150 Watt LED Fresnel for $550 ( they claim CRI >90 )
- Thread starter TheDingo
- Start date
David W. Jones
Veteran
I wonder how quiet the fan is?
Norman99
Well-known member
1500 watt incandescent equivalent and consumes 150 watts ?? 10:1 ratio of output/input ???
a little math here is in order...
A 100 watt incandescent filament bulb is about 1600 lumens.
15 of those bulbs is 1500 watts and is 15 X 1600 lumens = 24000 lumens
24000 lumens consumes as per their spec. 150 watts
So..
24000 lumens / 150 watts = 160 lumens per watt ..............??????????????
BUT that 150 watt consumption does not all go to the led. There is driver and electronics % loss, say 15%.. ( being generous here) so..
That 150 watt total consumption - 15% = 127.5 watts going in the leds.. therefore
24000 lumens / 127.5 = 188 lumens per watt when it is at its brightest ..??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Possible, perhaps in the near future.
My estimate is a 6:1 ratio at best even for the most efficient led die single cluster out there.Typical would be 5:1
That would be 135 watts X6 = 810 watt filament bulb equivalent. Take another 10% fresnel optic loss ( as that gets between the led and the resultant lumens output), and you may have here a 750 watt equivalent that consumes 150 watts.
But I would really like to have a real photometric measurement with a lux meter at 10ft.(3m) distance at various beam angles.
a little math here is in order...
A 100 watt incandescent filament bulb is about 1600 lumens.
15 of those bulbs is 1500 watts and is 15 X 1600 lumens = 24000 lumens
24000 lumens consumes as per their spec. 150 watts
So..
24000 lumens / 150 watts = 160 lumens per watt ..............??????????????
BUT that 150 watt consumption does not all go to the led. There is driver and electronics % loss, say 15%.. ( being generous here) so..
That 150 watt total consumption - 15% = 127.5 watts going in the leds.. therefore
24000 lumens / 127.5 = 188 lumens per watt when it is at its brightest ..??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Possible, perhaps in the near future.
My estimate is a 6:1 ratio at best even for the most efficient led die single cluster out there.Typical would be 5:1
That would be 135 watts X6 = 810 watt filament bulb equivalent. Take another 10% fresnel optic loss ( as that gets between the led and the resultant lumens output), and you may have here a 750 watt equivalent that consumes 150 watts.
But I would really like to have a real photometric measurement with a lux meter at 10ft.(3m) distance at various beam angles.
Kwan
Well-known member
I guess Its a rebrand of this this Chinese light, I have two from china and works well
http://www.came-tv.com/wireless-remote-bicolor-1500w-led-focusable-video-spotlight-p-302.html
1,500W Incandescent Equivalent?
No way (lol), may be 600w
CTO Tungsten Conversion Filter?
Useless
http://www.came-tv.com/wireless-remote-bicolor-1500w-led-focusable-video-spotlight-p-302.html
1,500W Incandescent Equivalent?
No way (lol), may be 600w
CTO Tungsten Conversion Filter?
Useless
Last edited:
Egg Born Son
Veteran
Haven't tried this one but if it is a rebrand of that ebay light (and looks very much like it is) I experimented with their identical-looking earlier '1000W' version. The 1000W version claimed to be a 100W power draw at 10:1 but actual measurements read a 60W draw and the measured light output was slightly higher than a 300W tungsten. Which is as Norman correctly guesses, 5:1.
It is a spotlight, not a fresnel lens although the beam is adjustable in the same manner. This later model may indeed have better CRI but the one I have is bluer than daylight with the clear filter and more yellow than tungsten with the orange one. Both had an off-coloured (green?) fringe around the edge. Other reviewers have noted this is caused by the blue plastic housing, paint the inside of it black and it all but disappears. It doesn't play so well with my other lights but for the singular purpose I bought it (able to run for 3 hours off a battery inverter - to let me go bush if I want to) it overcomes its many shortcomings.
The '1000W' doesn't have a fan, just a big heatsink so can't comment on the fan noise for David. But they have a variant model with a true fresnel lens and fan cooling that reviewers noted did have excessive fan noise, enough to be an issue on a quiet set. I would expect this one would employ the same fan.
Assuming it isn't a great improvement over the one I bought, I wouldn't use it any place there is access to mains power supply. I would not suggest it is good value for money for any other purpose.
It is a spotlight, not a fresnel lens although the beam is adjustable in the same manner. This later model may indeed have better CRI but the one I have is bluer than daylight with the clear filter and more yellow than tungsten with the orange one. Both had an off-coloured (green?) fringe around the edge. Other reviewers have noted this is caused by the blue plastic housing, paint the inside of it black and it all but disappears. It doesn't play so well with my other lights but for the singular purpose I bought it (able to run for 3 hours off a battery inverter - to let me go bush if I want to) it overcomes its many shortcomings.
The '1000W' doesn't have a fan, just a big heatsink so can't comment on the fan noise for David. But they have a variant model with a true fresnel lens and fan cooling that reviewers noted did have excessive fan noise, enough to be an issue on a quiet set. I would expect this one would employ the same fan.
Assuming it isn't a great improvement over the one I bought, I wouldn't use it any place there is access to mains power supply. I would not suggest it is good value for money for any other purpose.