LED vs Tungsten

[Jay Young]

If, at a time studios cannot purchase a flat rate electrical service from the provider, then it may come to pass that LED's will be more used.

 

Also, LED's are not pretty. If you triple diffuse them, they start to get almost usable, but then you've lost all the power.

 

There are plenty of new lighting technologies. Some older technology we don't use anymore, but the tungsten has remained for centuries because it works.

[Albion Hockney]

Led's cause a lot of arguments these days! A lot of people Love LED - I Know several grip truck owners who have invested heavily in it and I'm pretty much there too. I think we should take out some of the other variables here -

 

CRI on most LED's has got to be at least as good as HMI now - and I'm not just talking about the really expensive ones - the mid end 1x1 panels. All the new LED's come in atleast 93/4 CRI - and some higher 97/98 - They are getting lighter all the time too and the output is going up. Even cheaper panels have pretty high CRI. I haven't heard of anyone complaining about green spike from any of the new LED products

 

So the color of the light is good and only getting better

 

Now, if we are talking LED vs tungsten fixtures and the beam of the light - The new Fresnel products do look good to me the shadow quality is pretty much there. I've only used the ARRI LC7 once but it seemed fine maybe to someone who is really into the perfect beam they might not like it but it is a single source light. It is also notable that most people diffuse lights and direct hard shaft of light aren't something every DP need's as much anymore.

 

I would be a little weary to mix LED and Tungsten on set still - in the same way mixing Kino and Tungsten or HMI can sometimes be a problem. But the technology is only getting better.

 

Led will only get more color accurate and brighter - we will all be using them in time.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Here's an LED / Kino / Tungsten color test that I shot a few weeks ago on a whim with my friend Charlie Kuttner (standing in). I was surprised to find that some of the cheaper LEDs were actually not bad at all. My preferred LED keylight for interviews is the Arri Skypanel, which we didn't have access to for this little test. But I was impressed with the cheaper options, they have come a long way in a short time.

 

CORRECTED-LED-Matrix by satsmura, on Flickr

 

UNCORRECTED-LED-Matrix by satsmura, on Flickr

[Max Field]

Would it be fair to say Tungsten vs LED is an argument in the same vein of Film vs Digital?

 

The pros and cons for each have familiar wording in a way for me.

[Albion Hockney]

the key difference being picking a specific light fixture isn't really a strongly artistic choice in itself (not that it isn't creative or important...but there is a reason the gaffer often makes that decision).

 

I wouldn't say LED lights really have a "look" - its more that some people think they have some technical problems still. which of course they do to an extent.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

Also, LED's are not pretty. If you triple diffuse them, they start to get almost usable, but then you've lost all the power.

 

This is funny. I don’t know if you’re saying the exact thing or the opposite of what Darius Khondji talked about:

 

Didn’t you use LED lighting?

 

DK: Yes, sometimes I use panels, especially when I am working with a particular American gaffer who uses them a lot. But I always feel like the result is too cosmetic… a little too perfect, like Kinos. You’ve got to play around with them and diffuse them to make the final result interesting.

 

 

You do both agree, though, that you need to diffuse or bounce them to get the light you like.

 

It’s funny, because I always thought that these panels give away light that is already evenly spread and not very directional and pointy.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

[Robin R Probyn]

"It’s funny, because I always thought that these panels give away light that is already evenly spread and not very directional and pointy."

 

The softness of the light ,what ever the source, is size compared to subject.. I have some Astra 1X1 and they are small well actually only 1x1 :0.. and they are a very hard light even 4 feet away from say a face in a close up.. if it was lighting a 1cm high statue.. it would be a very soft one..from the same distance..

 

​It would be the same for any tungsten light too..

 

I dont really get the idea of the new Astra "soft" light 1x1.. its the same size and effect of the plastic "diffusion" accessory that they made for the older 1x1,s.. ? but due to its small size its only ever a soft light really close up to a very small subject.. its just getting rid of the multi shadow.. not making it soft.. non ?

[David Mullen ASC]

Softness is determined by the size of the source relative to the subject. So a 1'x1' LED or a 4' 4-bank Kino with diffusion right on top of the bulbs is not going to get much softer because the size hasn't increased. However, diffusion will reduce any specular quality from the raw LED bulbs or Kino tubes that you can see on reflective or semi-reflective (like skin) surfaces. And a Kino does get a little softer when the diffusion is on the outside of the barn doors because that's a little bit larger of an area than inside the barn doors. Plus if you have diffusion on the outside and you turn off one of the tubes, the softness doesn't drop as quickly as when you have the bare tubes hitting the subject.

 

As for LED's, the individual bulbs can be rather spotty so a diffuser on top will not only blend the bulbs together to reduce multiple shadows (if the unit is very close to the subject) it will cause the light to spread a little more evenly with less of a hot spot.

[Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos]

I was actually watching a video on this last night

 

 

and I don’t know why, but I still can’t really wrap my head around “soft” and “diffused” not being synonyms. When I saw the thumbnail of the video, I thought that Sareesh was mixing apples and oranges: “hard” & “soft” and “specular” & “diffused” seemed to me to be two different classifications of light, not one and the same.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think that chart is confusing. Specular vs. diffused describes the quality of the light source whereas hard vs. soft describes their effect on the subject's shadows, the end result of specular vs. diffused light sources.

 

Again keep in mind that these lighting definitions are not created by some authorized organization, they have developed over time. "Hard" and "specular" are not exactly the same thing but almost the same thing practically -- a diffused source, if small and far enough away will produce sharp shadows even though technically it is not a specular source. The sun is a specular source but if you were just a few miles from its surface, you wouldn't get a sharp shadow from it, nor would you if you were standing two feet from the large fresnel of a 20K lamp.

[Robin R Probyn]

I know what you mean Alex.. .. I think the basic thing to remember is size of source compared to subject.. a huge 20 x20 ft diffuse light source .. will be a "hard" light if your subject is far enough away from it.. i.e. cast strong shows.. because it has become a small source due to the distance.. the main objective a diffusion screen ..is to make the source bigger.. if its not doing that.. its not making the light softer..

 

The sun is a massive light source .. but its a long way from us.. so hard shadows.. but a cloudy day no shadows,softer light.. the clouds i.e. the whole sky has become the light source .. the sun is the HMI the clouds are the diffusion screen..

 

Simple experiment .. hold your index finger of one hand a couple of inches from the palm of your other hand.. then move the two forwards and backwards from any light source .. you will see the shadow get stronger as you move farther away.. and the opposite moving closer to the light..

 

Could be wrong buts thats how I see it..