DPI:

Would you be willing to share any of your production documentation?

Hal Eagar:

OK let me find some...

How about "Disposable Men"since it's going out on tour again next week I've had to use my documentation to figure out how to do it again.  This documentation is great for packing and seting up the show, but of course has none of the cues which are in the stage managers book only.  And does not cover the software setup.   I think I may have written that up, but maybe I just brain dump it to the video operator?   This time I'll try to write it up and add it to this post perhaps.   A video of the piece is of course as I mentoned also a key part of the documentation to see what it is you are trying to recreate.

Pack List and Wireing Diagram

Tech Rider

For reference here are some photos of the show being refrenced here.

DPI:

Where do you get content?
Found footage
Shoot it
Use live
3d or animation
Where do you find it?

Hal Eagar:

For my own designs I will tend to try and create it as much from scratch as possible; make it from whole pixels as it were.  That way it's less limited by what you can find, and it all matches a common visual style.  What that means 3D or 2D animation mostly, a lot of 3DS Max, VRML, and Flash.  The big problem with that approach is that it takes so much time that what you get limited by is your own time, but maybe that's always the case.  And sometimes it could be just 3D or vector art but often I use lots of photos, and they are 95% found materials as opposed to shot myself.   I also like to try and keep the animations procedural, and data driven.  Puppets really, that way you can make as much as you need on the spot.  

But again that's a lot of work.

I also like to work with live video, because you get to make it every night like the puppeteerd animation, and you can make as much as you need. 

Or I like someone else to be bringing in all the video and I put it together, then the design is in the where when how, not the what.  I really feel it's mostly their design then, particularly because they probably have an idea of where and when they want to see it.  But I still really enjoy that process.

DPI:

Where do you find it?

Hal Eagar: 

The pictures, just an old web search generally does. The rest I guess comes from my head. But in a majority of the cases I'm working with a videographer who is providing video clips as well, and where those come from varies for each videographer, but I feel that they are mostly shot specifically for the piece.

DPI:

Do you like to use hardware or software? PC/Mac vs. DVD/Mixer?

Hal Eagar:

I prefere Software over hardware all the way. I'm a programmer so that's pretty obvious for me. But to go into the details the fact that I can get the software to do a lot of various things that that would each take a different piece of hardware and the fact that I can re use the computer just about every day not just when i'm running a video effect is a big plus. And because it's a general purpose machine it's easy to find a computer when you need one too.

Also as i've mentioned I like realtime generated animation and the type of uber flexability that you can get with a software system. I guess that a dvd player is as easy to find as a computer, but the computer is more flexable.

Not everything is possible with just a general purpose pc of course. I have my bag of add ons and extra little devices. Scan converters, video capture devices, DA's, switches etc... But they are all pretty cheap mass market stuff just like the computer itself. Besides being cheap, mass market stuff is easy to replace. So although it's less dependable than really high end video gear it's pretty solid (After all it's meant for the masses) and easily replaced or backed up.

I know a lot of people are afraid of using computers because they fear failure. And some people say they don't trust hard drives.

Anyway I admit that software can crash, and the way it interacts with different setups can be a big headache and source of failures. But being a geek who uses the stuff a lot i'm very good at avoiding or fixing those problems. And by fixing that usually just means working around, aka avoiding the issue. As far as i'm concerned a dvd player or video mixer in this day and age is just as likely to crash as a pc.

And as for hard drives, a dvd is a moving part too. I've seen them spontaineously destruct in a dvd drive from the rotation. And my servers hard drives last 7 years or so. Everything (well cheap modern sruff) breaks, and you keep a backup.

And you can get a new pc much easier than a matrix switch, or serial controled dvd player.

Also I guess I never know what i'm going to do so I want a fasile system.

Oh and that other part of the questionm; I'm a pc man, I don't want to get into a flame war but I'll risk it and go into why. But to mitigate the response I'm not saying Mac's are not better, if you think they are then fine I'll concede that they are, but personal preferences aside, I've always said that there is very little difference between mac's and PC's. Now days it's very true with them having the same hardware. But Mac's just cost to much for me to use. They are not available in the same way to rent, borrow, or just be given. And they cost more than twice as much new. (i know I get lots of flack for that but i'll find you a mac mini eqivelent for $200 if u want. It will be ugly and big and out of date, but it will push video just the same.)

And it's hard to be cheaper than free, and there are a lot of free pc's floating around.

Also because of that I use pc's have software for them, and can bend them to my will in a way I have never had the time to learn to do with a Mac. I'm comphortable using a Mac, but it's always on loan, never mine.

DPI:

Do you like finished tools or programming environments? Watch out/grid vs. Isadora/jitter/vvvv ?

Hal Eagar:

I prefer tools. But not too raw. The question does not even go so far as to suggest Java, C, or other such viable options, I guess it really should. But that's too raw for me. I am in a hurry and want the hard work done for me. Sure in a framework or using libraries that work is done but like I said I'm in a hurry, and I'm lazy too.

What was it Lary Wall said were the virtues of a good programmer. Laziness, Hubris, and Impatience.

So anyway I love Isadora that hits the sweet spot between flexible programing and ease of use. That spot is probably different for everyone. It may be watchout for some or java for others.

And I do think jitter is awesome, but I may be a little too lazy for it, when Isadora gets me there faster.

I also love flash, it also hits the spot for me; easy but powerful. And it's growing in features like crazy. Maybe it's getting too complex and it might be just as easy to use some other framework to do some jobs I do with flash. But it really has features and strengths across a large spectrum of uses and styles. So why learn another system, I'm hooked in to just focusing on getting really proficient in this one.

DPI:

How do you document your work on a show? Video, pictures, ground plans? Wiring diagrams? Written instructions?

Hal Eagar:

If I'm building the show and running it, I rarely get around to any real technical documentation, but if I'm handing it off to someone then I try and do as much as possible. And when I pack up and back up a show I try to do at least a nice long text description of the setup.

I've tried taking photos of a setup, but it always seems useless. The video of what the piece looks like is really useful though. It may not help you remember any of the tricks of the video system, but it's great for trying to recreate the piece.

I really like to color code my wiring diagram, and I seem to almost always have the flash
IDE open on my computer so I'll end up doing a wiring diagram with little
handmade graphics of the video devices in flash. I also like to build it in layers, so you can
output a diagram of all the VGA cable, and of all the composite cable, and of
all the computer cable separately.

I figure I really ought to be using a drafting program but, it works so far.

But at least 50% of the documentation is just in a textual description of how everything should work, and what order to do things in.

And if possible what things to check if something is going wrong.

This checklist is really useful, I tend to do a lot of over the phone trouble shooting. Some of them from show I had nothing to do with, but on a show I put together, I can save myself from even getting that call by making a good trouble shooting list. But really making the lists helps work out the best way to break down the system into sections and isolate a problem, to the point where it's easier to trouble shoot a problem on a system you have never seen before. It's a really good exercise.

As for documenting my work for work samples, everyone wants to see "video" since I do "video design" but video in stage work rarely looks good re-videoed. But I often end up with good photos. It's a problem, but if I'm allowed to submit an edited piece I mix in some of the stills where you can see what it really looked like a bit more. But as for how to make that video or photo's I don't have any sage advice.  It's really hard to capure, just try don't put it off untill the last minute.

DPI:

Do you find that your designs are reproduceable? Why or why not?

Hal Eagar:

I used to run the shows I designed, for various reasons; from there was no separate operator budget to its more work to make it easy for someone else to run. Also I like the idea of the live animation and the ability to change things from day to day, that I enjoy kind of playing the video system like a instrument. Of course I tended to build them like that because otherwise I'd get board running the show myself as well.
Anyway that made it harder, but not impossible to reproduce, just more dependent on my brain than a book.

But now I'm living in the permanent time crunch that comes with being a parent so I'm always planning to have someone else run the show. I think this probably changes the way I create a show, less fiddly controls, just the crucial things.
That means that I do manage to put just about all the info needed to reprocude it into a book, or at least into someone else's head.   It may not stay in that person's head, and the book might not have enough info, since re-mounting the production is not my focus while putting it together, but it's a good start.

I don't really think about reproducibility as I'm going, and sometimes I can make something that can be tricky to reproduce. But I'll often be able to cut the equipment down a lot on a second reproduction of a show, because I know what is happening at the start of the build and I can figure ways to double up on uses of projectors and computers. If something is going on tour, it's really worth the time to re-write patches to cut the equipment down to a minimum. It's a little more unwieldy in a lot of ways to try and run 3 projectors from one computer, but it's often not viable to tour with the extra 2 computers.

So in the end, I guess the answer is, that if the show is good enough to reproduce I will make it happen, but I don't worry about it untill I need to.  So far everything has been reproducable.  In the future I expect they will be easier to reprocuce.

DPI:

How do you hand off a show? What is that training process? How do you work with that? Do you also take on one of those? Or share work with a designer in another area? Or work as a team? Or do you run your own shows?

Hal Eagar:

Well really the operator has to be there for the final tech, and learn to feel the show in some way. I find that video is usually not called by the stage manager, at least not the way it's done in shows I work on. I suppose it's possible, but we're talking about many hundreds of cues, so the video operator needs to be as autonomous as possible.

Maybe that's asking too much but that's how it feels to me. Unfortunately I think I usually just end up dumping way too much information at the operator at once. I'm not sure there is any other way to do it, at least not on a theatre schedule.

Generally they will watch me working for a day, and I'll try and tell them what I am doing. And in the process I often think of several more things that I could be automating. Then they get dropped in the hot seat and figure things out, while I hang around over their shoulder filling in. And this hopefully gives me time to automate those last few things, and to write up the debugging sheet etc...

DPI:

What is your role? There can be a lot of overlap among design elements,particularly media and the interaction between set, lighting, and sound designers

Hal Eagar:

What I'm better at than I wish I were is the stage install effects, and control systems. Very hardware and software. And not totally in the heart of the media. I'm not much into linear editing and don't know the newest editing software in and out, and I really like atomic media assets over linked footage. I mean I like having hundreds of short files to play with as apposed to a 60minute video.  At least until the end of rehearsal and development, then when things are set you start to want a nice long video.

Anyway I was saying that to explain how I'm not a video editor, but what I am is a media manipulator.  Effects, timing, and placement.  But on stage, not on the final cut timeline.

I think I'm a decent animator, but with a narrow style set maybe that limits when that is applicable.  And it's very time consuming, so I don't take on that role in the majority of the work I do, but it's some of the most fun work.

DPI:

How many people / roles / time does it take to add media to a live performance work?

Hal Eagar:

A whole lot. Maybe one person can be them all, but it sucks to be that person. It's like shooting a film and building a interactive video installation.
DP, editor, CG, computer specialist, video specialist, rigger, ... I 'd really have to stop abd think for a while.

But I like there to be 2-3 people on the video team at least. With overlap in skills of course but maybe broken down in these areas of expertise and responsibility.
Shooting and editing, install cuing, and stage effects.
And if possible tack on an operator/SM.

DPI:

When do you join the creative process? When would you like to join?

Hal Eagar:

Well I 'say' early. But it depends on the project and my schedule. Certainly well before rehearsal starts. It can be fun to bomb in on day one of rehearsal and just build as they work. In fact I love that, but it probably does not make for the best work, and it's hard on the body to work as long and hard as that demands.

But I do feel you have to start mixing the media into rehearsal really early if not on day one. There is so much volubility to how it will work. You want to know what works and what does not before you spent too much time on it. And you need time to discover the stuff you never expected. If you don't start doing that until tech week. Or even the week or two before that then there may not be time to do anything about it. Also stuff (video images) looks so different on your screen and on stage. I know that but I still get caught by it all the time. It's can be so cool and clear to me on the computer, but then it turns out to be just noise on stage.

One thing I've noticed about puppetry is that because it's hard work, and rehearsal is harder than performance even it's good to build rehearsal periods with breaks, two weeks on two off. It gives you a chance to rest sore muscles and rebuild problem puppets as well. Well that sort of on and off schedule is great for video as well because it can take a lot of hours to build animations or shoot mini films. And the iterative process is also good for discovery and play. For me personally a break of more than a month is to much and I'll loose focus and momentum.