puredrifting
Major Contributor
Dear lighting industry:
As a cinematographer and avid consumer of your lighting products, I am writing to ask you to not kill incandescent technology. Yes, I know it is inefficient and not new and high tech, but it just works.
LED is not there yet, the output is too weak, the CRI is too low and the costs are too high. Fluorescent/CFLs. Yeah, they work and are not bad, but the flicker, ballast issues, fragility of the bulbs, mercury that is dumped into landfills and of course, the quick fall off and the fact that they are all soft sources mean that while effective, fluorescents will not take over the motion picture lighting industry as a wall to wall solution for the foreseeable future. Not sure if you have noticed either, but skin tones are not rendered their best with partial spectrum lighting either. Okay for sitcoms and television lighting but not the best for CUs of faces, etc.
I am reading about headway being made in consumer incandescents http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?_r=1 Is there a chance that some of this new technology will make its way to the lighting products that we use?
1. 30% less energy consumption (right now - expecting much higher efficiency)
2. No start up time
3. No mercury for landfills
4. No flickering
5. No ballast
While I use both LEDs and fluorescents in my work as well as incandescents and I use CFLs at home, we in the industry would really like to see this new technology implemented into video lighting. The developers of this new technology are stating that they can already reach 50% better efficiency than traditional incandescents in the lab. Until LEDs and fluorescent can do everything that incandescents can do better at a low cost, keep on developing incandescent technology.
Signed,
A DP who misses traditional lighting technology.
Call me, we'll do lunch and discuss it?
As a cinematographer and avid consumer of your lighting products, I am writing to ask you to not kill incandescent technology. Yes, I know it is inefficient and not new and high tech, but it just works.
LED is not there yet, the output is too weak, the CRI is too low and the costs are too high. Fluorescent/CFLs. Yeah, they work and are not bad, but the flicker, ballast issues, fragility of the bulbs, mercury that is dumped into landfills and of course, the quick fall off and the fact that they are all soft sources mean that while effective, fluorescents will not take over the motion picture lighting industry as a wall to wall solution for the foreseeable future. Not sure if you have noticed either, but skin tones are not rendered their best with partial spectrum lighting either. Okay for sitcoms and television lighting but not the best for CUs of faces, etc.
I am reading about headway being made in consumer incandescents http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html?_r=1 Is there a chance that some of this new technology will make its way to the lighting products that we use?
1. 30% less energy consumption (right now - expecting much higher efficiency)
2. No start up time
3. No mercury for landfills
4. No flickering
5. No ballast
While I use both LEDs and fluorescents in my work as well as incandescents and I use CFLs at home, we in the industry would really like to see this new technology implemented into video lighting. The developers of this new technology are stating that they can already reach 50% better efficiency than traditional incandescents in the lab. Until LEDs and fluorescent can do everything that incandescents can do better at a low cost, keep on developing incandescent technology.
Signed,
A DP who misses traditional lighting technology.
Call me, we'll do lunch and discuss it?
rogar-Sick(DBG):