Iga Mikler Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Im doing a music video and wondering the fall of on the par64 cans 1000w? Also the differences between cp61,62 and 63 Many thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff woods Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Hopefully others will chime in, but all light has the same fall-off: twice the distance from the source, 1/4 of the light (inverse square law). What comes in to play is size the source in relation to the subject. A PAR64 is essentially a point-source, so the shadow edge will be harder than a larger source like a Kino or a PAR through a silk in the same position. That said, a Kino from a large distance becomes a (very dim) point source too. To get a nice wrap around light with quick fall off in the background, the light would need to be a large source close to the subject. I'm struggling to explain it better without images, so hopefully more well spoken people can chime in. Hope that helps, -j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 To make it even more concrete, the size of the source with respect to the subject *is* the inverse square law :) Agree, much easier to describe in person... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 To make it even more concrete, the size of the source with respect to the subject *is* the inverse square law :) I knew well (as math) that a point source would have fallof with inverse square of the distance. And at a reasonable distance lamps become point sources. But I didn't think this would be true when close to some common sized lights. I grabbed a redhead (5" parabolic) and a six inch fresnel and at roughly 4'/8' it actually looked roughly linear. Very rough, because I just guessed the measurements. I'll have to find time to do it properly. Still savouring your ridley expression above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Hrrrm, let me think about this a moment - at the moment I think yes, you're quite correct. (until I change my mind) But jeez, how the heck does the math work out in any general sense for the reality? Ouch, I guess you're looking at the algorithms used (or more likely still idealised) in 3D lighting ... and all the attendant computational complexity issues. Ridley what ?? you read into something not intended ? I hope it was funny/clever - it's yours to use ! (an interesting phenomenon, it's like inspiration out of thin air but with an unfortunate subtext of IP theft) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 You're not taking about the math for the point source fall off are you? That one is simple and I think unavoidable. The experiment was "rough as guts". I moved the meter and saw about a stop difference at twice the distance. I guessed the measurements. Could have measured in cubits I suppose. It's coming back into fashion with ancient Indian architecture. I'll check the experiment before I worry about the real world math. Re your riddle(ish) statement, can you put that as an equation, so I can see it, rather than guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now