Talk:Parabolic aluminized reflector

Untitled

Can whoever write the following please name their source?:

"The oval pool characteristic of traditional PARs are falling into disuse with modern PARs favoring a PC based lens. This can be attributed to their popularity in Rock and Roll shows where a pool of light is preferred to an oval of light, which is more useful in stage lighting to create areas. A second reason for this change is that the style of car headlamps that PARs were originally based on are no longer mass produced, so most companies making PARs have more control over the lens than previously and are deferring to their largest customer."

Because as far as I know (lighting engineer of 10 years experience and actively working) it's entirely untrue. Is this some kind of US/UK thing? Anyway, for now, I've removed it. Bryson430 19:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Name changes

Ok, some IP user just came through and changed a lot of "lights" to "luminaires". As I don't call them that, I am grossly opposed. However, some of you probably call it that, Should I switch it back?KeepOnTruckin 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Luminaire is more technically correct than "light" so it could stay. Or, preferably, maybe we should make it Lighting Fixture in keeping with the rest of the Wikipedia articles. Bryson430 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the IP user also added a section that included a factually incorrect description of how a Source 4 works. I changed it back. Bryson430 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What is somthing about a source 4 doing in the PAR article? Speaking of pars and S4's though, I will be able to get a picture of a PARnel very soon. Do ya think it needs it own subsection in SLI article or here or Fresnel? KeepOnTruckin 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

PAR38 etc

I was looking for info on domestic PAR lamps, and see no mention of them here. In UK at least, PAR38s with hardened glass are one of the (more expensive) standard domestic & small business lamps. Tabby 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe this term applies also to standard household flood lights (e.g. PAR16) and others. I don't know enough about this to amend the article, though. 76.180.104.145 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

A picture that shows the kind of lighting a single PAR shined on an empty stage provides, or something that similarly unambiguously shows what it looks like when in use, would be very...illuminating. -Toptomcat 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea- I think I will make it a project to take photos of the effect of not only PAR cans, but other instruemnt types as well. -JWGreen 03:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be an image with labeling showing what the different lenses/lamps look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.242.185 (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think photos or diagrams of PAR 64 lamps for each of the main distinctions of beam spread would be a good idea, but I only have WFL lamps and one extra narrow (I only have two cans...), so I can't make it. I know the extra narrow is not all that common, so I could get a photo of that, but if anyone has the rest of them, and could take a photo of them on white paper or another white surface, I think that would be a great addition to the article. -JWGreen (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See related discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stagecraft/General_discussion#Photo_idea KeepOnTruckin ^{Complain to me | my work here} 21:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Beam Spread

Does anybody know if there is usually a difference in retail price between narrow beam lamps and wide beam lamps? For instance, I have a narrow beam lamp that fits a PAR64, and it cost me $38 retail about a week ago. I understand the difficulty a retailer has in marketing his lamps; some of his lamps are broken on arrival. And so, naturally, there has to be some kind of markup. The retail markup has to be high enough to cover breakage in the warehouse where they store it, and breakage suffered by having it delivered, or shipped in if they have their own delivery trucks. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

New image

Par 30

What do you think of this picture? In my opinion it looks nicer than the recent one (Image:PAR_64.jpg). --ChrisHH (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks pretty good to me-

And while we are on the subject, there should be a picture of the PAR light aimed at a splash board (there are lots of ways of doing this, and there are lots of ways of making your own splash board). Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Split or Rewrite?

PAR lamps are used in many applications other than the theatre. I have just changed the introduction to reflect that. Theatrical use is surely important, but there are at least twenty PAR lamps in my house and boat, so surely the vast bulk of their use is off the stage. I think that perhaps we should keep the lamp and general information under this title and take the bulk of the article into a new article with a title something like "PAR - Theatre". As it stands, it may confuse those who come looking for information on a non-theatrical use of PAR lamps. Thoughts? Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they appear to be used in the automotive industry as well. For instance, GE manufactures a PAR56 lamp that runs on 12 volts DC and casts a 120 watt beam. Sure, it probably fits a PAR56 can, but watch out, as it has screw terminals instead of blade terminals. If you bought this for theatrical use, you will want to get a 12 volt power supply, and then attach the leads to the terminals of the lamp. You can't use it with an ordinary PAR56 can because of the different voltage requirements. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The article contains lots of unreferenced crap and nonsense written by non-technical individuals with a theatrical slant. It needs a good reworking with the help of a copy of the Westinghouse Lighting Handbook and a couple of other good technical references on lighting. Even the title of the article sucks: No engineer or lighting professional would refer to a PAR lamp as a "light".—Quicksilver^{T @} 20:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The acronym PAR means far more than just theatrical lighting - it is a whole series of standard bulbs, many of which are simple consumer products. This might be the first WP article I ever found that left me wondering "yeah, but what about what I came here for?"

(above comment added by Huw Powell 2011-05-31) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistlethrop (talk • contribs) 17:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

There is already an article Theatrical Lighting which seems highly appropriate a place for the theatrical use of PAR lamps. DUH. I don't know why most of the information in this article isn't already there.

I believe that this article, as titled, ought to cover mostly other more general uses of PAR lamps. They are commonly sold for domestic lighting (indoor track and recessed lighting, and outdoor floods/spots) from around size 16 up to 38 in both the US and UK (see the above comments on PAR38 etc from Tabby).

I don't know that we ought to wait for somebody with buckets of technical references to do it though. Given the somewhat misleading title of the article as it stands, it's probably better to change it sooner rather than later.

Thoughts, anyone? Twistlethrop (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Support for some generalization here. Lead graph should make PARs that come in cans a separate form factor. "Covers only" should be removed. Current LED (RGB) paragraph strongly assumes stage usage, which appears obviously wrong according to all these boxes of household PAR38 LEDs... --Artoria2e5 contrib 19:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Merge September 2018

@Twistlethrop, Jameslwoodward, Dexter Nextnumber, and Quicksilver: As you can already see on the top of the articles, I am proposing to merge sealed beam into this article for a better use of this PAR title. We can always move "light" to "lamp" later. Thoughts? --Artoria2e5 contrib 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• That's a good idea; the subject matter is best suited to a single article. However - and notwithstanding my comments above regarding Theatrical Lighting which should arguably precede such a merge ...
  IMO a simple merge would not produce a good or improved result. I took a cursory glance at both articles with that in mind; there's some duplication of information and each article suffers from some information not being well organized.
  If the two are merged, then I feel it must be a selective paste merger combined with some tweaking of the resulting article. That will mean more work but will hopefully result in a better article. And then light becomes lamp, I agree. Twistlethrop (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

electrical connector

It would be useful if this article mentioned the electrical connectors used on these bulbs. I wish to replace the bulbs in my lamps with a different type, and wish to buy bulbs with the same electrical connectors, but I don't know the name for the connectors on my old bulbs. Thanks to anyone who adds a relevant section. FreeFlow99 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@FreeFlow99: Current can/staged-focused descriptions do make these difficult. Try looking for your connector in the bi-pin connector article. --Artoria2e5 contrib 19:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

'Specular' lighting. Possible misunderstanding of the term as used in this article.

The term 'specular' in lighting does not (as this article seems to suggest) mean the use an extended light source or array of sources. I think the confusion stems from the conflating of 'sunlight' and 'parallel beam'. The sun is far enough away that the light falling on a subject is essentially all on parallel paths. Thus any given scene will be evenly illuminated. One special feature of sunlight that is hard to replicate in stage lighting is the bright spot reflected by the sun's image in convex and concave hard surfaces. This feature is what is meant by the term 'specular'. To replicate specular light requires a single point source but (because of the inverse square law), in a theatrical lighting situation it is a challenge to replicate the even illumination of sunlight (which requires an extended source) while still maintaining the illusion of sunlight with specular reflections from smooth surfaces which requires a point source. Generally the solution is some combination of overall extended (soft) lighting with a single bright key light to give specular reflections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.164.170 (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)