New fixtures: SoftPanels

Eric Coughlin said:
I guess I just don't see where the assumption came from that they got some "next gen diodes" with higher lumens per watt efficiency. Connections with Litepanels? Like, Litepanels is going to throw these guys a bone, after they quit Litepanels, giving them the latest and greatest theoretical "next gen diodes" that aren't even in current Litepanel products? I believe I watched most of the Kickstarter video, and read through their page, and I guess I'm just not remembering any claims about higher lumen to watt efficiency than other LEDs.
Click to expand...

I'm happy to clear this up... where I made my assumptions.

"But lets talk about you. You are looking for the very best LED lights. You want them to be smartly designed, extremely accurate, powerful..." (to me "powerful" implies noteworthy, or special... not equal.)

"OLD vs NEW: Legacy LED lights without SoftPanels integrated color metering technology can simply be inaccurate..." (to me, "OLD" and "Legacy LED" says older tech, again, I thought this was applicable to diode tech, not meter tech... and if the "Ultra High Color Fidelity LEDs" are unique to Softpanels, that implies they can get LEDs that not everyone has... and since lumens per watt is constantly evolving... I figured it was safe to assume that exclusive color LEDs isn't much different than exclusive binning options, repeating in quotes from the campaign below.)

"SoftPanels High-Fidelity LEDs have even and smooth color distribution..." (to me, "Softpanels High-Fidelity LEDs" says advanced diode tech... I guess your point is they meant this only for color... but again, to ME... this says that Kevin is getting diodes different than everyone else... whether by color, or not... the implication of "exclusive" I feel, is stated... and doesn't need to be assumed... my assumption is that exclusive options aren't limited to ONLY color... based on statements like the following.)

"SoftPanels’ have ultra high light output..." (all these statements are taken right off the main campaign page... to me, "ultra high output" doesn't mean, "equal to any other current light for lumens to watts ratio".)

Also... throughout the main page, there are charts showing improved spectrum for their "Softpanels High-Fidelity LEDs"... which I'd say is synonymous with "next gen diodes". There are only three specs pushing diode tech... and that's color fidelity (which is nearing perfection as normal now anyway... i.e. upper 90's for anything that's not cheap)... then efficiency and output... which I'd combine into one spec; lumens per watt. So to talk of advancing LED tech... I think we're only talking about advancements, color and brightness.

Finally... Kevin is one of the patent holders on the original LitePanels designs... and he was the chief technical officer... and he should have relationships on a technical level (obviously) with suppliers of LED diodes... and he has been back and forth to China personally, many times. I never thought that he was at the mercy of LitePanels for assistance, I assume he has his own separate relationships in place. They didn't just quit LitePanels... they STARTED LitePanels.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I just checked in with Cineo's website and saw they have a new light coming, the Quantum C80. 800w power draw, 48 lbs (looks like no separate ballast), and RGB control (I think, or is it just hue and saturation adjustment control? What is the difference? Seemed a bit unclear to me). At 11 lbs heavier than a Skypanel S60-C (which is 37 lbs including the ballast), but about twice as bright (based on power draw), it looks like an interesting light. It's a 4' x 2', so larger than a Skypanel 2' x 1', but smaller than the Softpanel 4' x 3' (which is 45.5 lbs). No price tag yet; the 400w Cineo HSX is $3735, so I'd guess a bit less than double the price, maybe around $6,000. R9 value averages at 5600k for the Quantum C80 are 95.4 and for the Skypanel are 93.6.

http://www.cineolighting.com/qc80/
Click to expand...

48lbs is considerably heavier than my 1.2k HMI PAR inc. ballast, wonder what the raw output is in comparison? Seems like we are going backwards as far as weight for smaller production. Sure, if you have a crew to transport and wrangle that, who cares? But if you pull up in a van to a shoot and are unloading and lugging your own gear/small 3-5 person crew, 48lbs is a pretty heavy light and you then need corresponding steel or aluminum/and sandbags to be able to safely hoist that 50lbs into the air. To me (not everyone I realize), the promise of LED is lighter, easier to transport and setup and eventually as high output as my tungsten and HMI lights. I am sure with an 800 watt power draw, this new Cineo puts out really high light levels but jeez, 50lb lights takes me back to the BIG tunsgten lights of yesteryear.
 
That's the one issue with LED that there is no good solution; keeping junction temperatures down requires big heat sinks and fans. So big watts = heavy metal. Tungsten and plasma don't have that issue.
 
puredrifting said:
48lbs is considerably heavier than my 1.2k HMI PAR inc. ballast, wonder what the raw output is in comparison? Seems like we are going backwards as far as weight for smaller production. Sure, if you have a crew to transport and wrangle that, who cares? But if you pull up in a van to a shoot and are unloading and lugging your own gear/small 3-5 person crew, 48lbs is a pretty heavy light and you then need corresponding steel or aluminum/and sandbags to be able to safely hoist that 50lbs into the air. To me (not everyone I realize), the promise of LED is lighter, easier to transport and setup and eventually as high output as my tungsten and HMI lights. I am sure with an 800 watt power draw, this new Cineo puts out really high light levels but jeez, 50lb lights takes me back to the BIG tunsgten lights of yesteryear.
Click to expand...
I'd guess around the same output as a 1.2k HMI. I assume the beam angle is around 160 degrees, like their other soft lights, so you'd never get the punch that an HMI or Fresnel can give (which sometimes leads people to falsely conclude that they are not as bright), but it is good for when you want a soft light.

I think it's a common fallacy that people think LEDs a lighter weight technology. That's not really the advantage of LED. My Astras are about 8 lbs, and replaced my previous key light which was a 1K Rifa at a mere 2.5 lbs. Even a robust metal tungsten light of similar output (at 3200k) such as the Arrilite 750 is just 3.55 lb, and an Arri 650 with it's glass lens is 7.2 lbs which is still a bit lighter than an Astra. The Lowel Tota's I used to use were also just 2.25 lbs.

Then you might say, "But what about those flex lights? They're only 8 ounces." And again, they're heavier than that. Sure, the head itself may be 8 ounces on a 1 x 1 which is half as bright as an Astra or 1K tungsten light, but a 1 x 2 which is about equivalent to a 1K, for the full kit to make the light actually work, is probably more like 4-8 lbs. I often have trouble finding the actual kit weight for those lights; I feel like the manufactures hide the kit weight in favor of showing just the weight of the light head, as if that's all you have to carry. They even provide cases for these lights, which are necessary to carry the several pieces to the light, and once you account for the case size, aren't that much smaller (if they even are) than an actual Astra. I'm not saying there aren't weight savings with flex lights; I'm saying it's not as much as people tend to think it is. Of course the light weight of the head piece can be useful for gaff taping the light to a ceiling or whatnot, but in terms of how much weight you need to schlep around you have to consider the kit weight and not just the head, and the kit weight is still more weight than a 1K Rifa at 2.5 lbs.

Looking at another high powered LED, the Mole 900 watt Fresnel is 41 lbs, so not far off in weight from the Cineo Quantum C80 at 48 lbs and 800 watts. Across various LED companies, it's all pretty similar weight to wattage ratios, with some variance. The Skypanels metal frame certainly adds to the weight; the S60-C is 37 lbs while the Cineo HSX of similar power draw is 28 lbs, so there are some variances, but nothing super significant. So, you're not going to find a professional 800 watt LED light that is 5 lbs, at least not with current tech.

My computer right now is on a 4' x 2' desk, which is the same size as the Cineo Quantum C80. I feel like I could lift the size of my desk top piece by myself, even if it was 50 lbs. A lot of my camera bags are 50-75 lbs, and I commonly lift them. Most of the time they're on wheels or on a cart, so the primary lifting is for going in and out of the car, and sometimes stairs. The 4' x 3' SoftPanels size would seem a bit more unweildy in terms of the size of it to handle on your own. I'm not sure how difficult the Quantum C80 would be to mount on a light stand by yourself. I'm sure two people could handle it pretty easily, so I don't see how it would need a huge crew to handle it.

It may still be too large for my style of production, which is why I may lean more toward a Hive 1000 (21.5 lb head and about 20 lb ballast, around twice as bright as the Quantum C80) and Skypanel S30-C (19.4 lb head and 5.5 lb ballast). But the Quantum C80 does seem interesting and is an alternative option for those interested in the SoftPanel 4' x 3'.
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I'm happy to clear this up... where I made my assumptions.

"But lets talk about you. You are looking for the very best LED lights. You want them to be smartly designed, extremely accurate, powerful..." (to me "powerful" implies noteworthy, or special... not equal.)

"OLD vs NEW: Legacy LED lights without SoftPanels integrated color metering technology can simply be inaccurate..." (to me, "OLD" and "Legacy LED" says older tech, again, I thought this was applicable to diode tech, not meter tech... and if the "Ultra High Color Fidelity LEDs" are unique to Softpanels, that implies they can get LEDs that not everyone has... and since lumens per watt is constantly evolving... I figured it was safe to assume that exclusive color LEDs isn't much different than exclusive binning options, repeating in quotes from the campaign below.)

"SoftPanels High-Fidelity LEDs have even and smooth color distribution..." (to me, "Softpanels High-Fidelity LEDs" says advanced diode tech... I guess your point is they meant this only for color... but again, to ME... this says that Kevin is getting diodes different than everyone else... whether by color, or not... the implication of "exclusive" I feel, is stated... and doesn't need to be assumed... my assumption is that exclusive options aren't limited to ONLY color... based on statements like the following.)

"SoftPanels’ have ultra high light output..." (all these statements are taken right off the main campaign page... to me, "ultra high output" doesn't mean, "equal to any other current light for lumens to watts ratio".)

Also... throughout the main page, there are charts showing improved spectrum for their "Softpanels High-Fidelity LEDs"... which I'd say is synonymous with "next gen diodes". There are only three specs pushing diode tech... and that's color fidelity (which is nearing perfection as normal now anyway... i.e. upper 90's for anything that's not cheap)... then efficiency and output... which I'd combine into one spec; lumens per watt. So to talk of advancing LED tech... I think we're only talking about advancements, color and brightness.

Finally... Kevin is one of the patent holders on the original LitePanels designs... and he was the chief technical officer... and he should have relationships on a technical level (obviously) with suppliers of LED diodes... and he has been back and forth to China personally, many times. I never thought that he was at the mercy of LitePanels for assistance, I assume he has his own separate relationships in place. They didn't just quit LitePanels... they STARTED LitePanels.
Click to expand...
I guess my conclusion is that you drew some assumptions which were just that, assumptions. To me, if Softpanels was truly marketing a higher lumen to watt efficiency than the competition, and had actually achieved such a feat, then they would have clearly spelled that out and marketed it, instead of just implying new tech with better colors. To me, "ultra high output" means very little, because I see generic and vague phrases like that from several other LED light manufacturers.

Litepanel Astra: "...Astra 1x1 Bi-Color LED Panel that is 4x the brightness the original Bi-Color 1x1. ... The technological advancement and enhancement is evident in the high CRI and significantly increased brightness due to the use of tightly-binned LEDs and fine-tuned TIR (Total Internal Reflection) optics, resulting in a longer throw over a wider field."

In other words, blah, blah, blah, brightness, blah, blah, blah,...the original 1x1' was a 40 watt power draw and the Astra is a 110 watt power draw. I think it's pretty clear that is what had the most to do with the increased brightness and not their spiel of "tightly-binned LEDs and fine-tuned TIR (Total Internal Reflection) optics," which may have helped some, but was not the primarily reason for the increased brightness.

Arri Skypanel: "Incorporating features of ARRI's successful L-Series LED Fresnels, the SkyPanel is one of the most versatile soft lights on the market, as well as one of the brightest."
 
I wouldn't just blow off the benefits of advanced optics/reflectors in lighting instruments. Just look at Arri and their 750 open face(they replaced their 1K with it) and their M series HMI's. The reflector designs allow "lower wattage" instruments to punch above their weight. I'm not saying more power doesn't help, but it's all part of an intelligently designed system.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'd guess around the same output as a 1.2k HMI. I assume the beam angle is around 160 degrees, like their other soft lights, so you'd never get the punch that an HMI or Fresnel can give (which sometimes leads people to falsely conclude that they are not as bright), but it is good for when you want a soft light.

I think it's a common fallacy that people think LEDs a lighter weight technology. That's not really the advantage of LED. My Astras are about 8 lbs, and replaced my previous key light which was a 1K Rifa at a mere 2.5 lbs. Even a robust metal tungsten light of similar output (at 3200k) such as the Arrilite 750 is just 3.55 lb, and an Arri 650 with it's glass lens is 7.2 lbs which is still a bit lighter than an Astra. The Lowel Tota's I used to use were also just 2.25 lbs.

Then you might say, "But what about those flex lights? They're only 8 ounces." And again, they're heavier than that. Sure, the head itself may be 8 ounces on a 1 x 1 which is half as bright as an Astra or 1K tungsten light, but a 1 x 2 which is about equivalent to a 1K, for the full kit to make the light actually work, is probably more like 4-8 lbs. I often have trouble finding the actual kit weight for those lights; I feel like the manufactures hide the kit weight in favor of showing just the weight of the light head, as if that's all you have to carry. They even provide cases for these lights, which are necessary to carry the several pieces to the light, and once you account for the case size, aren't that much smaller (if they even are) than an actual Astra. I'm not saying there aren't weight savings with flex lights; I'm saying it's not as much as people tend to think it is. Of course the light weight of the head piece can be useful for gaff taping the light to a ceiling or whatnot, but in terms of how much weight you need to schlep around you have to consider the kit weight and not just the head, and the kit weight is still more weight than a 1K Rifa at 2.5 lbs.

Looking at another high powered LED, the Mole 900 watt Fresnel is 41 lbs, so not far off in weight from the Cineo Quantum C80 at 48 lbs and 800 watts. Across various LED companies, it's all pretty similar weight to wattage ratios, with some variance. The Skypanels metal frame certainly adds to the weight; the S60-C is 37 lbs while the Cineo HSX of similar power draw is 28 lbs, so there are some variances, but nothing super significant. So, you're not going to find a professional 800 watt LED light that is 5 lbs, at least not with current tech.

My computer right now is on a 4' x 2' desk, which is the same size as the Cineo Quantum C80. I feel like I could lift the size of my desk top piece by myself, even if it was 50 lbs. A lot of my camera bags are 50-75 lbs, and I commonly lift them. Most of the time they're on wheels or on a cart, so the primary lifting is for going in and out of the car, and sometimes stairs. The 4' x 3' SoftPanels size would seem a bit more unweildy in terms of the size of it to handle on your own. I'm not sure how difficult the Quantum C80 would be to mount on a light stand by yourself. I'm sure two people could handle it pretty easily, so I don't see how it would need a huge crew to handle it.

It may still be too large for my style of production, which is why I may lean more toward a Hive 1000 (21.5 lb head and about 20 lb ballast, around twice as bright as the Quantum C80) and Skypanel S30-C (19.4 lb head and 5.5 lb ballast). But the Quantum C80 does seem interesting and is an alternative option for those interested in the SoftPanel 4' x 3'.
Click to expand...

You and I are often in a different mindset too because we often shoot different types of production. I fly quite often and even when i have a crew in a foreign country waiting for me, I still have to schlep all or a good portion of the gear from my vehicle to a Rock and Roller Cart, through the terminal, to ticketing, then security, then do it all over again when I land, plus the usual long haul from the terminal to rental car or waiting ground transportation. For the doc I shot over last year, four trips from LA to NYC, the total of gear that I took alone approached 300lbs over seven cases, softpacks and backpacks. And keep in mind, once I was in NYC, I lugged all of that in and out of elevators, my room, into several different buildings and elevators and up and down Times Square, a few bars we shot in, etc. I am naturally on a quest to go in the complete opposite direction which is hauling less gear and having the gear I haul weigh less, while still offering acceptable performance. At home, when I have a crew gaffer, PAs, the 48lbs sounds acceptable but once I take into account shooting away from home, no way.

BTW, FWIW, the Kamerar Brightcast Flexible Bicolor Panel lights weigh 39 ounces for the panel, cable from control unti to panel and the control unit itself. The mounting fitting is all plastic, which feels cheap but is undoubtedly good for weight savings. That is the entire fixture, minuse the 6' OSHA AC cable and the small, latop size power brick. Probably add another 20-25 ounces for those two pieces.
 
puredrifting said:
You and I are often in a different mindset too because we often shoot different types of production. I fly quite often and even when i have a crew in a foreign country waiting for me, I still have to schlep all or a good portion of the gear from my vehicle to a Rock and Roller Cart, through the terminal, to ticketing, then security, then do it all over again when I land, plus the usual long haul from the terminal to rental car or waiting ground transportation. For the doc I shot over last year, four trips from LA to NYC, the total of gear that I took alone approached 300lbs over seven cases, softpacks and backpacks. And keep in mind, once I was in NYC, I lugged all of that in and out of elevators, my room, into several different buildings and elevators and up and down Times Square, a few bars we shot in, etc. I am naturally on a quest to go in the complete opposite direction which is hauling less gear and having the gear I haul weigh less, while still offering acceptable performance. At home, when I have a crew gaffer, PAs, the 48lbs sounds acceptable but once I take into account shooting away from home, no way.
Click to expand...
I fly with gear about once a year on average, so not very often. I drive out of state with gear perhaps three times a year, so a bit more often. I always try to drive when I can. For me the goal is always, "Can I reasonably fit this equipment in my car, and set it up by myself?" I do crew shoots and one-man-band shoots, so ideally equipment I buy can work on both types of shoots. Maybe some day I'll buy a grip van or a larger SUV, but for now I've got a Mazda CX-5 crossover, so that's what everything needs to fit in.

Obviously I wasn't advocating the 48 lb light as a light to fly with. We both do local shoots with crew, so a light like that has its appeal.


puredrifting said:
BTW, FWIW, the Kamerar Brightcast Flexible Bicolor Panel lights weigh 39 ounces for the panel, cable from control unti to panel and the control unit itself. The mounting fitting is all plastic, which feels cheap but is undoubtedly good for weight savings. That is the entire fixture, minuse the 6' OSHA AC cable and the small, latop size power brick. Probably add another 20-25 ounces for those two pieces.
Click to expand...
So 39 ounces, plus say 22 ounces for the AC cable and power brick, so 61 ounces total? So 3.81 lbs for the kit, I guess not including the weight of the bag to store the various pieces. I believe that light is half as bright as an Astra, which is 7 lbs (I'd incorrectly mentioned 8 lbs before without looking up the spec). So, in terms of lbs to brightness ratio the Astra is actually lighter weight than the Kamerar which being a sort of flex light pretends to be extra light weight when it really is not.

So given that I'm finding the actual kit weight of flex lights of equivalent brightness is not necessarily lighter weight than an Astra, and a flex light requires more time assembling it, etc., it kind of looses the appeal of flex lights for me. Sure, as I said, useful for certain situations where you separate the light from the power via a cable so you can gaff tape it in tight locations, put it on a boom pole, etc., but in terms of making your light kit lighter weight, I'm not so sure it really helps that much.

Which again reinforces my point that tungsten lights are lighter weight for the amount of brightness you get. The Arrilite 750, Lowel Tota, and Lowel Rifa are all pretty equivalent brightness to the Astra, twice as bright as the Kamerar, and weigh less than half as much as the Astra, and less than the Kamerar which is half as bright.

My old tungsten kit was an Arri 650, a Lowel Rifa 1K, two Lowel Pro lights, a Dedo 150, Lowel DP 1K, and three Lowel Totas. So nine lights. Now I've got three Astras, two Practilite 602s, and I still have the Arri 650, so six lights, and I believe the weight of my six light kit is more than what my nine light kit used to be, while not giving me more brightness than what I used to have.

Of course once you factor in needing daylight, CTBing tungsten, and the size and weight of tungsten lights that you would need to get equivalent output to LEDs at 5600k, then it's a different matter. But speaking purely from shooting at 3200k, Tungsten lights are lighter weight than LEDs of the same brightness.
 
Run&Gun said:
I wouldn't just blow off the benefits of advanced optics/reflectors in lighting instruments. Just look at Arri and their 750 open face(they replaced their 1K with it) and their M series HMI's. The reflector designs allow "lower wattage" instruments to punch above their weight. I'm not saying more power doesn't help, but it's all part of an intelligently designed system.
Click to expand...
I said the lensing "may have helped some, but was not the primarily reason for the increased brightness." I'm not entirely discounting optics; I'm just saying wattage has more affect, generally speaking, and particularly in that case where Litepanels was comparing a 40 watt light to a 110 watt light, yet failed to mention in their literature that the increased wattage had anything to do with the increased brightness, when clearly it does.

I know Dedo lens designs are among the best for Fresnels and help with efficiency too.

It's just I see time and again people see some new light that looks cool, has a low wattage, and they assume that it somehow exceeds previous higher wattage lights in terms of brightness, because...I don't know, hopefulness, lux values that weren't taken properly or didn't list important factors like beam angle, etc., and time and again, those people end up disappointed with a light that is lacking in brightness.

To me it seems that power draw is generally the best way to estimate the brightness of a light before you have one to test.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I fly with gear about once a year on average, so not very often. I drive out of state with gear perhaps three times a year, so a bit more often. I always try to drive when I can. For me the goal is always, "Can I reasonably fit this equipment in my car, and set it up by myself?" I do crew shoots and one-man-band shoots, so ideally equipment I buy can work on both types of shoots. Maybe some day I'll buy a grip van or a larger SUV, but for now I've got a Mazda CX-5 crossover, so that's what everything needs to fit in.

Obviously I wasn't advocating the 48 lb light as a light to fly with. We both do local shoots with crew, so a light like that has its appeal.



So 39 ounces, plus say 22 ounces for the AC cable and power brick, so 61 ounces total? So 3.81 lbs for the kit, I guess not including the weight of the bag to store the various pieces. I believe that light is half as bright as an Astra, which is 7 lbs (I'd incorrectly mentioned 8 lbs before without looking up the spec). So, in terms of lbs to brightness ratio the Astra is actually lighter weight than the Kamerar which being a sort of flex light pretends to be extra light weight when it really is not.

So given that I'm finding the actual kit weight of flex lights of equivalent brightness is not necessarily lighter weight than an Astra, and a flex light requires more time assembling it, etc., it kind of looses the appeal of flex lights for me. Sure, as I said, useful for certain situations where you separate the light from the power via a cable so you can gaff tape it in tight locations, put it on a boom pole, etc., but in terms of making your light kit lighter weight, I'm not so sure it really helps that much.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you have ever done serious backpacking and mountaineering but when you do that, you pay exorbinant, obscene amounts of money to save a pound. For me, I know I could get a lot more powerful lights by doubling the weight. But when you have two of these Kamerars, along with the better part of your entire gear package in a backpack and one carry on bag, not having to lug an extra 6.XX pounds if I had two Astras is huge. I am not taking the Brightcast cases either, just wrapping the breakable bits in Domke neoprene wraps. Whether you are one man banding it locally or literally being a pack mule to fly 26 hours to Cape Town, it's a very fine line between weight, size and output. For this next project, luckily I have a gaffer with a nice loaded van waiting for me at my destination so I am merely carrying these Brightcast in case we are walking the city at night, impromptu interview in a dark jazz club or bar, etc. Our official interview setup will be lit with HMIs and we have a shoot in a club where I will probably be doing a relatively huge setup with a dozen lights hung from speed rail overhead off of three risers to light a six piece band. If I had a need to carry more powerful lights, it would be the Astras because they are a lot of bang for the buck. But I would have to eliminate a few of the lenses I am bringing or bring a lighter tripod and head, etc. Every shoot is radically different for me so it's nice to have options. I am very happy with my Aputure LS 1S but they they are pretty heavy for what they are. I am now using those on local shoots and if I get a bigger production where there are three or four of us crew flying out, I can hand the Pelican they are in to one of the PAs as one of his checked.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I guess my conclusion is that you drew some assumptions which were just that, assumptions. To me, if Softpanels was truly marketing a higher lumen to watt efficiency than the competition, and had actually achieved such a feat, then they would have clearly spelled that out and marketed it, instead of just implying new tech with better colors. To me, "ultra high output" means very little, because I see generic and vague phrases like that from several other LED light manufacturers.

Litepanel Astra: "...Astra 1x1 Bi-Color LED Panel that is 4x the brightness the original Bi-Color 1x1. ... The technological advancement and enhancement is evident in the high CRI and significantly increased brightness due to the use of tightly-binned LEDs and fine-tuned TIR (Total Internal Reflection) optics, resulting in a longer throw over a wider field."
Click to expand...

Funny thing is your first paragraph ends in a stated assumption, and the 2nd ends in science... the first, based on Softpanels' terminology, and the 2nd, on Litepanels' verifiable measurements and direct comparison. If Softpanels' claim of "ultra high output" means very little, then why believe anything else claimed?

So the assumption that "ultra high output" means something, based on "softpanels high fidelity LEDs vs old, or legacy LEDs", per the campaign is an incorrect assumption about "next gen diodes", which they never claimed(?) even though the entire campaign says they have next gen diodes, with charts... why get into semantics? I'm not assuming they have next gen diode tech, they're DIRECTLY SAYING SO... LED evolution is tied to BOTH color AND output... diodes have evolved on BOTH fronts, often simultaneously... some years color has surged, others output has surged... so when someone boasts about "ultra high output" alongside a campaign of unprecedented diode technology... anyone who's followed the evolution of LED diode tech would be foolish to think "ultra high output" was mearly "hype" akin to all other LED ad copy.

Unfortunately most LED fixtures are incorrectly compared to more powerful tungsten or HMI equivalents... so with a product touted as having next gen diodes (call it what you want, everyone, including all the backers knows what I mean... and what the creators meant)... coming from the original creators of ALL of it... the guys at ground zero for location LED... "assuming" the descriptions meant something were a big reason for the financial success of the campaign. Calling "belief of claims" an assumption now, is Monday morning quarterback. The entire $400K is from people who assumed they could trust the pitch, and people behind it.
 
MattinSTL said:
If Softpanels' claim of "ultra high output" means very little, then why believe anything else claimed?
Click to expand...
Well, it is ultra high output, relatively speaking. Their 600 watt 4' x 3' light is going to have "ultra high output," at least from my point of view compared to my 100 watt Astras, and obviously from the maker's point of view as well. Perhaps someone who is used to working with 18K HMIs would not consider it as "ultra high output," so, I'd say such a claim is very relative, and thus, doesn't mean very much. It doesn't mean they're lying, it just means it's a subjective claim.

So, ultra high compared to what? Compared to 100 watt LED lights? Compared to it's power draw in relation to other LEDs, because they totally insinuated an ultra high lumens per watt efficiency? What is it ultra high compared to?

I read through their literature, but I guess I just didn't catch on to an insinuation that there was a higher lumen to watt ratio. The lights had higher wattage with a larger surface area in a soft panel (not multiple LEDs with shadows) for a lower price than the competition; that to me was the selling point that drove the Kickstarter.

You apparently drew the conclusion they implied a higher lumen to watt ratio. Yet, then mentioned that early tests are showing this not to be true. So I guess it either means A) they lied or B) they never meant to imply it in the first place, or C) they somehow made a mistake, or weren't able to keep that better efficiency in their final product
 
Eric Coughlin said:
So, ultra high compared to what? Compared to 100 watt LED lights? Compared to it's power draw in relation to other LEDs, because they totally insinuated an ultra high lumens per watt efficiency? What is it ultra high compared to?
Click to expand...

I expect everyone who backed the campaign interprets (or assumes, or "draws the conclusion") that meant in comparison to the same format lights to which Softpanels makes other comparisons... i.e. "ultra high output for a soft LED 1x2" etc.

"Equal to" is okay, but I don't think it was unreasonable to assume "ultra high output" was going to mean "more"... considering Astra is 97/99 TLCI... even "super high-fidelity LEDs" doesn't mean "better" either... basically, it all comes down to the built-in meter, and any "revolutionary" step pretty much ends there... or you could say "affordability" is the other revolution (and they do, directly) but so far, that savings comes at a fairly high price.

I had a couple missing "pegs" in the barndoor frame for the Astra... when I emailed them about it, they handled it immediately. My hope is that Softpanels will quickly develop dependable service and accessibility (that has been poor so far.) Otherwise all the revolutions are for nothing... spending less, and getting less is nothing new.
 
puredrifting said:
Now that's an interesting light. A good indicator of where things are headed. I'd bet in a few years, we will have $800.00 Chinese versions of this that weigh 5-10lbs with more output and better CRI.
Click to expand...

Got 2 of their smaller ones to replace my Divas 401, love them .
 
Eric Coughlin said:
To me it seems that power draw is generally the best way to estimate the brightness of a light before you have one to test.
Click to expand...

I don't go deep into specs on newer units other than photometrics myself. The tricky part is that some units are built with raw LED's and others incorporate permanent diffusers, so you have to make sure you are comparing apples to apples in terms of the beam spread, softness and output level before looking at the wattage. And there's also LED's that incorporate intensifying lenses, further adding to the confusion.
 
Sure, the lenses, built in diffusion, etc., will affect how bright the light is. So take the Astra Soft for example, which is sort of less bright than the regular Astra, but has the benefit of already being diffused. If you just look at the lux values, then you'd be disappointed since the Astra Soft has significantly lower lux values, particularly since Litepanels incorrectly lists the beam angle as 45 degrees which is the same listed beam angle as their regular Astra.

But knowing that the Astra Soft has the same 110 watt power draw as the regular Astra, you can use that as a baseline of what you're getting. You can know that the regular Astra put through diffusion (say of the same amount) will be about the same brightness as the already diffused Astra.

Lux values can be useful, there just tends to be a lot of variables with lux values when it comes to comparing different lights, and equaling out those variables (beam angle, diffusion, lens, uniform spread, different length measurements, etc.) can be challenging.

I find it interesting how with tungsten lights people would uniformly base the brightness off the wattage of the lights (even though there are other variables such as lens quality), but with LEDs, for whatever reason people place much less faith in wattage as a determining factor of how bright the LED lights are, even when (at least to me) it seems to be a pretty accurate way of determining an LED's brightness.

I suppose higher lumen to watt efficiency LEDs may become available in video light LEDs eventually which would muddle the waters more in terms of judging a light's brightness by its power draw, but speaking from what's currently out there, it seems that LEDs across manufactures are pretty close in terms of lumen to watt efficiency.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I suppose higher lumen to watt efficiency LEDs may become available in video light LEDs eventually which would muddle the waters more in terms of judging a light's brightness by its power draw, but speaking from what's currently out there, it seems that LEDs across manufactures are pretty close in terms of lumen to watt efficiency.
Click to expand...

This is already happening all the time... it's called "binning". In any batch of diodes there will be "golden samples" that spec better color or efficiency... if you separate those out and build a light from just those you get a significantly better performance. If your baseline is also "next gen diodes"... well, take 500 slightly more efficient LEDs and it adds up.

By the time the overall level is raised there will still be something significantly better because of binning. This is just the way LED tech has evolved (so far). THAT is why statements like "ultra high output" and mixed distance specs... (is it 4'... or .8 meters... or 1 meter... let's make claims and not correct potential higher expectations) are already muddying the water...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top