LOR Matrix Size vs string size

[dtlokey]

Hi all,

I've done some searching but can't seem to get a clear answer (or maybe I'm in denial lol) regarding how the pixel count plays into building a matrix. I'm using S5 and a pixie 16

Currently I have a 24x48 matrix (actually really 24x46 being utilized) and a pixie16. My thought process was that I'd try to be as efficient as possible and use 170 pixel per channel. When I attempt to create the matrix with these specs in mind I can't seem to get the matrix to place the pixels in their correct locations. It seems that there's a limitation on how many pixels per channel can be used in order to make the matrix layout replicate properly (if I'm describing that right). I was under the assumption that the pixels would just start in one corner and once I got to the 170th pixel. the next channel would just continue from there and the matrix would map accordingly in relation to the size. and direction you wanted the lights to run.

What I seem to be seeing though is that you have to place your count of pixels per channel to allow for the matrix to correspond with the folds specified, (so essentially, some form of a factor of 24?) in order for the matrix to have pixels consistently land in the same location and not just in a random place as you go along the matrix.

 

I was hoping to not underutilize each channel but unless I'm just not fully understanding how to build out the matrix, that doesn't seem to be an option to just plug in any (or even varying )lengths of pixels and it mapping as expected. Any help would be appreciated. the tutorial videos go over scenarios where things align with standard pixel lengths.

 

I'll attach a visual representation of what I'm hoping I can do to hope it makes more sense. Essentially I just wanted the matrix to auto populate based on a size and how many total pixels existed. and I'd just assign how many pixels are in each channel from there. 

 

is my expectation different from reality? if not, how do I go about making this happen?

 

 

[Jimehc]

that is 24 by 24 ->  so do you want (24 wide x 48 Tall) or (48 wide x 24 tall)

8 Ports of 144 Pixels - goes in even - for a 24x48...

Edited November 1, 2022 by Jimehc

[k6ccc]

10 hours ago, dtlokey said:

170 pixel per channel.

First of all, it's 170 pixels per output or port of the controller - not channel.  Each pixel has 3 channels.  It's just a terminology issue, but will only cause confusion down the road.

As far as efficiently using the ports, you are going to be better off to make the rows of the matrix not break between strings.  This is as much mechanical (easier to wire) than it is with the software.  So if you use six rows per pixel string (144 pixels) or 7 rows (168 pixels), it will be easier.

The other thing to consider is if you run 170 pixels per port, unless you are using low power pixels and/or dim the pixels a lot, you are going to need power injection.  That is certainly doable, but adds construction complications.  This is a FAR bigger issue if you are using 5 volt pixels as opposed to 12 volt pixels.

Last thing to keep in mind, that unless you have another prop close by that you want to use the extra ports of the Pixie 16 for, there is little to by gained pixel packing.  Remember that pixels have a rather short distance that you can go from controller to the first pixel.  Although that distance has improved with newer controllers, it is still limited.  Depends on the pixel type too.

And please answer Jimehc's question about the actual arrangement of the matrix.

 

[dtlokey]

17 hours ago, Jimehc said:

that is 24 by 24 ->  so do you want (24 wide x 48 Tall) or (48 wide x 24 tall)

8 Ports of 144 Pixels - goes in even - for a 24x48...

Sorry I'm aware what I showed wasn't the full 24x48. I was demonstrating the 170 pixel per port that I was attempting to utilize. I wanted to know if this was still possible or if I'm required to use strings that fold exactly in multiples of 24.

[dtlokey]

15 hours ago, k6ccc said:

First of all, it's 170 pixels per output or port of the controller - not channel.  Each pixel has 3 channels.  It's just a terminology issue, but will only cause confusion down the road.

As far as efficiently using the ports, you are going to be better off to make the rows of the matrix not break between strings.  This is as much mechanical (easier to wire) than it is with the software.  So if you use six rows per pixel string (144 pixels) or 7 rows (168 pixels), it will be easier.

The other thing to consider is if you run 170 pixels per port, unless you are using low power pixels and/or dim the pixels a lot, you are going to need power injection.  That is certainly doable, but adds construction complications.  This is a FAR bigger issue if you are using 5 volt pixels as opposed to 12 volt pixels.

Last thing to keep in mind, that unless you have another prop close by that you want to use the extra ports of the Pixie 16 for, there is little to by gained pixel packing.  Remember that pixels have a rather short distance that you can go from controller to the first pixel.  Although that distance has improved with newer controllers, it is still limited.  Depends on the pixel type too.

And please answer Jimehc's question about the actual arrangement of the matrix.

 

I'm aiming for the 24 wide by 48 tall scenario. I do have other props that I would like to use with the pixie 16 that will be nearby. I'm using 12v pixels, when i tested with 7 ports in use and the whole matrix on I didn't notice any voltage drop symptoms at the moment, just that the matrix isn't correlating what's shown when i add effects. I wanted to know if making the rows break between strings is the reason why the matrix is having this issue. or if I have something set incorrectly and it can be done.

Edited November 2, 2022 by dtlokey

[Box on Rails]

I would suggest just simply changing the Matrix by adding 1 row across and make the matrix 25x48 and use 150 pixels per string. This will allow for 6 even rows using 5 folds which would use a total of 8 ports. 

Edited November 2, 2022 by Box on Rails

[Jimehc]

If you choose to do it your Custom way - then you must create a custom Prop for your Matrix - and use custom String/Pixel Numbering > first string 1-170 > second string 1001-1170 > third string 2001-2170 > fourth string 3001-3170,,, etc

Edited November 2, 2022 by Jimehc

[k6ccc]

In other words, what Jimehc said translates to "Yes, you CAN, but it's a far greater pain in the ass!"

If you do 7 rows of 24 for each physical string, that would be 168 pixels and would still use the same seven ports on the controller.  That would make it FAR easier to put into the software.  That would leave the last string being six rows or 144 pixels.  That should take about 1 minute to create that prop in Preview Editor.

 

[k6ccc]

OK, it took two minutes, but I was checking my work.

 

[dtlokey]

6 hours ago, k6ccc said:

In other words, what Jimehc said translates to "Yes, you CAN, but it's a far greater pain in the ass!"

If you do 7 rows of 24 for each physical string, that would be 168 pixels and would still use the same seven ports on the controller.  That would make it FAR easier to put into the software.  That would leave the last string being six rows or 144 pixels.  That should take about 1 minute to create that prop in Preview Editor.

 

Thanks everyone!

 

I'll make the adjustment, going to be a lot of rework sadly (wiring wise) but that's what happens when you assume...been an cool experience so far regardless.