  So you can have them in other locations on the string, but it does make it tough as you have to find all the pixels on for that feature and figure out how and when to light them.

[Orville]

Glad I haven't made the move to any pixels yet, they sound like a royal P.I.T.A.!

[Dan@]

On my Rainy Trees, a 4 foot tree fits 100 CCP.  Physically as well as visually I wouldn't put less than that on them.  I did have a selection of pixels from a different maker with a smaller spacing so it took 168 pixels to line a Rainy Tree.  Honestly, both quantities looked the same.  Even though one had half as many more.  Also note if you want an element any of size, it is surprising how quick the pixels go when you start adding them to the element. 

 

Yes, programming can be tricky, here's a video of the Rainy Tree in action.  Not only do I have levels of branches, but I have the ability to control individual branches / pixels themselves.   I didn't show it in the video, but I've made some sequences where I "Spin" the branches on the tree.  It looks really neat, but once I get all the trees made, as Caniac said, I'm going to have to lay each tree out exactly the same.

 

http://sdrv.ms/12iaGsP

 

So short answer, if its more than a few feet, add more pixels.

 

Oh, and yes, the strobe effect at the end makes the CCP worth it vs a dumb node.

 

-RainyOregonchriStmaS

That looks great. How are you attaching the pixels to the tree? Just zip ties? or clips?

I like what these two guys did:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOqqxFDWrGk

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDwiQVG02LM

I like the looks of the first video.

[rainyoregonchristmas]

Zip ties on some, prototype clips on others. I'm developing a multipurpose pixel clip. I'll post details later tonight.

[rainyoregonchristmas]

That looks great. How are you attaching the pixels to the tree? Just zip ties? or clips?

 

 

See my answer in the Vendor Market Place  http://forums.lightorama.com/index.php?/topic/27669-pixel-clips/?p=260411

[Kent Stutzman]

I went a different route for my trees.  I used ten Wallmart 6.5' and 4' white aritificial trees.  I was happy with just 50 RGB lights on each tree because the white needles glowed with whatever RGB color was nearby and really helped fillout the trees.  I had green trees from the year before but was happier with the white trees where you can use many fewer lights.  I also liked the softer look of having RGB lights next to glowing white surface (like an Easter pastel look) more than the higher contrast RGB next to dark green (essentially RGB next to black).  Unfortunately, the videos I took didn't capture the effect well.  With just 50 lights, I could control motion form top to bottom but could not animate individual branches.  Just another idea to consider...

 

Kent