LED Company claims compared to Tungsten.

[Alexander Sutton Hough]

HI, I have been doing a lot research into LED market and I am puzzled by how everyone and even the major lighting companies claim their light output compared to tungsten is so far off. For instance a common one I see is 100w(100w-135w) is a 1000w tungsten equivalent. From Arri all the way to the cheaper Aputure Lightstorms give a similar claim, but when you look at their photometrics and compare them they're more like a 300w tungsten equivalent.

 

I use Arri Photometric calculator to compare their classic 650w tungsten Fresnel to their own LED Fresnel series and everyone else's LEDs and it comes up consistently that around 100w LED is more like a 300w tungsten.

Is there something I am missing or is this just false advertising across the whole lighting industry to push LED? I also took into account beam angle when comparing the photometrics.

[Phil Rhodes]

Doesn't sound too far from the truth. Claims of 10:1 efficiency advantage are common. Reality is usually closer to 4:1.

 

It's not really a big enough market to expect much enforcement.

 

P

[Akos Baranya]

They could maybe argue 10:1 equivalency if we are talking daylight color temp, because if you gel a 1K blue, you will get about the same amount of light as a 100W LED. Still misleading.

[Edward Lawrence Conley III]

Only thing Ive seen from Arri : The L5 is approximately 45% brighter than a 300 watt tungsten Fresnel, but only consumes 115 watts. When compared to the L7, the L5 is half the weight and size.

 

 

I think i read where the L10 is close to a 2k Tungsten.

[Phil Rhodes]

Some of this is based on optical gains, whereby the LED doesn't emit into a sphere the way the tungsten halogen, or an HMI, very nearly does.