If you are an ILDA Awards judge, congratulations! You will find it a fun and fascinating process. And we genuinely appreciate your time and effort in helping pick the best shows, technology and people of the laser industry.
This page includes guidelines and procedures for judging. Feel free to write with suggestions for improvement, based on your own experiences.
• Recognize and encourage creative achievement in laser display
• Promote and publicize ILDA
• Establish credibility for the medium
• Creative application of the medium
• Uniqueness of the application to the entry category
For more detailed criteria, see below for the list of suggested judging criteria developed by Malcolm Hignett for the Thames Valley University (TVU) laser program.
A Judging Coordinator will host the judges and prepare the entries. He or she will also maintain the scoring records and will report the judges’ scores to ILDA.
The Judging Coordinator will limit his or her comments to the written entry descriptions, and may also clarify entry categories, procedures or laser display processes as required by the judges. The Judging Coordinator must remain impartial. During the judging and voting process, he or she must never make comments about the quality of entries, give a personal opinion of an entry, or in any way influence the judges' decisions.
There will be at least three judges who represent distinguished experience in one or more of the following fields:
• Laser technical experience
• Practical application of laser display
• Artistic or cultural background
At least one, and hopefully two or all three, of the judges should be current ILDA Members.
(Note: The Awards Committee may select four judges initially. One will be an alternate in case of the three primary judges cannot serve. It is up to the Awards Committee to determine which three are judges and who is the alternate.)
Judges should be made aware of the quality limitations of video and photographic representations of lasers. Laser display is impossible to accurately reproduce in other media. The conflicting scan rates of laser scanning and video raster scanning can create annoying flickering on video.
Entries should not be judged on quality of documentation. We are judging the laser artistry as depicted in the videos, not whether one camera produces a better image than another.
Entries have been pre-screened for ILDA Award rule violations and for safety concerns. For example, entries that violate or appear to violate laser safety standards, laws and/or regulations have been removed prior to judging.
• Judges should assume the entries they see are qualified under the rules.
• Judges should also assume that the entries are safe and legal.
• Do not use safety, or the appearance of safety, as a judging criterion.
If judges see a problem — perhaps the pre-screening missed something — write down the concern so it can be checked later after the judging is complete. But do NOT lower the judging placement or otherwise penalize the entry.
After the judging is completed, any concerns will be checked. If an entry is found to violate ILDA’s rules, then appropriate action will be taken. (This is one reason we ask judges to rank up to five places, even though ILDA only awards 1st through 3rd places. If ILDA decides to penalize or disqualify an entry, other entries behind it will move up.)
The entries will remain anonymous. The Judging Coordinator should make no reference to the name of an entrant and should not allow a company's name from a video entry to be displayed. Judges must remain impartial should they recognize the work of a particular company or an entry with which they may be familiar.
Because of the large number of entries, each entry has a time limit; currently 4 minutes. However, the judges may at any time request the Judging Coordinator to proceed to the next entry or to scan forward through the video clip. It is suggested that a minimum of one minute of each entry be viewed and then, if the judges request, the Coordinator will scan forward or will move to the next entry. The Judging Coordinator, who has viewed every entry in its entirety, may point out relevant sections of an entry that the judges have asked to skip over. They may then decide to view these sections before moving on.
The Judging Coordinator should have all entries efficiently coordinated and estimate the viewing time for each category so that the judges can move quickly and have quality time to discuss, debate, review and award each category.
Judges do not see or judge the Laser Photography category. This is done by online voting of the entire ILDA Membership.
Do not move entries to different categories
Entries have been reviewed, prior to judging, to be sure they are in the best fitting category.
Beginning in 2018, judges are not allowed to move entries to different categories. Entries must be judged in the category that was submitted to them, by the judging coordinator or other Awards Committee-designated reviewer(s).
While finalizing their decisions (the First, Second, and Third placements), judges may ask to review certain pieces again.
Entrants usually prepare Statements of Intent in order to describe their entries to the judges. Often these are lengthy.
In the interests of time, the Judging Coordinator should review the Statements in advance, and highlight the most important points. Judges should always be given some Statement information but they do not have to be read the entire Statement. At any time, judges can ask to hear more or all of the Statement if they desire.
The ILDA Board has directed judges to give out First, Second and Third places in each category. (If a category has only one or two entries, then just First or First + Second will be awarded.)
By direction of the ILDA Board, there may NOT be ties -- there can only be one winner per place (e.g., one First Place, one Second Place, and one Third Place). Starting in 2016, ILDA will not give out Honorable Mention or any places other than First, Second and Third.
Judges should indicate a 4th and 5th choice. These will be used if one of the First, Second or Third place choices becomes ineligible, usually if the entry is found after judging to have violated ILDA's safety guidelines.
In case of a tie in any place 1st through 5th: If there is a tie, the judging coordinator will ask the judges to consider just the tied entries, and to indicate their preference.
For example, if entries A and B are tied, each judges will review these two entries again and will pick one or the other as their favorite.
If there is more than one tied entry, such as A, B and C, each judge will indicate the preferred order such as “Of these three, my #1 favorite is B, next is C, and least favorite of these three is A”. The judging coordinator will give 3 points to the favorite, 2 points to the next, and 1 point to the least favorite. If still tied, the entry with the most “favorite” votes will be placed higher.
The judging discussions are to remain confidential, known only to the judges and the Judging Coordinator.
After judging is finished, the ILDA Executive Director will be informed of the results. He or she will double-check that all winning entries are eligible; e.g., that winners are current ILDA Members with no active Ethics issues, and that there are no safety concerns with the entry. If an entry is found to be ineligible, then the next places down will move up. For example, if a Second Place winner is ineligible, then the judges’ original third choice will receive Second Place, and the judges’ original fourth choice will receive Third Place.
The Executive Director will then inform all eligible winners. The winners are asked to keep the results confidential until after the Awards Presentation, later in the year during the ILDA Conference.
Awards-winning technology can be found in many forms, such as a laser, projector, components, software, procedures, and processes. The technical achievement does not have to be a stupendous breakthrough. It should be something that helps laserists do better shows in one or more ways; for example, more easily, with higher quality, at lower cost, etc.
ILDA cannot know about all the various relationships between members. If you are a judge, and you may have a potential conflict of interest with one or more of the entries, please notify the Awards Committee and/or the Executive Director as soon as possible. Your particular situation can then be assessed to see if there could be a problem.
An actual or potential conflict of interest includes:
• If you might be perceived as wanting to help an entrant (perhaps you previously worked with the company, or you do a lot of business with them).
• If you might be perceived as wanting to lessen an entrant's chances of winning (perhaps you are a competitor, or do a lot of business with a competitor).
ILDA recognizes that the laser display industry is small, and thus "everybody knows everybody else.” It is expected that judges may have had some dealings with entrants. The guidelines above are intended to help in situations where these dealings are significant and might be perceived by others as unduly influencing your decision. Therefore, please let us know of any potential conflict of interest.
One judge will be the Coordinator, in charge of the judging process. He or she is responsible to keep the judging on schedule and for coordination between the other judges and with ILDA.
Each year, ILDA will have a fixed date by which the decision must be made.
About 2-4 weeks before the decision deadline date, each judge is sent a packet with the entries. This may be by postal mail, or via downloaded files.
Go through the packet on your own to make a preliminary evaluation. Form your own opinion before contacting the other judges. Write down your choices.
Judges may review past ILDA Fenning technology winners, to get an idea of what types of entries have won. To do this, look at the menu in the left-hand margin of this webpage. Find "The ILDA Awards" section, and the "Past winners" menu. From the fly-out submenu, select various years. Towards the bottom of each year will be the Fenning technology award winners for that year. For example, here are the 2007 tech winners.
Then, discuss your choices with the other judges.
• How to discuss on a conference call: It is probably fastest and most efficient to make your final deliberations by voice. Many ILDA Members can easily conduct a 3-way conference call with their own equipment; for example, the iPhone allows adding a third person to an existing call. Internet VOIP applications such as Skype also have conferencing capabilities. If you do not have this capability, contact ILDA and we will provide instructions and access to our conference calling system.
• How to discuss via email: Email can also be used for the discussions. Each judge would "reply to all" so that the other two judges can see his or her message.
The discussion may help answer questions, clarify issues and solve problems.
If you feel an entry may be unclear or incorrect, you may contact the entrant or other people to verify claims. Certainly you would not want to give the award based on wrong information furnished to ILDA. On the other hand, ILDA judges are not investigators, so you do not have to double-check every fact on the entry form.
At the end of the discussion, hopefully all judges are in agreement about the order placement (who gets First, Second and Third Places). If full agreement is not possible, then a vote should be taken after a suitable discussion period.
Some of the key factors to consider are already in the Tech Awards entry form. Entrants are supposed to discuss these areas in their written submission. The factors include:
How the entry is unique or improved. It should be "the first of its kind" or be substantially improved from previous products or versions.
How the entry differs from previous or similar methods used in the industry to accomplish the same function. A Tech Award winner should not be a me-too product which wins only because it was entered and its competitor was not. It should have something different, new, or substantially improved when compared to other products/technologies.
How useful the entry is. An excellent entry would be able to be used by most laserists. This is why ILDA asks the entrant to list any negative factors which might restrict its impact on users and the industry, such as:
• Only works with certain equipment
• Laser power must be below a certain level
• Requires special training or knowledge
• Has a high cost
The entry should be a product, or a useful and demonstrated technology. Concepts and basic research do not qualify.
The more an entry is widely available to laserists, the higher this aspect should be scored. For example, a free or low-priced product is better than an equivalent product with a higher price. However, note that it is perfectly acceptable if an entry is restricted in use to only one company (e.g., is proprietary) or is for rental only. Ultimately, cost and availability are just two of many factors to be considered.
The entry should be new or substantially improved in the Awards year (from the previous Awards deadline to the current one). Because some products may take a year or longer to develop, and because some products have significant enhancements added, in general do not throw out an entry unless it truly is "old news" that has been around for a few years.
If an entry was previously entered for a Fenning Award, it cannot be re-entered unless the submission primarily focuses on new and improved elements. Do not take into account the older elements since these were previously judged when submitted in previous years.
Perhaps the two most important factors are (1) technical innovation and sophistication, and (2) usefulness in advancing laser displays. This means that a winning entry should have "technical achievement" as stated in the name of the Fenning Award. And it also should have a useful impact on laser displays, helping to make shows better looking, easier to create, less costly, etc.
The ILDA Board has directed judges to give out a First, Second and Third place award. (If there are only one or two Fenning Tech Award entrants, then just First or First + Second will be awarded.)
By direction of the ILDA Board, there may NOT be ties -- there can only be one winner per place (e.g., one First Place, one Second Place, and one Third Place).
Judges should indicate a 4th and 5th choice. These will be used if one of the First, Second or Third place choices becomes ineligible, usually if the entry violates ILDA's safety guidelines.
Starting in 2016, ILDA will not give out Honorable Mention or any places other than First, Second and Third.
The judging discussions are to remain confidential, known only to the judges.
After judging is finished, the ILDA Executive Director will be informed of the results. He or she will double-check that all winning entries are eligible; e.g., that winners are current ILDA Members with no active Ethics issues, and that there are no safety concerns with the entry. If an entry is found to be ineligible, then the next places down will move up. For example, if a Second Place winner is ineligible, then the judges’ original Third Place choice will receive Second Place, and the judges’ original fourth choice will receive Third Place.
The Executive Director will then inform all eligible winners. The winners are asked to keep the results confidential until after the Awards Presentation, later in the year during the ILDA Conference.
This award honors "an exceptional individual with a distinguished history of achievement in the laser display industry." The nominee does not have to be a past or present ILDA Member -- he or she can be anyone who worked or achieved in the industry.
There are two main steps in selecting a Career Achievement Award recipient:
Nomination -- ILDA issues a call for CAA nominees each year, via email sent to the ILDA List. The deadline is the same as for the ILDA Artistic and Fenning Technical Awards. A nomination is valid for five years, so it does not have to be resubmitted every year.
Voting -- Sometime after nominations are received, ILDA Members receive an email asking them to vote. The voting period is usually at least 14 days. Each ILDA Member (company or individual) can send in an email with their selected nominee. Details on the voting procedures will be sent with the email.
Past winners of the CAA can be divided into one or more of these categories:
• those who helped build significant laser display-related businesses,
• those who made artistic and technical achievements, and
• those who worked to improve ILDA and the laser display industry.
In whatever area(s) they worked, the person should have made significant and lasting achievements in the field of laser display.
Here are six suggested factors to consider, for the Career Achievement Award recipient:
1) How well the person did their "day job". For example, if someone ran a laser show company, it is expected that the company did various shows in various market segments (concerts, corporate, theme parks, ships, etc.). That is a given.
A CAA candidate has to have done a good or outstanding job on their "day job". The clients should be at a high level, such as famous rock groups, national and international corporations, major theme parks, etc. And, the laser shows should be of high quality. Many ILDA or related awards (LDI "Best Laser Show") would be a good indicator here.
2) New innovations invented, or pioneered, or made widespread by the person. This is a key factor that helps separate CAA nominees from people who just did their "day job" well.
A CAA candidate helps pioneer new technologies or markets:
• One question is "if Candidate X didn't come up with Innovation Y, how would the laser industry be different?"
• Another question is "if Candidate X didn't come up with Innovation Y, would Innovation Y eventually come out anyway (was Y inevitable) or did they make a true breakthrough?"
3) Service to the industry. This can be service through ILDA -- doing work on various committees, coming up with standards, helping with awards, etc. This can also be outside ILDA, such as writing articles or books, providing useful products or services to the industry, etc. Again, a good question might be "how would ILDA and/or the laser industry be different without Candidate X's involvement?"
4) Longevity. It is the "Career" Achievement Award, so they have to be involved with the industry for a while.
5) Quality. Their work should be of high standards.
6) Integrity. The person (and their company) should be trustworthy and fair in their dealings with other people and companies: "A person of their word."
This was established in June 2013 by vote of the ILDA Board of Directors. Below are the guidelines presented to them, prior to their voting to establish the SAA.
The ILDA Special Achievement Award is given for significant achievements that are not already sufficiently covered by existing or future ILDA Award categories. It is "special" so it does not have to be given every year.
It is up to the Board (as described below) whether to give a Special Achievement Award, and under what criteria. General guidelines are listed below, but there may be situations where one or more guidelines are set aside for legitimate reasons.
The format of the award is "Special Achievement Award for [name of achievement]." The name of the achievement will of course vary, such as "for Cultural Enhancement" or "for Community Service" or "for Charitable and Fundraising Efforts".
Then there is a short, 1-2 sentence summary of the award, such as "Presented to Claudia Krantz for a decade of donating laser shows worth $1,000,000 to community causes, in the process helping to raise over $20,000,000 for charity" or "Presented to John Smith for working closely with well-known artists, putting lasers in dozens of galleries worldwide, and thus raising laser display from an event spectacle to a fine art".
A longer "Citation" section of 3-10 paragraphs then goes into more detail about the specific elements of the person's accomplishment.
Finally, to assist the ILDA Board and Awards Committee chair, there may also be a more detailed Documentation section with links, sources, etc. This is used to help determine whether to vote in favor of giving the person the SAA.
The SAA is normally awarded to a current ILDA Member, although in rare cases there may be past Members or persons outside ILDA whose work deserves recognition. For example, it might be given to a non-Member for a technical, safety or regulatory breakthrough which improves all laserists' work lives, but would not qualify for any existing ILDA Award category.
In general, no more than one SAA is presented per year. This does not mean it should be presented every year -- it should only be presented as justified. But if there are two or more worthy candidates in a single year, ILDA should strive to "put one off" for a future year, so that there is only one SAA presented in a year.
The SAA can be given jointly to two or more persons, if each had a significant role in the achievement being honored. In such a case, it is a single SAA with multiple, joint recipients.
The SAA is presented for significant accomplishments, preferably over a long time span. For example, if a laser company does a few big charity events for free, such as for tornado victims or bombing victims, that would not qualify. But if over many years a laser company has donated hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in free shows for numerous charity events, that could certainly be considered for an SAA.
Also, there may be a single accomplishment that required a long time span or significant effort to achieve, such as an award to a person who wrote and published a comprehensive history of laser light shows.
The SAA is presented for accomplishments that are unique or significantly different from other laser companies or Members' work. In the charity example above, if every ILDA Member routinely did charity shows totaling hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars over many years, then this is no longer "special".
The SAA is presented for accomplishments that go beyond mere commercial interests, to community, charity, culture and other non-commercial aspects. For example, a company might routinely work with fine artists in galleries. If this is mostly done on contract so the company is paid for each project, then it is less deserving than if the lasers and time are completely donated. Of course, everyone needs to eat and nothing is totally free, so the commercial vs. non-commercial aspects need to be fairly weighed.
The SAA is presented for accomplishments that are of less scope than an entire "career", so the person would not necessarily be deserving of a Career Achievement Award. The SAA is for "special" achievement in some area not normally recognized by ILDA, and is not for an overall career. (However, an SAA recipient could also be a CAA nominee at some point -- this does not disqualify them from CAA consideration. It would be up to ILDA Members voting on the CAA to determine if the person is also worthy of a CAA.)
An SAA can be suggested or nominated by anyone, but must be voted on by the ILDA Board with the advice of the Chair of the ILDA Awards Committee. This is a Board award. The Awards Committee chair must be notified and given a chance to present their advice and recommended vote. If the AC chair wishes to also consult the entire AC, he or she can do this. However, ultimately the Board votes on whether to give the award. The vote requires a simple majority of the Board, just like other Board votes.
The SAA cannot be given to a current Board Member, or current ILDA Awards Committee chair. This prevents the Board from giving it to "one of themselves".
ED = Executive Director
ACC = Awards Committee Chair
Late December, ED: Send out first reminder to Members and laserists about the upcoming Awards submission deadline date. This is done in December because it is also a reminder about renewal.
During Nov/Dec/mid-January, ACC: Within the Awards Committee, discuss any changes desired to the Awards rules, process, etc. ED will update the previous year’s form and will add any changes. AC members can get a private link to the updated draft version, in order to discuss further.
By January 31, ED: Final Entry Form is made available to Members and laserists. Notify Members & laserists (this is the second reminder). In the message, also ask Members who would be interested in judging Artistic and/or Tech, and who are in or near the Conference host’s country, to submit their names to ILDA.
NOTE: For countries with large numbers of ILDA Members, such as Germany or the US, all judges should be from the country. If there are fewer Members in a country, such as Dubai or UAE, judges can be from other nearby countries.
NOTE: For 2016, we can consider giving judges a $130 credit towards their 2017 ILDA dues.
By February 15, ACC: Provide estimated budget for judging expenses to ED & President. Get preliminary approval. Note that the budget, and the judge-selection process are interlinked. For example, holding the judging in one city may be more expensive than in another. The goal is the lowest cost for the judges.
By February 15, ED: Send 2nd reminder to Members and laserists.
By February 28, ED: Send 3rd reminder to Members and laserists.
By February 28, ACC: Eight total judges (4 for Artistic and 4 for Tech), plus an Artistic judging coordinator, have been identified and selected. Tentative dates for the judging (from May 1 - 21) have been set. Finalize budget.
NOTE: At least two, and hopefully three or all four, of the judges should be current ILDA Members. for each set (Artistic and Tech). All judges need to certify that they have no actual or potential conflict of interest with potential entrants. (For example, if they are in a lawsuit with another ILDA Company that might enter.) For each set, one of the four judges will be an alternate. It is up to the Awards Committee to determine who is designated as an alternate. If the alternate is not needed on the judging day(s), they do not have to attend, or they are welcome to attend as a silent observer. The latter is a consolation since they may have already booked the date and made travel plans.
March 15, ED: Send 4th reminder to Members
March 22, ED: Send 5th and final reminder to Members
March 31: Deadline for Member submissions. We permit downloaded submissions — provide a link to a single downloadable zip file that contains all movies, the entry spreadsheet and the entry form.
During April, ACC: Confirm judges, location, date, etc.
April 24, ED: Deadline for having all video entries (Artistic and Tech) processed and ready for judges. Send entries on USB drive to Judging Coordinator. Also include printed copies of the entry spreadsheet, and the evaluation sheets that judges will fill out.
April 25-April 30, Judging Coordinator: Review USB drive as early as possible on computer that will be used to present videos to the judges. Ensure that all videos play properly on this computer. There needs to be enough time to fix any problems before judging starts.
May 1-21, ACC: Judging takes place sometime during first three weeks of May.
By May 15, ED: Laser Photography entries are online and voting starts.
By May 31, ED: Judged winners are notified by email.
May 31: Member voting closes for Laser Photography.
June 1, ED: Voting for Career Achievement Award is opened.
By June 7, ED: Laser Photography winners are notified.
June 15: Member voting closes for Career Achievement Award.
June 16, ED: CAA winner is notified.
By the Conference, ED: Put watermarks on winning videos. Write Awards Booklet. Compile watermarked videos and PDF of Booklet onto USB drives for distribution at the Conference.
After the conference, ED: Upload 1st place winners to ILDA’s YouTube channel.
The following is taken from "Back to Basics - Assessing a laser show" by Malcolm Hignett of Thames Valley University in London. This is a set of guidelines for judging students' laser shows. It may be helpful to ILDA Artistic judges. It was originally presented to ILDA at the 2009 Conference's Advanced Technology Workshop on June 7.
The assessment criteria for Laser Display Artwork is as follows:
An inspirational highly polished artwork, exciting, innovative and stimulating to watch. It is outstanding in its conceptualization - perceptive, articulate and imaginative. The piece is clearly structured both within the sequence of beams and animations and in relation to its audio track. The display maintains a high level of interest throughout. Very successful in communicating both on aesthetic and emotional levels. All visual elements are well designed and synchronized precisely to the originally produced soundtrack. This work shows considerable potential in beam show design and/or animation at a professional level. Technically very assured, showing total control and understanding of the medium.
An exceptional and highly polished artwork, exciting, innovative and stimulating to watch. It is outstanding in its conceptualization - perceptive, articulate and imaginative. The piece is clearly structured and maintains a high level of audience interest. Very successful in communicating on both aesthetic and emotional levels. All visual elements are well designed and synchronized precisely to the originally produced soundtrack. This work shows considerable potential in beam show design and/or animation at a professional level. Technically very assured, showing total control and understanding of the medium.
Well designed and produced artwork - exciting and innovative. Well conceived - perceptive and imaginative use of the medium. Clearly structured, maintaining a high level of audience interest. Successful in communicating on both aesthetic and emotional levels. All elements combine to knowingly create the required finished product. Technically assured; wholly appropriate use of the medium.
Overall, a successful artwork which fulfils its aim very well and with clear direction and cohesion. This work may have some of the qualities of a 'first', but without the inspiration, excitement or innovation. There may be very minor parts of the artwork which do not function to the utmost perhaps insufficient variety in beam effects and/or animations or insufficient interpretation/linkage to the audio track, This work would benefit from more attention to detail. However, it is technically assured and an appropriate use of the medium.
Successful in meeting its aim and overall aesthetic qualities. There may, however, be problems with its structure or execution which prevents a smooth reception of the piece. This work will be lacking in imagination, uninspiring and conventional. Conceptualization is limited, so that the final artwork may lack cohesion and integration. The work uses over-extended effects and repetition to achieve completion. Little or no attempt to design according to the audio track's needs. Overall, technically competent (the lower marks may have problems here at times, but even these will have their saving graces). Generally appropriate use of the medium, but perhaps there is a better and more exciting way of doing it.
Aesthetically incoherent and confused making it hard for the audience understand the maker's intentions, Poorly structure with little or no consideration of the audio track's needs. Shows only a very limited ability to design, select, structure and prioritize visual elements to create a coherent experience. The beam/animated elements are repetitious, devoid of direction and unrelated to the audio track. The artwork may just communicate an intention, but only partially.
This work fails to offer any coherence as a programmed visual sequence, perhaps through a mixture of lack of logical thought, poor organization and technical ineptitude. The work reveals crucial omissions in knowledge of the medium and its potential. Conceptually and technically, this work is flawed due to insufficient investment in time to acquire the necessary skills in the software to produce an acceptable artwork. Beam and/or animated graphics are totally unrelated to the audio track.
This work fails to offer any coherence as a programmed visual sequence, perhaps through a mixture of lack of logical thought, poor organization and technical ineptitude. The work reveals only a superficial knowledge of the medium and its potential. Conceptually and technically, this work appears incomplete with beams and/or graphics used without any logical structure and without any relationship to the audio track. Clearly insufficient time has been given to acquiring the technical skills and aesthetic understanding to use the medium. Beam and/or animated graphics are totally unrelated to the audio track.
Whilst there is some attempt to design some frames using the software drawing tools, there is no plan or purpose to the exercise. Frames might exist but there's no attempt to program them into a timeline and/or link to a sound track.
Other ILDA websites: ILDAmember.com for membership database and event management (including joining ILDA), and LasershowSafety.info for safety information.
No reproduction of the text or images on this website is allowed without written permission of ILDA or other copyright holders. "ILDA" and the ILDA logo are trademarks of the International Laser Display Association.