Joseph Tese

Matthew’s options are perfectly right. If you value a complete “out of the box” solution vs diying cables and batteries (which is not difficult btw), you can get a battery/inverter combo like this..https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1437588-REG/interfit_nom100_nomad_portable_battery_pack.html/amp One of those nomad batteries will power a dedo for about an hour. So if longevity is needed without having to swap, a deep cycle battery(s) with a much higher w/h rating is needed.

Efficacy (Lumen to watt ratio) of LEDs is constantly changing and getting better over time. Every LED manufacturer has different efficacy ratings, meaning a 300watt from one brand could be brighter or less bright from another company boasting the same/similar wattage. This fact alone means it’s better to judge light by ftcandles , lux etc.

You can experiment with a simple wooden frame (or two stacked an inch or so apart like the picture). Maybe you can shear different levels of light diff by running a blade through them vertically, to mimick varying intensities of light. You can probably dirty the diff as well. But, why not just make the real thing? Pick up an actual cheap window with a frame pattern you like and also has the glass and dirty it up? There’s spray that is meant to stick to windows to make it seem frosted. Maybe that mixed with little particles (sand, etc). I’m sure it will take some experimenting. A good art dep person might have some great ideas, too.

Intellytech has generally worked well for me in the past, when careful about how I implement them. Mainly used the f165 bicolor fresnels. Cons: The build quality is okay, the warmer cct seems a little off. I also noticed (to the eye) ugreen renditions at super low dimming percentage (like 1%), but would like to do testing and comparisons with a color meter. Other than that, it’s pretty great for what you get at the price point. Dont know about the lights you’re looking at, they could be newer and an improvement color quality wise.

Yes, you can lower the lights to get “more power”, but at a potential compromise in a desired aesthetic. You can only push it too far before it enters the frame, fall off is unnatural, too “toppy”, etc

Ended up making a slit into some plywood. Was originally going to throw a bolt through it, but chain vide grip was more secure. Worked great!

Thanks for the reply JD. space is pretty big. Maybe I could attempt to speed rail between the brick columns, but there’s not a lot of surface there. What if i “speed C” on one of the brick columns?

Thank you all very much.

What if I had a cartellini like this, or something similar where the threaded rod was open/at the endhttps://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1482663-REG/cardellini_2r_right_angle_clamp.html/?ap=y&gclid=CjwKCAjw_-D3BRBIEiwAjVMy7IFtXp5QBix9UsLz4JUh04SszhICCX7VkgTuQxIBeNw7IF8cbUlS9BoCfOUQAvD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=y then, place the rod end through one of the eye bolts, and I can put two washers on either side of the eyebolt and secure them with a locknut. Thoughts?

See the two eye bolts in pic below? I want to rig a 1k tungsten between them. I was thinking of putting a piece of steel pipe/tube (small diamoeter that would fit) inside, then just cardellini to the fixtures the only thing is the tube would most likely swing or rotate inside the bolts, relying the positioning of the fixture to “rest on the wall”. I would rather have a more secure and confident way to angle the light as needed. Do you have any suggestions?

I think this might have answered my question? http://www.ocon.com/inspiration/labs/rod-standards-explained/

Hello, I have a temporary solution for a shoot.. I was able to mount the C200 to a red rail system.. Odd right? But are different rail systems made for different cameras to get the lens to the standard height that will accept a mattebox? My fear is that the c200 is not hte right height to accept a mattebox correctly. I don't have a box to test right at the moment, nevertheless I think good knowledge to know. Thanks for the help - Usually I stick to building light systems and not cameras :)

Wow! Very interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing. It’d be interesting to see some third party tests and techniques to see how that’s practical and its effects on commonly used lights.

I have actually have recently been thinking about this a lot - And since there's so many softpanels on the market, I've been wondering why there wasn't at least a third party focusing lens like this offered for common form factors, or why it's not a standard offering from the panels themselves. The first thing I think of is Arri's intensifier, which essentially does the same thing. It tightens up the beam angle and concentrates the amount of light in front of the fixture. To me, the advantage here is not only the "increased amount" of light, but also probably greater efficiency (less-light loss) than what you'd get with a grid/honeycomb. Generally, I think it may be the case you don't get as much control as a grid. Aadyntech uses the same concept for their punch fixture, to achieve similar versatility as you'd want with a fresnel, via plastic focusing lenses. https://www.adorama.com/atpchlen055.html

Here’s my take: The older LEDs had more distinct differences in color and quality, but now most reputable lighting fixtures are much closer in these areas, where most could be used on the same set and in the same scene (Usually for different purposes.) example, if the inventory allows, I usually have the same brand for scene modeling, and same for backlight, and same for key, etc. If combining for the same “source” - The diffusion will certainly help blend them together, especially if they’re covering the same area of the diff. However, you’re also talking about blending a natively soft fixture with a 300d, which can be hardish. Generally speaking, I can see how one would want the same type of optics blowing through the same diff to get consistent shadows (I certainly would).