014
DETAILS [editorial]
Paul James, editor, writes: So this is the module world...? If so there may be trouble ahead. Whilst the four modules that made it into our benchtest (see page 95) performed admirably, a further three (who are conspicuous by their ab- sence in the article) failed to meet the criteria needed to participate. It wasn’t that they didn’t perform well enough. They simply sent the wrong modules in terms of lumen rating and/or CCT and, not only that, they were wrongly sent on more than one occasion! Whether this was down to error or an unwillingness to take part is unclear. I’d like to think it was error but, if so, this is a worrying development. If there are mistakes made submitting one module for a benchtest, can we really be sure that every single module of every single order is being correctly shipped? Whether you believe that LED modules are a long term solution or a quick fix while manufacturers research the integration of LEDs into their fittings, there is still clearly a lot of work to be done by the Zharga Consortium to ensure that there is none of the ‘black magic’ that has surrounded the LED market in years gone by. And standarisation would be nice too! The variety of module demonstrates that the module market is still embryonic and companies are still investigating what methods and technologies will provide the best overall performance, production yield and costs. That said, the four modules that participated in our benchtest prove that the LED module market has come a long way since they first came onto the scene. All exceeded the magical 65 lm/W figure (OK, no secondary optics - we wanted raw data for better comparison) consider- ing the Colour Rendering Index figures were good and the R9 ratings were, in the most part, good too. The LED modules achieve the efficacy performance in a variety of different methods, whether it is using integrated or external ballasts, standard or remote phosphor LEDs and even combinations of different coloured LEDs as used in the entertainment industry. The fact that the museum industry - from the smallest regional outfit to the National Gallery in London - appears to be beginning to welcome the LED phenomenon is testimony to the quality of the light that is now available and what the future will hold...
Pete Brewis, deputy editor, writes: Today, perhaps more than ever, the museum visitor experience is as much about the building and its location as it is about the exhibits housed within. With architects called upon to create iconic, landmark identities, the structure itself has become one of the exhibits, often drawing on its surroundings to create a unique sense of place. Connecting with the outside world - be it visually, as with Zaha Hadid Architects’ use of large glazed walls at Glasgow’s Riverside Museum, or by filtering in natural daylight, as David Chipperfield has achieved at Hepworth Gallery in Wakefield – can create some stunning effects, but it also comes with a whole set of complicated issues to solve. How much daylight can be safely admitted into the gallery? How can it be best blended with artificial light? This is where the lighting designer becomes an indispensible part of the design team, helping deliver all the above while at the same time remaining mindful of the conservation needs of the pieces on display. Kit Cuttle - a bit of an expert in this area – returns to this issue to outline some of the restrictions and regulations involved and offer some examples of successful gallery lighting techniques. Lighting in galleries will always be a compromise between producing the most truthful colour rendering and causing the minimum of damage. With their well documented UV and IR benefits, LEDs have long excelled on the issue of conservation, but until recently their reliability and light quality were considered too poor to be unleashed on valuable artworks. Cautiously, however, galleries are beginning to take the plunge. Two London institutions, the National Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery have slowly been adopting LED fixtures and, as the editor discovers in our special Panel Discussion, the results have been overwhelmingly positive. There are still some concerns over LEDs, in particular the slight spike in the blue spectrum. Visually this actually seems to offer a pleasing new aesthetic for galleries, albeit one with uncertain long-term conservation impli- cations. Kevan Shaw is among those who remain unconvinced. He argues the case against the LED takeover with a reminder of the merits of LVTH. As LEDs become firmly established in all areas of lighting and the twin pressures of energy conservation and financial constraints come to bare on public galleries – it seems this debate is set to become ever more relevant.
Editorial Editor Paul James
(
p.james@mondiale.co.uk)
Deputy Editor Pete Brewis (
p.brewis@
mondiale.co.uk)
Advertising Advertising Manager Jason Pennington
(
j.pennington@
mondiale.co.uk)
Advertising Sales John-Paul Etchells (
jp.etchells@
mondiale.co.uk)
Subscriptions Laura McLaughlin
(
l.mclaughlin@
mondiale.co.uk)
Production David Bell (
d.bell@
mondiale.co.uk)
Dan Seaton (
d.seaton@
mondiale.co.uk)
Mel Robinson (
m.robinson@
mondiale.co.uk)
Chairman Damian Walsh
(
d.walsh@mondiale.co.uk)
Finance Director Amanda Giles
(
a.giles@
mondiale.co.uk)
Credit Control Donna Barlow
(
d.barlow@
mondiale.co.uk)
mondo*arc magazine ltd Waterloo Place Watson Square Stockport SK1 3AZ United Kingdom T: +44 (0)161 476 8350 F: +44 (0)161 429 7214
www.mondoarc.com mondo@mondiale.co.uk
Annual Subscription rates: United Kingdom £30.00 Europe £50.00 ROW £65.00
To subscribe visit
www.mondoarc.com or call +44 (0)161 476 5580
mondo*arc (ISSN 1753 5875) is published bi-monthly by Mondiale Publishing Limited, Waterloo Place, Watson Square, Stockport, SK1 3AZ, UK
Subscription records are maintained at Mondiale Publishing Limited, Waterloo Place, Watson Square, Stockport, SK1 3AZ, UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148