flourescent lights, lumens to watts
- Thread starter Moseph
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
No truth at all to that.
It's quite tough to compare fluo to incandescent because the two technologies deliver a very different flavor of light -- tungsten is, by definition, hard light and fluo is always soft.
As for light efficiency, you'll get 3x to 4x as many lumens out of each watt with fluorescent as you would for tungsten. But that ratio only matters if the tungsten light is stuffed in a softbox! If you're trying to light up a house across the street you'll get way, way more performance from a 250w tungsten PAR than you would from probably 2,000 watts of fluorescent.
It's quite tough to compare fluo to incandescent because the two technologies deliver a very different flavor of light -- tungsten is, by definition, hard light and fluo is always soft.
As for light efficiency, you'll get 3x to 4x as many lumens out of each watt with fluorescent as you would for tungsten. But that ratio only matters if the tungsten light is stuffed in a softbox! If you're trying to light up a house across the street you'll get way, way more performance from a 250w tungsten PAR than you would from probably 2,000 watts of fluorescent.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
There is a big buzz now over here, regarding energy saving flouriscence bulbs - they go so far that they plan to stop the production of regular bulbs 
rogar-Thinking(DBG
And there is a lot of discussion going on, how many "regular" watt you can squeeze out of a - let´s say 25 Watt energy saving flou bulb.
The manufactors say it´s like a 150 Watt bulb, my camera says it´s like 60 Watt max.
I agree with Barry, if you want to light something a bit distant flourescent is not the way to go. Even one of my 300 Watt Kobolt lights aimed at the cieling makes a much brighter room than 600 "quasi" Watt of the flourescent.
If you look at those bulbs they seem verry bright, but (and I know, this is a crude and unscientific expression) there seem to be lesser photons from a flourecent and they have not enough energy to travel very far.
I have no explanation for this phenomen yet. I know light dims inverse square, that seems not to be the fact for flourescent bulbs.
sorry my bad english, Frank
rogar-Thinking(DBGAnd there is a lot of discussion going on, how many "regular" watt you can squeeze out of a - let´s say 25 Watt energy saving flou bulb.
The manufactors say it´s like a 150 Watt bulb, my camera says it´s like 60 Watt max.
I agree with Barry, if you want to light something a bit distant flourescent is not the way to go. Even one of my 300 Watt Kobolt lights aimed at the cieling makes a much brighter room than 600 "quasi" Watt of the flourescent.
If you look at those bulbs they seem verry bright, but (and I know, this is a crude and unscientific expression) there seem to be lesser photons from a flourecent and they have not enough energy to travel very far.
I have no explanation for this phenomen yet. I know light dims inverse square, that seems not to be the fact for flourescent bulbs.
sorry my bad english, Frank
Moseph
Veteran
thanks for the help, i suspected that wasn't true. i wouldn't be using them for lighting up something of a far distance, they'd be for lighting up a skate spot at night so they could be very close to what its actually lighting up.
and yes, the primary reason I was asking is because of energy efficiency, I would be using a generator to power them so i wouldn't want to waste any more money on gasoline than i have to.
and yes, the primary reason I was asking is because of energy efficiency, I would be using a generator to power them so i wouldn't want to waste any more money on gasoline than i have to.
Barry_Green
Moderator
If they're close they'll do fine. Soft light falls off incredibly quickly, so if you get them up close they should put out plenty of light.
Running fluos (or any ballasted light) off a generator is not necessarily a given, however. The generator is going to have to output some pretty clean power in order to run a fluo. If you have a high-quality inverter on your generator you're probably okay, but if you're just trying to use some construction generator and press it into lighting service, you'd better test first because the results may not be what you want.
Running fluos (or any ballasted light) off a generator is not necessarily a given, however. The generator is going to have to output some pretty clean power in order to run a fluo. If you have a high-quality inverter on your generator you're probably okay, but if you're just trying to use some construction generator and press it into lighting service, you'd better test first because the results may not be what you want.
Shawn Philip Nelson
Veteran
Barry, are the Honda eu2000 or eu3000 clean enough for fluoros?
I'm curious as to why the Lumen guy hasn't chimed in. He's funding an entire business off the idea that you can use fluoros as a replacement for HMIs, from a distance...in broad daylight.
I'm curious as to why the Lumen guy hasn't chimed in. He's funding an entire business off the idea that you can use fluoros as a replacement for HMIs, from a distance...in broad daylight.
Barry_Green
Moderator
HMI and fluorescent both deliver *around* 3x to 4x the lumens per watt of tungsten. But HMI is an inherently hard source, fluo is inherently soft. So if you want to use fluo as a replacement for an HMI *in a soft box* there might be some comparison to be made there. But an HMI PAR vs. a fluo-anything? I can't see that happening...
Not saying that you couldn't make a decent daylight softbox from fluos, but you're never gonna match the punch and throw of an HMI by using fluorescent. I'd have to see Prodigi's claims, I'm sure he's not trying to claim something like that. If he's saying that he can get the brightness and range of an HMI PAR (or even an HMI fresnel) using fluorescents, well... I can't see how that could happen, but if it could I'd buy a couple of 'em today.
Look at the photometrics for the Kino Flo Parabeam -- that uses a parabolic reflector to get the most light in the hardest beam that they can get from a Kino tube. A Parabeam 400 uses 220 watts, and delivers 384 foot-candles at 4 feet, and 20 footcandles at 18 feet. Let's compare that to a 200W HMI, which puts out 65,750 footcandles (yes, 171 TIMES as many footcandles) at 3 feet, and 1,479 footcandles (74 times as much) at 20 feet. (not exact distances, but come on, you get the point). And that's using 10% less power too.
Fluo has more spread and softer light, an HMI PAR has more throw and more distance. You can soften up an HMI, but you can't "harden up" a fluorescent (to any appreciable degree that I've encountered). Which will compete against the sun better, 384 fc or 65,750 fc? Remember, these are both parabolic fixtures (although not exactly the same type, obviously).
I love fluo, I use my fluos at least 10x as much as I use my tungsten, but -- each has its own use, and fluo competing against the sun? I don't think so. Maybe in a softbox put six inches away from the actor, but not for hard lighting, not for distance, etc.
Now, if Prodigi's mounting their lights in a true parabolic reflector, that'll improve the output. But we'd still need to see what the photometrics say. Quoting raw footcandles of the bare lamp is not a usable statistic, you need to know how many footcandles you get at a certain distance to know whether you can use the light for your intended purpose.
Not saying that you couldn't make a decent daylight softbox from fluos, but you're never gonna match the punch and throw of an HMI by using fluorescent. I'd have to see Prodigi's claims, I'm sure he's not trying to claim something like that. If he's saying that he can get the brightness and range of an HMI PAR (or even an HMI fresnel) using fluorescents, well... I can't see how that could happen, but if it could I'd buy a couple of 'em today.
Look at the photometrics for the Kino Flo Parabeam -- that uses a parabolic reflector to get the most light in the hardest beam that they can get from a Kino tube. A Parabeam 400 uses 220 watts, and delivers 384 foot-candles at 4 feet, and 20 footcandles at 18 feet. Let's compare that to a 200W HMI, which puts out 65,750 footcandles (yes, 171 TIMES as many footcandles) at 3 feet, and 1,479 footcandles (74 times as much) at 20 feet. (not exact distances, but come on, you get the point). And that's using 10% less power too.
Fluo has more spread and softer light, an HMI PAR has more throw and more distance. You can soften up an HMI, but you can't "harden up" a fluorescent (to any appreciable degree that I've encountered). Which will compete against the sun better, 384 fc or 65,750 fc? Remember, these are both parabolic fixtures (although not exactly the same type, obviously).
I love fluo, I use my fluos at least 10x as much as I use my tungsten, but -- each has its own use, and fluo competing against the sun? I don't think so. Maybe in a softbox put six inches away from the actor, but not for hard lighting, not for distance, etc.
Now, if Prodigi's mounting their lights in a true parabolic reflector, that'll improve the output. But we'd still need to see what the photometrics say. Quoting raw footcandles of the bare lamp is not a usable statistic, you need to know how many footcandles you get at a certain distance to know whether you can use the light for your intended purpose.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, I've driven CaseLites off of my Honda EU3000.
Cool Lights
DVXuser Sponsor
Well this is the internet and everyone is entitled to their opinion. And everyone has to apply their own "filters" to see which opinion they vibrate with and believe to be the truth when they want to adopt a solution. My opinion sides with Barry and I think yours too Shawn and is reflected in my product offerings. It's extremely doubtful that any fluorescent is going to replace tungsten or HMI unless you were planning on using a diffusion in front of the tungsten or HMI, in which case, you might as well use fluorescent. Flo's simply don't have the throw to replace a hard light like tungsten or fluorescent.
The real test though is to put a cookie in front of different kinds of lights and see how well they project the pattern. Hard light is the best for projection. Softlight sucks at doing it unless you wish for your projection to be an abstract pattern that's unrecognizable. Why do you think they only use tungsten or metal halide bulbs in a projector? Just for this reason. Hard light gives better definition when you need it. I've never seen a fluorescent bulb used in any kind of projector before.
Different tools for different jobs. The whole reason I chose to go down the HMI road was because I realized last year I couldn't offer a total solution to people with flo's alone.
The real test though is to put a cookie in front of different kinds of lights and see how well they project the pattern. Hard light is the best for projection. Softlight sucks at doing it unless you wish for your projection to be an abstract pattern that's unrecognizable. Why do you think they only use tungsten or metal halide bulbs in a projector? Just for this reason. Hard light gives better definition when you need it. I've never seen a fluorescent bulb used in any kind of projector before.
Different tools for different jobs. The whole reason I chose to go down the HMI road was because I realized last year I couldn't offer a total solution to people with flo's alone.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
If I may put words in Richard's mouth, I believe he meant to say "... to replace a hard light like tungsten or HMI."
Cool Lights
DVXuser Sponsor
Hehe. Duh! Yeah I type 65 words a minute or so and sometimes my fingers are ahead of my brain especially at 2 in the morning. But seriously, if I were going to do a lighting instruction DVD, the first three chapters would be: 1). Hard light 2). Soft light 3). Hard vs. Soft light. There isn't anything more basic than this in understanding lighting and the different types of light. The 4th chapter would probably be on the manifestation of that in actual fixtures.
Or put another way we'd talk about the basic two types of stage/studio lighting instruments available to us: "floodlight or spotlight". I don't know of a third category unless someone invented one. Maybe the "spudlight" which could be thought of as a weak spotlight. But anyway, if you're outside in the middle of the day, what you want is PROJECTION and as I said earlier, a hard light is great for that. More specifically, a hard light in a spotlight configuration of some sort (most usually a par or a fresnel). A "spudlight" or a soft light (like a flo for instance) won't cut through the daylight and doesn't have the throw anyway to go very far. A spotlight is what you need for throw and projection.
Or put another way we'd talk about the basic two types of stage/studio lighting instruments available to us: "floodlight or spotlight". I don't know of a third category unless someone invented one. Maybe the "spudlight" which could be thought of as a weak spotlight. But anyway, if you're outside in the middle of the day, what you want is PROJECTION and as I said earlier, a hard light is great for that. More specifically, a hard light in a spotlight configuration of some sort (most usually a par or a fresnel). A "spudlight" or a soft light (like a flo for instance) won't cut through the daylight and doesn't have the throw anyway to go very far. A spotlight is what you need for throw and projection.
Last edited:
Moseph
Veteran
I'll probably be using a honda EU1000 or EU2000, so it should be fine.
Moseph
Veteran
Ok, I've got just one more question. Well... I think I do, it depends on the responses that I get.
I've been looking at this kit here - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...son_INT141U_DigiLite_Fluorescent_2_Light.html
and wondering...
are those lights any good in terms of quality? I'm guessing they're not the best, but they aren't the worst are they?
and second, would they legitimately light up a spot from about twelve feet away? There's 144 watts per light.
Thanks.
I've been looking at this kit here - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...son_INT141U_DigiLite_Fluorescent_2_Light.html
and wondering...
are those lights any good in terms of quality? I'm guessing they're not the best, but they aren't the worst are they?
and second, would they legitimately light up a spot from about twelve feet away? There's 144 watts per light.
Thanks.
Cool Lights
DVXuser Sponsor
Depends upon what you want to compare it to. I think the point is that you shouldn't compare it to a fresnel. A fresnel is used for one thing and a softbox or a fluorescent soft light is used for another. Fresnels are great for backround and rim lighting because of their projection ability. They make backgrounds and people stand out. Fluorescents on the other hand don't work well for that. They do work well anywhere you would have used a softbox. The light meter only has relevance in comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. A CL-655 would be compared to a tungsten softbox of around 1300w or so. A CL-MF0150 150 CDM fresnel would be compared to a tungsten 650w fresnel. Comparing a CL-655 to a fresnel will just tell you what everyone here has already been saying. Its two different tools for two different jobs. No need to compare a hammer and a screwdriver by saying "you know, this screwdriver sucks at hammering in nails...".
Moseph
Veteran
anybody know?