Lowel vs Zylight...buh buh buuuhhhh!

MisterCat

MisterCat

Well-known member
I'll start by saying that I'm aware this is a silly comparison, kind of like Alien vs. Predator or tomato vs. mango. I shoot mostly interviews and instructional video for my company, with a few chances now and then for a short narrative. More and more I'm having to travel by plane to various offices to shoot these pieces.

That said, I have some money in the budget for some modest lighting equipment. What are some opinions on something like the Lowel DV Creator Pro kits vs. a couple of zylights? Obviously the zylights just have the cool factor (literally and figuratively), and the sheer size would make traveling so much easier. And I read all over the forum that Arri is more rugged than Lowel, but what I know of Arri kits is they are bigger than airlines typically allow. So, I'm looking at Lowel vs. zylight and just wondering about the pros and cons. Would a couple of zylights and some reflectors do pretty well? My lighting knowledge is pretty weak, so all the brightness stats and tables combined don't tell me much right now. Do you guys recommend sticking with a more traditional set of lights like the Lowels?

Sorry if this seems like a silly comparison, I've been reading so many posts and websites about these that I'm actually more overwhelmed and confused than before I started.

Thanks!
 
Dear Steven,
Let me start by saying that I am by no means a lighting expert.

As for the ZYlight, I had the pleasure of meeting Jim Collias at a DVXuser Meeting here in LA. What a great guy. And his Product is just a great if not better.

But if I were shooting interviews, I would not get the ZYlight (at least the interviews I think you are talking about). For me the ZYlights are great for an on-camera light when you have to move. So if your interviews are on a Expo Show Floor and you are shoulder mount then Yes the ZYlight would be awesome.

Otherwise, I'd get other lights. I have a Lowel kit, and I like it. Its frickin difficult to get it all back into the case they provide, but I'm anal so I can do it. (but others always ask me to pack that case cus they can't figure out the puzzle) I like my Lowel kit. Not the toughest and I see how wear and tear will eventually get to the functioning of the lights, but great for the price.
Looking back though, I would now not get the Lowel kit. Specially for interviews. Most likely you will be close to the talent at times and in tight quarters. (some one's office or cubicle) So, if I were you, I'd invest in Fluorescent lights, which are soft and look really good in my opinion on people's faces. (not dramatic which interviews for the most part are not) and maybe perhaps an HMI. Take a look at Cool Lights.

I'd get one of these:
http://www.coollights.biz/cl255p-cool-lights-portable-watt-softlight-p-66.html

or this one with dimmer budget permitting
http://www.coollights.biz/cl255pmd-cool-lights-portable-dimming-watt-softlight-p-69.html

one of these:
http://www.coollights.biz/cl455p-cool-lights-portable-watt-softlight-p-67.html

or this dimmer one
http://www.coollights.biz/cl455pmd-cool-lights-portable-dimming-watt-softlight-p-70.html

and One of these for a hard light:
http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0150-cool-lights-fresnel-p-63.html

maybe even the 575:
http://www.coollights.biz/clmf0575-cool-lights-fresnel-p-64.html

Not the lightest light Package for traveling, but I think it would be great for your kind of work. And note that before cool lights came out, the price for a similar package would have been astronomical. (also note he still has some introductory prices.)

Hope that helps.

Luis
 
I wouldn't get overly concerned about the "right" lights to use if your "lighting knowledge is pretty weak." The Zylight fixtures are very different from the range of fixtures that are available from Lowell and comparatively much more expensive. You could pack far more lighting power in a single shippable case for less money with the Lowell units. Also take a look at the Lowell Caselights.

I'd look at the Cool Lights long and hard, but I'm not very aware of their quality level or longevity possible. One thing I notice with the fluorescent units they have available is they have a fairly low CRI which wouldn't work for me personally.

.
 
Last edited:
Chris,
As an opportunity for me to learn, can you give an example of what you do that the fluorescents don't work for you?

thx
Steven
 
MisterCat said:
Chris,
As an opportunity for me to learn, can you give an example of what you do that the fluorescents don't work for you?

thx
Steven
Click to expand...


What I said was the low color rendering index of the Cool Light fluorescent fixtures isn't something I'd like to use. They indicate a CRI of 87 for those fixtures which to me is too low. Am I nitpicking? Yeah. Can you tell the difference? Maybe.

To compare, the Kino Flo fluorescent fixtures have a CRI in the mid 90's.

The standard fluorescent tubes used in ceilings are about 10 to 20 points lower in CRI than the Cool Light fixtures, so they are at least in the ballpark as the industry standard Kino Flo, but still a little low in my opinion.

"Color Rendering Index (CRI) is a quantitative measure of the ability of a light source to reproduce the colors of various objects faithfully in comparison with an ideal or natural light source. Light sources with a high CRI are desirable in color-critical applications such as photography and cinematography."

.
 
Chris,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you buy a cool light's fixture and just replace the bulbs with Kino bulbs. That should give you the same light as the Kino but if I'm not mistaken be cheaper. (you can keep the Cool light bulbs as backups in case one goes out in a pinch)?
 
Chris,

A couple of points to keep in mind re: CRI:

1. CRI is a measure designed specifically for the eye, not for film or video. Two fluorescent bulbs that achieve CRI 90 in different ways can look very different to video or film than to the eye. This is often particularly due to the way that the "green spike" is handled by manufacturers...is it suppressed, or is it compensated by adding a spike or bulge in the red range? Film is generally much more sensitive to the green spike than video due to the dye technology, so similarly-rated bulbs can give you surprises on film compared to video or your eye.

2. Richard Andrewski is very transparent about the strengths and shortcomings of his bulbs compared to Kino Flo as well as other manufacturers. Whether his design choices meet your needs or mine or Steven's, I salute Richard for his open sharing of knowledge, design philosophy, and process. For instance, on his website, he has several articles about CRI that go into even more depth than the Topbulbs link, as well as show the spectral distribution graphs for his own bulbs.

3. In the end, it's a somewhat subjective call....what is the cost-benefit of Kino bulbs and fixtures vs. other manufacturers? Many online sellers of clone fixtures just put very cheap, low CRI bulbs in their fixtures. I know a gaffer who buys the cheapest ebay fixtures you can imagine, but then he relamps them with Kino bulbs. I opted for the innovation and build quality of Richard's new portable fixtures, and for my main use (location interviews on an HPX500) I am extremely happy with the color rendering of Cool Lights bulbs. If I were shooting film, I ~might~ need to consider replacing the bulbs in my Cool Lights fixture with Kino Flo bulbs for that last ounce of green spike control. If I did, I still would have great fixtures at a price well below the Diva.
 
Last edited:
Sunporchmedia,
I just want to concur with you on how I admire, salute, and respect Richard for his innovation, rules of conduct, and philosophy.

It is because of people like him that independent film makers will be able to afford equipment for their vision. who know it may also lead to bigger companies lowering their prices. :)

Thanks Richard.
 
sunporchmedia said:
Chris,

A couple of points to keep in mind re: CRI:

1. CRI is a measure designed specifically for the eye, not for film or video. Two fluorescent bulbs that achieve CRI 90 in different ways can look very different to video or film than to the eye. This is often particularly due to the way that the "green spike" is handled by manufacturers...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I know that video is much, much, more tolerant of less than perfect spectrum. My sensitivity to CRI is left over from my years as a still photographer and building my own lightboxes for viewing transparencies.

3. In the end, it's a somewhat subjective call....what is the cost-benefit of Kino bulbs and fixtures vs. other manufacturers? Many online sellers of clone fixtures just put very cheap, low CRI bulbs in their fixtures. I know a gaffer who buys the cheapest ebay fixtures you can imagine, but then he relamps them with Kino bulbs.
Click to expand...

I like that approach.

If I were shooting film, I ~might~ need to consider replacing the bulbs in my Cool Lights fixture with Kino Flo bulbs for that last ounce of green spike control. If I did, I still would have great fixtures at a price well below the Diva.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I'm not in a hurry to run out and by Kino units myself.

.
 
Some thoughts I had based on some comments here:

1). Thats why we use industry standard 55w tubes and ballasts so you can use GE, Osram, Kino Flo or whatever you choose.

2). Keep in mind, we are giving away the tubes with our fixtures. Kino makes you pay no matter what and tubes are never included. Even on their "kits":

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...KIT_D42_120U_Diva_Lite_400_Universal_Two.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/266120-REG/Kino_Flo_KIT_D4_230_Diva_Lite_400_1_Light.html

Imagine that, a kit with no tubes. I thought the idea of a kit was a complete and ready to use unit.

3). The higher the CRI, the lower the light output, it's just a fact that anyone that manufactures fluorescent tubes finds out. We can have CRI 90 or 95 as well. Its not all that hard to obtain and certainly wouldn't cost us anymore either. Once you've invested the higher price in the necessary rare earth phosphors to get a higher CRI than 82, you can go to 95 if you like. I chose CRI 87 as a good compromise between light output and rendering. We talked about this in detail in my blog for anyone that's really interested in the details. Light output is as important to many of our customers as is color rendering. You'll hear people say that our light output is better or at least the same as any Kino Flo unit. There are a lot of "bullets" I could dodge and just fall in with the "it should be this way" crowd, but I do what I think is best in any case. You'll never get 100% of people to agree with your approach however no matter what you do. When someone says "CRI should be this or it just doesn't work for me", they don't always understand the other sacrifices to be made for that. Lots of things to consider and the story is always more complicated once you really get into it.

Here's our bulb tests:

http://www.coollights.biz/wordpress/archives/category/cool-lights-bulb-testing-results

Here is an article on CRI as Mark mentioned:

http://www.coollights.biz/wordpress/archives/13

One thing to note in the bulb tests and comparison we did is that even the benchmark CRI 90 Osram tested out lower than CRI 90.

4). I have maybe two customers out of hundreds that prefers other bulbs than ours.
 
Last edited:
Cool Lights said:
Some thoughts I had based on some comments here:

1). Thats why we use industry standard 55w tubes and ballasts so you can use GE, Osram, Kino Flo or whatever you choose.

2). Keep in mind, we are giving away the tubes with our fixtures. Kino makes you pay no matter what and tubes are never included. Even on their "kits":
Click to expand...


I've been noticing the CRI/output relationship lately as I get more into researching the fluorescent lighting.

And I'm not sure there are many people who don't share the opinion the Kinos are overrated and over priced and I certainly commend and appreciate people trying to offer low cost film gear alternatives.

Do you have any plans (or have you?) to offer any fixtures based on the T12 tubes?

.
 
Hi Chris,

Not to hijack this thread or maybe we should start another one but...

*** WARNING. This post has some complex thoughts that may bore those not interested in lighting fixture design or issues surrounding one tube type over another ***

SKIP to next post or Executive Summary below if not interested.

...I have a pretty mixed sentiment on 2 foot and 4 foot T12 tubes I guess. It's a fairly complex issue for me with a lot of angles to consider boiling down to investment concerns mostly and some practicality too for the market I mostly serve--which is also something you have to understand to see the context of my point of view. Let's concisely list the points of concern I have.

- I know they are the staple of the pro film world and many appreciate them but when I put a "fixture design engineer" hat on, I also know they are slowly fading away from the general lighting world. If it weren't for all the legacy office buildings, shopping malls, grocery stores, etc, then they'd probably already be gone. What we try to do to keep costs low for the customer is to choose technology that's as much off the shelf as possible so there aren't many sunk development costs that have to be recouped. Proprietary scares a lot of people as it does me. I don't have so much development money so I want to make sure every bit counts for something that will be appreciated as widely as possible.

- In my market, I've seen that people like small and portable as much as possible as I hear that a lot and it drove us even faster to create a portable line than I planned to. A lot of people that buy from me are a kind of a "nomadic" production group so-to-speak. Moving around a lot. I see the 4 foot tube as weighing them down with its transportation/protection issues. To me, a 4 foot tube would seem to be far more at home on a grid as a "fixed" fixture that doesn't move around a lot. We created secure packaging for our bulbs now but I see the 4 foot tube as really complicated to do that for in the same way I solved the smaller tube issues. In the pro film world, where you have tons of people to help out on a set perhaps these issues aren't so big of a deal. To the one-man-banana-stand, who does everything himself, definitely a bigger deal. I think most agree with me that the T5 variants of the 55w biax or the 200w 8U bulbs we sell are not weighing them down too much and they are certainly easier to create a transportation protection "case" for too. Also, as far as obsolescence goes, keep in mind that, to lighting engineers, the T5 and T8s have really been considered the replacement for T12s. Just another check mark for the T5 technology for me. Out in the world, all those office building and large project owners are somehow reticent to replace those T12 fixtures--I wonder why! Can you imagine the investment? IMHO, I doubt that new projects are using T12 much and eventually it will fade more from the scene and the price will go up (as quantity sold goes down) making it more attractive to older projects to convert (which will hasten the ending of the T12 reign for commercial project lighting too as cost is everything to that world).

- Figure out why people like the linear T12 tube in the pro film world--what benefits it brings them and see if there are other ways to bring those benefits to my market. The reasons why people in our particular subset of the world appreciate linear tubes are many.

a). With one fixture you can use it either as a great cyc light or a big blanket light when you need a large amount of light emanating from one surface area.

b). Kino makes a special version of T12, not available elsewhere. The 75w T12 tube. You get more output that way rather than the 40w version which is more commonly available and off-the-shelf as I like to find. Would you find the off-the-shelf 40w to be adequate for your uses? Maybe not.

c). On those T12 fixtures, Kino Flo happened to make a version available thats been appreciated for its ability to decouple the tube from the fixture to "gaffer's tape up" in various odd places. One thing to note here: you could have this particular benefit from any fluorescent tube given the willingness of a fixture designer to make such a fixture for that tube--be it T5 or T8 linear or simple spiral T5 CFLs. This particular feature would therefore not be limited to a T12 fixture and is not the sole or main reason to choose a T12 tube as the basis of a fixture.

d). I think many believe that there aren't color temperature shift issues with these T12 tubes but in fact it's a mis-perception of capabilities. The ballasts made in the T12 world aren't capable of full and continuous dimming. About the most you get is a half-intensity capability like on some of the Kino Bank Select series. Small wonder why you don't see a color temp change. If you only turn your 55w biax tube down halfway, you won't see too much shift there either. It's just an issue with all dimming in discharge lighting and that there is some color temperature change and it gets worse after 50% and thus you see it more on advanced fixtures that are capable of dimming below 50%.

Finding Other Ways to Offer These Benefits

First and foremost, we do have to agree that the 4 foot tube is a pain for the portable one man shop (my market) world but not necessarily so for the pro world of huge crews and big budgets (I don't have an appreciable share of this yet). Could we therefore agree that the linear tube might be more at home in a studio or fixed setting rather than on the road for these small shops?

What other off-the-shelf tubes are available instead of the T12 tube?

On the T8 linear tubes, the staple is the 32w--very weak for media production or portable use IMHO. You have to throw more tubes at the job in that case--thus more tubes to carry around for the portable guy. IMHO, in a studio or fixed/non-portable setting throwing tubes at the problem maybe not so bad though, as these T8 linear tubes are relatively inexpensive and are already well appreciated for cyc lighting; and the fixtures you use don't have to be complex. It's just a question of making the installation as professional looking as possible to affect customer perception of what they're getting from you for their dollar spent in your "studio".

The T5 tube. 4 foot 54w is commonly available, but of what benefit really over a biax H or U 55w tube? Not too much because they are really the same thing! The biax is just a "bent in half" 4 foot linear T5 tube really. No added benefit then.

When you want to use these linear tubes as a huge softbox or "fisher" type light with a big surface area to blanket something in soft light (car commercials come to mind) then we can still find ways to do that without the linear tube. Lets just find ways to increase the surface area emanating soft and smooth light regardless of the size or type of tube underneath and do it in the most efficient way possible too. T5 Biax and T8 tubes can do that. A economical, poor man's "spacelight" would probably be appreciated too for multi-dimensional green screen covered wall and floor use.

All this is to say, you can still have a lot of the benefits of what you may like about the Kino T12 tubes in T5 biax or T8 fixtures as well. We can even get you the benefits of the separate ballast and tubes that can be unbundled from the fixture and taped to the wall, which so many appreciate the ability to do. We can go with an "aquarium" type 2G11 socket end cap to allow you to do that safely.

Back to the original question: Could I make a T12 fixture? Absolutely. At the factory where we make our portable flo's we've already demonstrated a fixture with 6 40w T12 tubes and an internal hidden ballast like on our current models. I showed the picture of it here once a while back.

To un-bundle that ballast, put it in a separate metal box with an adequate multi-conductor, high frequency capable connector between ballast and head would not be so hard and would certainly make the "head" lighter and put less burden on the "lollipop" or "multi axis mount". The question remains though--would you like a 40w off the shelf tube? Probably not.

Executive Summary and Conclusion: I'm just a bit standoffish about the investment to make a 75w T12 ballast and tube (which are proprietary and not available off the shelf) though in a world where T12 seems to be fading (outside of the film world that is). I also don't think you'd appreciate the 40w version (which I could crank out relatively easily) so much since we'd have to throw more tubes at the fixture to get the same light output--compounding the portability issue even further. We just need to agree which problem we are solving first--studio or portability concerns and for which market.

This is why we stick to the 55w biax and T5 CFL variants (so far) and believe that most in our market will find it useful (as they do seem to find) and somewhat portable too.

If people want something to issue some of the benefits linear tubes would give in cyc lighting or linear tube studio blanket lighting without breaking the budget, but still looking professional; I think we can definitely talk about that as a future project and I am looking at some of that. Something inexpensive, simple and professional looking to keep the studio looking like a studio and not a garage. Poor man's space lights for 3 dimensional studio area lighting is another one we think about a lot too!
 
I am used to the T12 fixtures and the Kinos in particular which allow all kinds of flexibility in that you can pull them apart and just use the tubes and wire harness outside the fixture and even modify the wiring harness easily when needed.

As for the portability of a 4' fixture, I really don't see that as a problem. You leave the tubes in it, close it up, and go. Now an Image 80 type fixture is something to me that starts to feel a lot less portable. The corrugated plastic style fixtures even at 4' are very portable in my experience.

I'd say a 4' fixture with 6 F40T12 tubes would still be portable enough in my book but then if you already have a fixture with 6 55watt biax tubes, I'm not sure I see the point anyway (unless they were the high output T12 tubes X 6.) I'm still using a Lowell Light Array which is very portable as a 6x4' fixture but a little involved to set up and break down.

I can appreciate your need to provide for your market first. I am just a little weirded out by the biax tubes for some reason but I suppose I'll need to get over that eventually. I really like the look and design of your CL-655P and the stand adapter too. Is the CL-MAM1 made from a plastic material? How does it hold up?

.
 
CL-MAM1 - cast aluminum. The only plastic part is a special polycarbonate in the ball itself. We are planning on experimenting with an all aluminum ball in the near future too which I believe will be the ultimate in durable and non-slippage for the heavier fixtures beyond 655P. We have demonstrated a 12 x 55 once which should be quite a light monster but appreciably heavier of course. I think we'd probably want to go to the separate ballast on that unit to keep weight down.

If people could agree that the T12 40w was good enough and we could demonstrate a benefit over the 55w biax then we could probably do something in that area for sure. Its not a problem to find those T12 40w bulbs or ballasts.

We can also look at future offerings where we allow the biax bulb to be decoupled from the fixture with a sealed end cap socket too.
 
Richard,

I'd love to have one of your unique designs for these modular lights...maybe a 1 x 55 w biax fixture, with aquarium-style endcap and removable silver reflector, with a separate ballast on a good, long cable. If you use your Sylvania ballasts (or equivalent) that can drive two tubes, perhaps you provide hookups for two tubes. Each tube might also have a plastic removeable endcap on the non-connector end, to provide the ability to tape both ends of the bulb down to a surface.

The silver reflector could even be a complete, but stripped-down and super-lightweight polycarbonate "shell" with barn doors and the popsicle stick mount....but, here's a twist....there would be a place to screw the mount on either the center of the bulb, or at the end...to allow one to "arm over" the bulb behind a talent for a backlight.

Hey, how soon for the new checked-baggage-friendly cases to arrive stateside? I'm about ready to decide which ones to order.
 
Hi Mark,

That's exactly what I was thinking of. A nice sturdy but attractive box to hold a ballast, a long cable (20 to 25 feet is okay with most ballasts), aquarium style end cap, and one tube (and yes maybe a reflector too). The only problem with having two cables, two sockets, etc. is that if you do that (and you use only one ballast) then you need to populate both sockets with tubes or the ballast won't work. So, I think its best we make it a single tube solution because there may be many times you don't want to have two tubes populated. This would be our CL-155P (LOL!) solution. And yes, you could have a CL-155PMD too of course.

On the cases, they are finishing up now and we hope to ship either next week or week after that and then its 30 days after that to give you an idea of the timeframe.
 
Hey guys, I haven't been able to check the boards for a few days and wow, more of my questions answered before I even had the chance to ask!

Richard, I replied to your email earlier this morning. My only real question at this point is also about the cases/checked baggage thing. I'm in the fortunate position that my company will be footing the bill for lights, rather than paying out of my own pocket, but that means I need to demonstrate to my boss why I'm making this decision. As a matter of fact, I see as I'm typing that you've replied to my email. Talk to you there...

Steven
 
Richard,

Interesting about the ballast. I thought I'd seen in your DIY web pages that the Sylvania ballast would drive either one or two bulbs. A two-bub-from-one-ballast idea would be cool in theory if it could work, but really is just a bonus. One bulb, one ballast is fine.

And, to make sure I'm being clear in my mounting suggestion, I'd include a second mounting point on the fixture for the popsicle stick. In addition to the one in the center, you could have one at the end, to make it easier to extend the unit on a c-stand arm.

Thanks for the update on the cases.
 
The Sylvania ballasts do drive up to two bulbs. However, if you decide to wire it for two, it ONLY works with two and two are required to complete the circuit and make it work. Thus, if you make such a fixture, you would need to use both bulbs at the same time or none would work. I think a bare-bones 1x55 would probably work for this use better than wired for two. You could just buy two if you need two and have completely independent on /off or dimming for each bulb.

Its the same principal on your CL-455P or CL-255P for instance which uses roughly the same ballast. If one of the bulbs burns out in a pair, neither will work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top