Jump to content

Assembling a lighting & grip package, thoughts?


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Youre gonna get Arrimax blondies??

You must be working more than i am...

 

The Arris are actually cheaper than the Ianiros (and you won't get me within 20 paces of the Chinese knockoffs - I've seen two of them explode so far), and at any rate - the last couple of gaffers I've worked with have both had Blondies that were 15-20 years old. What's $100-$200 extra for a light that you'll be carting around for the next 20 years? Might as well get one with the benefits of the heat-proof handles and the much nicer beam of the arrimax reflectors. I don't mind paying a little extra for features that make my life easier (and burn fewer besties hands/wrists).

 

One place where my Daylight Dedo would be poop hot is reflection. Im obsessed with mirror bounce ideas and it would be as close as you can get without a custom head to parallel beam triple bounce glory Haneke style.

I really want one now.

But then i want 2 m18s, 2 celebs, a paparazzi, a brieze and the list goes on.

 

Haha, I feel like you finally 'get' me Andrew! :D

 

I was doing electrics on a VCA short a month or so ago, and we had a 2nd storey bedroom that needed bright blown out sunlight coming through the window to create a silhouette on the actors sitting on the bed - problem was, the day was dark and overcast and the window was too high for the windup stand holding our HMI. In the end I had to awkwardly rig up some ultrabounce on a diagonal from the awnings of the window and we fired the HMI into the ultrabounce from down low. But it wasn't a pretty or easy solution, and we lost a lot of lumens in beam spill that fell outside of the ultrabounce - if I'd had the Dedo with a couple of my rigid reflector frames the whole thing could have been a much easier 10 minute setup, rather than taking half an hour of faffing around hanging out 2nd storey windows.

 

(... and good lord I want a couple of those M18s!)

 

 

Colorimetry problems with LEDs are not the same as those with fluorescent, so green isn't always, or even often, the problem.

 

There tends to be a lack of red as this is the largest shift away from the blue that the phosphor is required to achieve. There can also be a lack of differentiation between similar shades of green, turquoise and blue, as this is the point between the emission peaks of the blue LED and the yellow phosphor. Finally, extremely deep blues are apparently sometimes a problem, as there isn't generally any output of a blue deeper than the blue of the LED driver itself, although I've not seen this myself.

 

It is generally not possible to fully correct an LED source with filtration, at least without soaking up a ridiculous amount of its output.

 

It may be better to look for TLCI data rather than CRI. TLCI is a more stringent test. Engineers can trick LED designs into creating good CRI results while still exhibiting poor overall colorimetry. The best LED designs use more than one type of white-emitting phosphor and possibly different blue LED drivers, which is usually quite obvious on the TLCI because there are two clear peaks in the yellow part of the spectrum. With this arrangement it is possible to get extremely good performance that only a real curmudgeon could complain about.

 

Confident manufacturers will publish TLCI data; I'm starting to make a point of asking about it.

 

P

 

Cheers Phil, I've heard a bit about TLCI but haven't investigated it yet (since no manufacturers seem to go to much effort to publish it). I'll have to look into it further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of those gits who has to throw a +/- green up on any fixture that's not quite right).

 

You have to be extra careful putting Color Correction gels on LEDs. Another problem with LEDs (remote phosphor included) is that color correction gels are not calibrated for their discontinuous spectrum and so you get unexpected results from their use on LEDs. Where you know what to expect when you put a color correction gel, say ¾ CTO, on HMI or Tungsten lights, you don’t know what you will get putting that same gel on an LED light. The reason is that because of their discontinuous spectrum, the use of CC gels on LEDs have unintended and undesirable consequences.

 

LED_CC_34CTO_Day_Conv.jpg

3/4 CTO gel passes only certain wavelengths (represented by the spectral transmission curve (center)) of daylight (left) to create the color spectrum approximating that of a 3200K tungsten light (right.)

LED_CC_34CTO_LED_Conv.jpg

The same 3/4 CTO gel applied to a daylight LED (left) passes the same wavelengths (represented by the spectral transmission curve (center)) to create an unknown color spectrum that does not approximate a 3200K tungsten light.

 

A good example of this is what happens when you try to convert the 5500K out-put of Phosphor White LEDs to 2900k with Full CTO gel. Where you can do it with some success with HMIs because there are long wavelengths in it’s continuous spectrum to pass disproportionately to the blue part of the spectrum to achieve a nominal 2900K, since LEDs don’t put out much beyond 625nm, there is not much for a filter to pass to rebalance the light output to 2900K, so the “corrected” light is too cool. Another undesirable consequence comes from the fact that Full CTO is designed to pass extra green (there is a bump in the spectral transmission curve of Full CTO in the green portion of the spectrum) and so it creates, given the amount of green inherent in Daylight LEDs to begin with, a disproportionate amount of green (creating an overall green bias) to the "corrected" light when used on Phosphor White LEDs. Here is a link to test results demonstrating this with a Lightpanel 1x1 Daylight Spot. The gel pack that eventually made the Lightpanel 1x1 Daylight Spot in the test marginally similar to a tungsten light, was only able to do so at the expense of two stops – so much for the greater efficiency of LEDs.

 

Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting & Grip Rental and Sales in Boston

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Cheers Guy, would it right to assume that the impact of CC filters passing through surfeits or deficits of particular colours is minimised by using lower density filters (1/8, 1/4) as apposed to higher density ones (1/2, full)?

 

It seems like the remote phosphor units must offer some advantage here by allowing you to simply switch out the phosphor panel to a colour temperature closer to what you need (thereby minimising the need for high-density correction filters. There also doesn't appear to be any noticeable green spike to contend with in the first place (which certainly helps).

 

I've seen interviews with both Cineo Lighting and BBS where they have explained how removing the phosphor from the diodes (and manufacturing it in much larger sheets) allows for significantly improved abilities to compensate and correct for the spectral weaknesses inherent to LED, which I'm sure must play a part in all this.

 

I'm waiting to hear back from BBS about the TLCI rating they received for the Area 48 fixture, but Cineo have published the results they got for their remote phosphor units, and they secured a TLCI rating of 98, which apparently matches HMI and surpasses fluorescents:

 

http://www.sourceshop.com/downloads/CineoTest2013.pdf

 

So both by eye, and by technical reports - I think it's safe to say that remote phosphor really is breaking new ground for LED lighting. These things really are on another level to the LEDs we're used to.

Edited by Mark Kenfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like the remote phosphor units must offer some advantage here by allowing you to simply switch out the phosphor panel to a colour temperature closer to what you need (thereby minimising the need for high-density correction filters. There also doesn't appear to be any noticeable green spike to contend with in the first place (which certainly helps).

 

In your zeal to sell everyone on the Area 48 LEDs, you are glossing over a major problem with all LEDs (remote phosphor included), which is that any gel (party, effects or color correction) on a discontinuous source like LEDs will not produce the same repeatable result that you’d expect from gelling a continuous source, i.e. tungsten. Interchangeable remote phosphor panels that limit you to only four Kelvin Temperatures, and at a cost of $340-$420 each, is a poor substitution for the hundreds of party, effects, and color correction gels that are available for tungsten lighting instruments.

 

What you are failing to appreciate is that CTO, CTS, and CTB gels are a part of a finely calibrated imaging system that involves a highly specific light receptor (film emulsion or video sensor), light sources, and color correction or effects gels calibrated for both. Where that exists between film emulsions/video sensors and tungsten and/or daylight sources it is possible to mix dyes in a gelatin materials to create desired effects (it has taken decades to hone this system.) To use the available color correction gels (listed above) to correct LEDs is a misapplication of a finely tuned system of correction designed for continuous spectrum light sources only.

LED_3200K_Remote_Phosphor.jpg

While there is no spike in the green output of a remote phosphor LED, as you can see from the spectral distribution graph above for the Cineo Trucolor 3200 (black line), there exists a definite green/cyan bump, as well as a spike in the blue range that does not exist in the continuous spectrum of a tungsten light source (green line.) The greater proportion of blue and green/cyan in the Cineo Trucolor 3200 will result in an unexpected and undesirable result if a color correction (CTO, CTS, CTB), or color effect gel (Congo Blue, Bastard Amber, etc.) calibrated for the continuous spectrum of tungsten light is used on this discontinuous spectrum of a 3200K remote phosphor LED. The same is true of the Cineo Trucolor with the 5600K panel below. The quite prominent blue spike (black line) will likewise result in an unexpected and undesirable result if a color correction, or color effect, gel calibrated for the continuous spectrum of a continuous daylight source is used on the discontinuous spectrum of a 5500K remote phosphor LED.

LED_5600K_Remote_Phosphor.jpg

 

Someday, Rosco, Lee, or Gam, will come up with gels calibrated for LEDs but I doubt it will be any time soon given that there is no standard spectral output to LEDs. Perhaps, in the future, when LED technology has become standardized, and a system of calibrated gels exists, Konica Minolta will come out with a Color Meter suitable for measuring LEDs for photographic purposes; but for now no such color meter exists as it does for tungsten sources. Where there are no meters or gels calibrated to correct the discontinuous spectrum of LEDs (remote phosphor included), and the existing color correction gels have undesirable consequences when used on LEDs, the ability to color-correct LEDs is very limited (use this link for camera test results demonstrating this with a Lightpanel 1x1 Daylight Spot.)

 

Hal Smith summed it up very eloquently in a post on the CML when he said: “… If I light with tungsten, I know what the result is going to look like …. Yes, they're hot; yes, they're bulky; yes, they draw a poop pot full of electricity but dammit...I know what the result is going to look like...and don't have to give some post pro a bagful of money to straighten out what the LED's screwed up.”

 

I think it's safe to say that remote phosphor really is breaking new ground for LED lighting. These things really are on another level to the LEDs we're used to.

I am not denying that remote phosphor LEDs are an improvement; but given what came before that is not saying much. Lets talk about the alternative. For a little under $600 I can buy a 1k Fresnel and put a $16 globe in it. That works out to something like 7 cents per lumen. With a sticker price of $2’295, the Area 48 is close to 14 times as expensive (98 cents) per lumen.

 

Unlike a remote phosphor LED panel, a 1k Fresnel is an extremely versatile light. It offers a wide continuous spot/flood capability with an even field of light in flood – the Area 48 does not. A 1k Fresnel is capable of rendering clearly defined shadows and cuts – the Area 48 can not. Finally, a 1k Fresnel has sufficient output that the crispness of its’ shadow or the hardness of its’ cut can be varied incrementally by simply adding one of a variety of diffusion material to soften its’ output if desired – something the Area 48 does not permit. These are the characteristics of traditional 1k Fresnel that make them extremely versatile. Finally, the power consumption difference really isn’t important for these low-power units, whether tungsten or LED, unless you are operating them on batteries. But, how often is that really – not very.

 

I just don’t understand your obsession with the Area 48 LEDs. Why spend $1’780 in phosphor panels ($340-$420 each), on top of a sticker price of $2’295.00 (for a total of $4’075.00) to get not even the output and versatility that a less than $600 tungsten 1k Fresnel and $30.00 in gels will give you. Why not take the $3400 you will save by buying a conventional tungsten Fresnel and invest it in other production equipment that will actually add production value to your projects – an Area 48 LED certainly won’t.

 

Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting & Grip Equipment Rental and Sales in Boston.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I thin you're being a bit unfair; the Area 48 is not intended to be a fresnel. LED fresnels exist which compare more or less identically in terms of beam shaping capability, although they probably don't have colour performance of either the Area 48 or, certainly, tungsten. It's probably difficult to make a remote-phosphor fresnel, but I wouldn't put it past someone to figure it out.

 

I appreciate that there may be unexpected problems using colour-temperature correction filters on discontinuous-spectrum lighting, but I think that applies to fluorescent and HMI as well. I would not expect to be able to put full CTO on an HMI and a daylight-balanced kino, put the results up next to a real tungsten source, and have them match - especially if the HMI was quite some way through its life. These are not LED-only problems.

 

I think you're missing the point with the idea that power consumption is unimportant. For what it's worth, some of us work on shows where the arrival of a generator truck or the availability of studio power is not always a given, and we sometimes need to find ways to light big interiors anyway. To your point, though, right now, sure, the cost of renting LED is probably more than the cost of renting sufficient generator power for equivalent tungsten. But you don't need LED for the efficiency. HMI is currently cheaper than LED on a per-photon basis and probably about as efficient, and it has better colorimetry.

 

So the main problem is indeed that LED is currently early adopter priced. The only fix for that is probably time, and it seems to me that LED tech is a bit less complicated than HMI on the manufacturing level.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These LEDs are just another tool, another brush to use when lighting. Yes, a 1k is highly versatile, renders colour way more accurately, is a better investment over time, etc, but slap a battery on an LED panel and you can do a lot of things in a lot of situations, a lot more quickly and easily than a 1k or any tungsten unit can do. the trade off being not so accurate colour rendering and that LED quality of light.

 

It's a trade off, yes, but lets face it, with the quality of the latest generation of LEDs, except in particular circumstances, 90% of the time you can get away with it.

 

It is very difficult these days to do a job without a DP requesting you carry a LED panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Guy, no one's disputing the superior colour rendering of tungsten, or the versatility that a fresnel offers. But tungsten has its own limitations (there's a reason HMI and flourescent fixtures have become industry standards).

 

But I think it's safe to say that no one is thinking of remote phosphor units as a replacement to tungsten fresnels - they're an alternative to kino-style flourescent light banks. And offer some compelling advantages for a roughly equivalent price per lumen. An Area 48 offers equivalent output to a Kino 4' 4-bank, and purchased with just 3200k and 5600k panel and a battery plate works out to basically the same price as the Kino plus 3200k and 5600k tubes (or a few hundred more when compared to a Diva 400 plus tubes). So I'm not sure the price argument holds all that much water when comparing the remote phosphor units to 'equivalent' fixtures.

 

And the simple fact that, as Matthew says, you can throw a battery on them and run around - opens up options that simply didn't exist before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that there may be unexpected problems using colour-temperature correction filters on discontinuous-spectrum lighting, but I think that applies to fluorescent and HMI as well. I would not expect to be able to put full CTO on an HMI and a daylight-balanced kino, put the results up next to a real tungsten source, and have them match - especially if the HMI was quite some way through its life. These are not LED-only problems.

 

Certainly not CTO, but a combination of Rosco Tough MT2 (Cinegel #3102) and Rosco Tough Y-1 (Cinegel #3107) will give you a very close match. According to the Rosco website, MT2 used in combination with Y-1 (to absorb UV) will correct 5500K HMI to 3200K photographic tungsten with a combined Mired shift of +155. For the daylight balanced Kino you would use Rosco Fluorofilter (Cinegel #3310) instead of CTO. Again, according to the Rosco website Fluorofilter will correct 5500K fluorescent lamps to 3200K photographic tungsten as well as remove the excess green.

 

My point is that even though not as continuous a source as tungsten, both HMI and Kino (once the green spike is removed) are more continuous than any LED source presently available. But, more importantly, gel manufacturers like, Rosco, Lee, and Gam have designed color correction gels specifically for that purpose. The same is not true of LED sources. No gel manufacturer offers color correction gels for LED sources. One might argue that the interchangeable remote phosphor panels serve that purpose. But, at a cost ranging from ($340-$420 each) that is an extremely expensive alternative to a $6 sheet of Rosco gel.

 

The other point I was trying to make is that color effect gels give very different and unexpected results on Remote Phosphor LEDs than they do on continuous spectrum sources. For instance Bastard Amber will look very different on a Cineo Trucolor with a 3200K panel than it would look on a tungsten 1k because of the noticeable blue spike and green bump of the 3200K remote phosphor panel available for the Cineo Trucolor. I pity the poor gaffer that, when asked by the DP to put Bastard Amber on the sources, puts it on a Cineo Trucolor 3200 without the DP knowing he was using a LED Remote Phosphor source. The Gaffer and his kit are not going to be hired back by that DP again.

 

Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting & Grip Equipment Rental and Sales in Boston.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... remote phosphor units (are) an alternative to kino-style flourescent light banks. And offer some compelling advantages for a roughly equivalent price per lumen. An Area 48 offers equivalent output to a Kino 4' 4-bank, and purchased with just 3200k and 5600k panel and a battery plate works out to basically the same price as the Kino plus 3200k and 5600k tubes (or a few hundred more when compared to a Diva 400 plus tubes). So I'm not sure the price argument holds all that much water when comparing the remote phosphor units to 'equivalent' fixtures.

 

The price argument holds water when you are honest about price comparisons. Using manufacturer’s suggested list pricing an Area 48 with just 3200K and 5600K panels is $2975 US. A Kino 4’ 4 Bank 3200K and 5600K tubes is $1545 US. Or, the Kino is roughly half the price of the Area 48 with comparable output.

 

Another distinct advantage to Kino Flos over Area 48 panels is that their discontinuous color spectrum can be easily corrected with minus green (magenta) gels specifically formulated for that purpose. Where there are no gels formulated for the discontinuous color spectrum of remote phosphor panels, the Area 48 LEDs can not be color corrected. Which makes Kino Flos, in my opinion, a better key source because they will render flesh-tones better. I find that once I correct for the green spike of Kino-Flo’s True Match tubes with minus green gels, I get a much better flesh tone than what I have seen with remote phosphor LED panels. I think it is because the spectral distribution of the corrected Kino Flo is much more continuous and contains a greater proportion of the long wave length colors that are so critical to rendering flesh-tones accurately than a 3200K remote phosphor LED (use this link for more details.)

 

And the simple fact that, as Matthew says, you can throw a battery on them and run around - opens up options that simply didn't exist before.

 

Yes, it opens up possibilities, but at the expense of closing off others. Where there are no color effect gels specifically formulated for the discontinuous output of remote phosphor panels, you are severely limited with what you can do with them creatively. And where it is a rare job where a DP does not put a color gel on a light that is a big draw back in my opinion.

 

Guy Holt, Gaffer, C.O.O. New England Studios @ Devens, Soon to be New England’s First Feature Stage Complex.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point with the idea that power consumption is unimportant. For what it's worth, some of us work on shows where the arrival of a generator truck or the availability of studio power is not always a given, and we sometimes need to find ways to light big interiors anyway.

 

You don’t have to resort to outrageously expensive LED panels to light large interiors. If you need more power there are ways to get it short of generator trucks. One way to light big interiors in the US without generators is to use a 240V-to-120V step-down transformer/distro as I did on the iRobot shoot pictured below:

 

iRobot_Master_Shot.jpg

Master shot of an iRobot commercial lit with a 4kw HMI Par (outside)

& 1.8kw HMI Par (inside) powered from a 30A/240V dryer outlet through a step-down transformer/distro. Note: Sunny feel created by 4k Par on an overcast day.

 

In addition to providing access to the full power of a portable generator, a Transformer can also be used to access more power on location from common 240v household outlets. With the appropriate adapter you can plug a Transformer/Distro into common 240V sources found on interior locations - including Range Plugs, Dryer Plugs, and special receptacles installed for Window Air Conditioners. Like it does with the 240V output of Honda portable generators, a

step-down Transformer/Distros will convert the 240 volts supplied by industrial and house-hold 240V receptacles to 120 volts in a single circuit that is the sum of the two single phase legs of 30/50 Amps each.

iRobot_Comp_1.jpg

 

Left: Transformer/Distro plugged into a 30A/240V dryer outlet. Right: 4K HMI Par under rain protection powered by Transformer/Distro

 

In other words, out of a "30A/240v" or a "50A/240v" circuit a Transformer/Distro will make a 60A/120v circuit capable of powering bigger lights, like 4kw HMIs pictured above. They will enable you to even power Quartz 5ks, mini brutes (5850W) as well. By giving you access to more "house power" through common 240V household outlets, a Transformer/Distros can eliminate the need for dangerous tie-ins or expensive tow generators (use this link for details.)

iRobot_Comp_2.jpg

 

Left: Arri M18 through 6x6 griff provides soft key as 4k Par provides sun splashes background. Right: Arri 4k and 1.8k electronic ballasts powered by 60A step-down transformer/distro.

 

Outside of a car rig, I have never felt the need for a more energy efficient light source. But, now that I think of it I have never had a problem running 200W HMIs and Kino 4’- 4 Banks on car rigs either. I just don’t see the need for outrageously expensive LED remote phosphor panels.

 

Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting & Grip Equipment Rental and Sales in Boston.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Eh, well, we don't quite suffer that situation here; every wall socket has a single 240V phase at 13A. Which is handy.

 

But earlier this year I lit a big corporate lobby interior for a moody night look with 36K of parcans. Had we not been lucky with availability of nearby 3-phase, we'd have been screwed. It was an office block. There probably was 36K of power available if we'd have run stingers to every office on every floor, I guess. But it'd have been well under 10K of LED for the same amount of photons, which is three domestic mains sockets here (as long as one of them was on a different ring to the other two).

 

You will get no argument from me that LED is currently rather expensive - well, okay, extremely expensive - but the power consumption does matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The price argument holds water when you are honest about price comparisons. Using manufacturers suggested list pricing an Area 48 with just 3200K and 5600K panels is $2975 US. A Kino 4 4 Bank 3200K and 5600K tubes is $1545 US. Or, the Kino is roughly half the price of the Area 48 with comparable output.

 

Ouch. Ouch, ouch and ouch. And here I was thinking the price gouging down here in Australia had improved somewhat in the past year or so.

 

For reference, retail on a single 4' 4-bank Kino kit down here is $2,739 AUD, add 3200k and 5600k tubes (with two spares of each) and that adds another $594 AUD to the price, making it $3,333 for a single working fixture.

 

The Area 48 by comparison, works out to $2,910 AUD with both 3200k and 5600k panels (or $3,170 once you add the battery plate as well).

 

So clearly international waters muddy the price comparison considerably. Certainly, if I could get the Kinos for that sort of price down here I couldn't justify the Area 48 (and would happily take 2 Kinos fixtures for the price of a single remote phosphor unit) but unfortunately that's not the situation down here, so I'm not sure where that leaves me (other than screwed over on prices, or forced to buy Kino-knockoffs that many clients don't take seriously).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Premium Member

Well my purchasing has begun in earnest :unsure: and grip gear is on the way, I took people's advice and have added four combo stands and two low boys to the package, along with an Avenger a4050cs boom/stand.

Lights are up next, I added two Arrilite 2000s to the kit, but I'm starting to have some second thoughts about what 'big' daylight sources to add to the package. The original plan was to add a second 1.2k HMI, but now I'm debating whether it'd be worth getting two of the new MoleLED Junior 400w LED fresnels instead of the second HMI?

It's pretty much the same money, but the Mole fresnels offer the same output as 2k tungsten fresnels (in 5600k), with the added benefit of on-board dimming without colour shift.

 

Mole list their CRI for the LED Junior as 90, which puts it on par with the HMI bulbs. But I'm tossing up the benefits of two fixtures with lower output but greater control, versus the single fixture with higher output. Thoughts?

Edited by Mark Kenfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 1.2 par is the most profitable light you can buy for a van.

 

 

The only advantage of the led is battery power (which i assume a "400w" version wont do), digital dimmer 0-100% and two for the price of one.

 

"400w" is a weird middle ground, your most useful housepower kit is 2x2.5, 2x1,2, 575, 200.

 

If youve already got 1x1.2 par, get the 2 leds. Wank factor is high which sadly means that itll impress DPs more than a proper film light.

 

You should make a mount so the two leds can mount together on a cockies perch or something.

 

Also unless you see it, any manufacturers ratings or information is LIES.

 

Enjoy updating the gearlist, its the best part of the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Andrew, I feel like I never really knew I was an optimist until I met you!

 

I'm trying to find TLCI data on the MoleLEDs, it seems a much better measure for discontinuous sources than CRI. Hard to find much info on them yet though. I'll ask the guys at Barbizon what they think, they're the only ones I know of who are importing the Moles.

 

I like the dual-mount idea, but I think the fixtures are something like 12kg each, which might be asking a bit much of the combo stands I'm getting (Matthews Digital Combos), I'll have to look into that in a bit more depth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You havent done enough shows to break your spirit yet. Its coming.

 

Its all lies till you see it man.

 

Oh i thought they were small. An led should be small. They sound kinda crap frankly. Just buy second hand 1.2s. Its gonna be a long time before anyone has a van with just leds, theyre all poop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Haha, we'll see!

 

Size wise they basically match a Mole 2k junior (especially that nice big 10" lens).

 

I'm still strongly considering just going with another 1.2k HMI, but a large part of how I'm trying to structure this kit is about being able to run as much as possible off small portable gennies for location work, and they'd be kinda wonderful for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When would you need small daylight off a puttputt? A night shoot in the woods? 400w led wont do anything useful outside.

 

And youd only run a 1.2 off a 3kva honda, so you could only really run the 2 leds off it total, which is not much. And thats without Guy Holt spending an hour cutting and pasting harmonics info for you.

 

Maybe im wrong but id rarely do jobs where a small gennie is used. And i certainly wouldnt base my kit around it. Id base it around talking heads in a studio and lighting a bedroom.

 

The lens size is somewhat pointless as the leds would be too large and would go direct, not through a reflector.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well actually I seem to be lighting night shoots in woods, mountains and on beaches from puttputts all the time. And I couldn't really call the output of a 2K fresnel 'small' either (at least not for the work I do), alongside Blondies they're the biggest tungsten units I ever get to use (I almost never have tie-ins or gennie trucks to run 5ks, 10ks or those yummy yummy Molebeams) so to get that same output as a 2K, but in daylight, would actually be pretty useful (I find it's the bare minimum amount of light I can punch through a window and still get something for the trouble).

 

Obviously I'd never be lighting deep backgrounds with them, but I can see them being pretty useful when I go from my dusk-for-night establishing shots into lit mids/CUs.

 

I'll have to find out some more info about how the quantum-dot panels interact with the lens, though I gather the whole thing's been redesigned for the new array (the retrofit kits come with a new lens).

Edited by Mark Kenfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...