Has anyone tried the Cool Flos from Steve Kaiser? Or any of his other gear? I'm assuming they're not built like Arris, but do they pass reasonable muster. Comments on either his heads or stands would be appreciated.

Got a link?

Here's the page with the Cool Flos:
http://www.skaeser.com/servlet/Categories?category=COOL+FLO

Richard Andrewski has a similar instrument at CoolLights and I've heard god reports about his gear. But when you add up the price for the head, bulb, stand, softbox, and stand adapter, getting 2 of them is a bit over my very tight budget.

I know Kaeser's stuff is all over ebay, so I figured at least a few people in this froum might have worked with his stuff.

As a side note, after a back injury a few years back, I mostly do post work. So I don't need heavy duty instruments like Arris, to weather a few shoots a week. OTOH, I would like them to hold up reasonably well on the 5-15 days a year I'll need to take them out.

Hi Eric:

While I have never used these lights, they look like all of the other Chinese stufff that's flooding the market right now like Smith-Victor, FotoDiox and about half a dozen other suppliers. Not terrible but nowhere in the same neighborhood as Arri or Mole.

I built my own Kino Diva 200s for about $200.00 ea. that I think are built better, although a 55 watt biax tube is a 55 watt biax tube. My point being that any halfway talented camera person or DP can do great lighting with any of these. It's just that the cheaper stuff will last you a year or possibly two and will then be pretty junky versus Arri stuff and Mole stuff, I have already been using all 20 of my mine for about a decade so far with no problems and just a few minor repairs.

You get what you pay for. When you are a noob and buy cheap, you will double or triple the cost when you replace it in a year or two. I vote for buying or building quality but it's your call.

Dan

Thanks for the interest Dan. I was a noob when video cameras had tubes and BetaCam hadn't hit the market. So, as I tried to explain above, I really do understand about the build difference between say, an Arri and a Lowell and a Smith Victor- in descending order.

I have no interest in ramping up the shooting part of my work-if I want something to look good and the budget allows for it, I'd rather hire either other camera ops with a good kit, or a gaffer with a well-equipped truck. Just something that will work within my restrictive budget and go out a few times a year for pickup interviews and some personal stuff. So hopefully, someone in this forum has ACTUALLY WORKED WITH these lights or other Steve Kaeser products.

I'm sure it will be fine. It's hard to mess up putting a bunch of E26 sockets on a fixture and plugging spiral CFLs into them so its highly unlikely that it won't work.

I wonder though on these type solutions how much there really is to separate them from a DIY solution. If you're on a budget, it's so easy to go to Home Depot and get the N:Vision 5500K bulbs in 30w or 40w (which many around here will confirm work fine), a few edison sockets, a suitable backing like a piece of masonite and wire the sockets up. You can put switches on there to bank select them. Maybe you can find a more attractive backing for the bulbs too with a bit of imagination, but how much could it cost really?

The point is, the ballasts, or the hard part are in the base of these type bulbs. that's where all the active electronics and circuitry are. Also the single bulb reflector setups from skaesar are not very much different from a bunch of home depot worklight scoops with stand adapters on them.

If you really want to save some money just make something on your own and see if you like fluorescent or not.

I recently bought some of Richard's CoolLights and I'm very impressed with the quality and the value.

Thanks Paul for the kind words.

Its just two different philosophies: self-ballasted or separate ballast. There's a perceived convenience and lower cost factor in some of the self-ballasted systems. However, for those that care about lumen output, the ballasts in the base of those CFLs are never as good as those that can be put in a separate ballast system. The power factor is always lower. Its one reason we mostly only sell the separate ballast systems. I viewed these type of units as entry level and fragile and not able to stand up to the rigors of daily use over a long time. But spirals are simply the most accessible DIY fixture you can get. Simple to setup, simple to debug...

With the multi-spiral type fixtures, you can just keep putting sockets in them to up the lumen output and at $6.95 for each bulb (if you're using the home depot variety) its not too bad. It's just when you get to some of these other specialized high CRI "full spectrum" spiral CFLs that it gets quite a bit pricier and some of the cost advantages to a self-ballasted system start to look less interesting.

Paul, I too have seen and worked with Richards' CL255's and 455's. They are nice! It was the first place I went to on the internet.

Richard, I figured you might chime in. Here's my situation: I've got up to the hight $300s' to spend. I've already got part of a kit, tungstens, but I'd like to add softlights to it as well. Right now, I'm trying to snag a client whose work will consist mostly of editing interviews from around the states, but with the possibility of shooting some of the local ones. So the lights are for both a specific need as well as a general one.

Already tried DIYs' and I'm not a very good craftsman. I do need the lights to have a decent build and finish. Client perception, and they WILL be at the interviews, is important.

Richard, if I ever get the income stream back up on the production side, I definately will be back to CoolLights to look at your HMI fresnels. I'm really pleased at the work you're doing for the video community.

Thanks for the interest Dan. I was a noob when video cameras had tubes and BetaCam hadn't hit the market. So, as I tried to explain above, I really do understand about the build difference between say, an Arri and a Lowell and a Smith Victor- in descending order.

I have no interest in ramping up the shooting part of my work-if I want something to look good and the budget allows for it, I'd rather hire either other camera ops with a good kit, or a gaffer with a well-equipped truck. Just something that will work within my restrictive budget and go out a few times a year for pickup interviews and some personal stuff. So hopefully, someone in this forum has ACTUALLY WORKED WITH these lights or other Steve Kaeser products.

Hi:

Okay, so you have been doing this as long as I have and aren't a noob. But still, I am speaking from experience with the www.fotodiox.com lights. These same lights are also sold here in the U.S. under the Savage name and a few others. Nothing wrong with that but they are pretty amateur quality as far as the appearance to your client. I agree with Richard, I like the quality of the 55 watt biax tube with a separate ballast over these lights that use spiral CFLs.

So far, nobody else has even heard of these Kaeser lights, that may be a good indicator or their quality and reputation. I have bought, borrowed or rented most of the low-end no name flourescents on the market although not specifically the Kaesers. I totally am in line with Richard in that you get what you pay for. If reliability and appearance are important to you, (and it sounds as if it should be), I wouldn't want a light to catch fire, flicker or not work with a client at a shoot, I would consider Richard's lights at the least. The last two cheap flouros that I worked with had problems, even using Kino tubes. One actually caught fire and the other flickered and killed two different bulbs in a row. Fortunately, I was working alone shooting tabletop so no harm, no foul.

DIY with flourescents is easy, I made my own in about an hour and half, most of the parts are available pre-fabbed, you just out them together and wire the ballast, insert bulbs and shoot, but I can understand if you want to NOT do this, there is an element of "adventure" when you turn on the light for the first time.

Best of luck,

Dan

Hey Dan,

I still want to see those DIY kino's of yours. Pictures please!

Paul, I too have seen and worked with Richards' CL255's and 455's. They are nice! It was the first place I went to on the internet.

Richard, I figured you might chime in. Here's my situation: I've got up to the hight $300s' to spend. I've already got part of a kit, tungstens, but I'd like to add softlights to it as well. Right now, I'm trying to snag a client whose work will consist mostly of editing interviews from around the states, but with the possibility of shooting some of the local ones. So the lights are for both a specific need as well as a general one.

Already tried DIYs' and I'm not a very good craftsman. I do need the lights to have a decent build and finish. Client perception, and they WILL be at the interviews, is important.

Richard, if I ever get the income stream back up on the production side, I definately will be back to CoolLights to look at your HMI fresnels. I'm really pleased at the work you're doing for the video community.

Hey Eric, no question that perception is reality and DIY is fine (and thats how I started out too) if you're off alone working in isolation but when you're on a gig with a client paying and especially out in public somewhere, you really do need to look the part. Showing up with bright yellow colored worklights or things that look like they were built in the garage doesn't play well.

As Dan mentioned, the 2x55w solutions with 3200K tubes work great with the tungsten in your kit; and in addition, you can get them in 3200K which you really can't with the spirals so often. So your fresnels don't blend as well with the daylight spirals.

One or two of the CL-255s are in your range and include everything you need to be ready, including 2 tubes each. As you may have noticed they look the part and you shouldn't feel embarrassed with any part of your kit at that point.

I've used both Cool Lights and Kaeser lights, and...well...the both light up the place pretty well. The difference is quality -- the Cool lights are a beefier build than the Kaeser Units. Both are exceptional values when compared to Kino's or Arri's, but I would be a little reluctant to take the Kaeser units out on the road very often. If you are going to hang them in your studio and leave them, or if you are going to go on location with them only once or twice a month, they will work out fine and are an amazingly affordable way to get cool 5600-ish soft-box illumination. Richard's lights, on the other hand, are more like the theatrical units I'm accustomed to from my touring days. Very robust, very solid. Nice work, Richard....
Maybe I'm just used to another way to do it, but I fond the Kaeser softboxes slightly less-than-easy to put together, and I would worry about popping a seam if I were tying to do it out on location somewhere. Once they're put together, however, they work great -- the light is utterly gorgeous. Up close, (ie, just out of frame on a talking head) a pair of his 6-spiral soft boxes will read outdoors on an overcast morning.
Both companies ship quickly and are easy to work with. As multi-cam virtual set units like Newtek's Tricaster become commonplace and we start having to do 3 green screens on one shoot, workable and coast-efficient options like Richard and Kaeser will become important. If budget is your ultimate concern, I would recommend a mix of both.

Just an update. Richard, I found your assesment pretty much right-on. The Kaeser lights have a decent build - the instrument itself has a nice textured matte black finish. It's certainly not ARRI quality, but they won't fall apart if you breathe on them either.

Some nice design touches; 3 separate switches control 3 two light banks. Plus a master switch. Two stand mounts, so that the instrument can be mounted 'portrait' or 'landscape', a convenient handle, some nice stands... Overall, I'm very pleased.

And one lovely thing about fluorescents as opposed to tungsten 'point' lights. Even at fairly large distances, and with no diffusers in front of the lamps, the light remains fairly soft, shadows don't have hard edges. Much softer than a fresnel or open face with a Chimera at that distance.

Pretty good deal for $379. a key and fill I guess. For an interview, what would be a good hair light to match this set up?

Pretty good deal for $379. a key and fill I guess. For an interview, what would be a good hair light to match this set up? For a hair light, or back light, you're going to need something other than a florescent unit, you're going to need light you can control, focus, and cut, and therefore you need a quality of light like direct sunlight, perfect for accent and back lights, and that's what a Fresnel offers that a florescent can't. Look into adding some Fresnel instruments to your kit. Start with a 300W and a 150W instrument to compliment your soft source. I'm partial to the Arri Fresnels, not only for their build quality, but when I need more instruments for s specific shoot it's what the rental house has.

For a hair light, or back light, you're going to need something other than a florescent unit, you're going to need light you can control, focus, and cut, and therefore you need a quality of light like direct sunlight, perfect for accent and back lights, and that's what a Fresnel offers that a florescent can't. Look into adding some Fresnel instruments to your kit. Start with a 300W and a 150W instrument to compliment your soft source. I'm partial to the Arri Fresnels, not only for their build quality, but when I need more instruments for s specific shoot it's what the rental house has.

Okay but isn't it problematic to mix different color temps? How does that work out?

Okay but isn't it problematic to mix different color temps? How does that work out?I'm usually not mixing color temperatures when working with fluorescent lighting instruments, since they can be fitted with either tungsten or daylight balanced lamps. When the fluorescent units are fitted with daylight lamps, I put 1/2 CTB or full CTB (depending on creative approach) on the Fresnels to match. And since the Fresnels are more efficient than open face lights (since the light is focused where you want it to go) the effect of CTB gel on them is a little less severe.

CTB = "Color Temperature Blue" gel, used to convert 3200K Tungsten sources to 5500K Daylight.

For hair and rim lighting, I agree with Dave, focusable lights are a must. They also come in handy for such things as creating 'venetian blind' patterns on background walls, etc. And various nets and flags/cutters, along with C-stands and gobo arms, while not as often discussed as the lighting instruments themselves, are very important.

I liked the idea of getting the daylight fluoresscents because they are bright enough to use in some daylight situations, when you're not fighting direct sunlight, which can be great for office interview situations. And as Dave suggested, CTB on a tungsten instrument can match color temps just fine. OTOH, Indoor tungsten situations, I'm tempted to Gel the fluorescents with CTO, orange, to bring the daylight lamps down to 3200 degrees. They are bright enough where in 'indoor' situations, the CTO shouldn't dim them too much.

BTW, mixing color temps can work well too. With brunettes and redheads, I use to light faces with standard 110 volt tungstens and use 240 volt tungstens for the hair lights. The lamp was, in essence, dimmed to 50% and created a beautiful and rich red/orange light. Using a gel, being much flatter in color, just wouldn't match the beauty of that 240 volt lamp.

Anyway, I ramble...

Any one use these kaeser lights with 240v power? I want to take these overseas to Australia.

Links to the lights:
http://www.skaeser.com/servlet/Detail?no=454

Picture with the back of the unit. it says that it can go 110-240v but can it really?

Link to the back picture
http://images.andale.com/f2/110/104/7403334/2007/1/24/photoalbum/rearvier_4lt.jpg

what'd you think? Will it travel to 240v?

What they mean by that rating is the sockets and input of the fixture can be any voltage in that range. This is a universal line voltage input solution like a fresnel which also could be any voltage, but just the bulb changes based on which voltage is actually going in.

Thus, the real limit is the CFL bulb inside. There are practically no universal voltage CFL bulbs out there because the ballast in the base is really abbreviated in the name of keeping it "compact" as in the name CFL. Thus, you'd have to change out your bulb from 110v to 220v models when you go to a different country. Just like you would for a fresnel. So that rating can be very misleading if you don't understand the caveats that go with it.

Eric,

I have the cool flo lights you're talking about. I've used them on a few shoots out of town so they've been transported a few times. The build quality is decent and they look pretty good in terms of what a customer may think of when they see them.

They probably won't last 10 years but the light quality is very good. These are the ones I have

http://photoalbum.matlus.com//AlbumView.aspx/6

I used them mainly for interview kinds of videos.

Shiv, I was suprised to see this thread revived. Yeah, the Kaisers' are pretty decent lights. A couple of thoughtful touches; the two mounting ?clamps? for mounting portrait or landscape and the bank switches. The biggest problem is that you have to remove all the lamps to transport them w/o breakage. I'm trying to get something like the separators you see in wine bottle cartons so I can leave the lamps in between gigs.

I was a little suprised by some of the somewhat negative reactions to these "unknown" lights. I kind of understand-I've watched my Lowells deteriorate over the years, especially the stands.

OTOH, the light's wraparound softness is lovely, much nicer than the average chimera. I have not seen any odd color spikes with these lights, but I've been white balancing to an on-set white card, not using a 3200 degree preset.

Eric,

I don't have experience with any other softboxes so I didn't know if some of the "features" were standard or unique to these lights :).

Yes, I find the softness of these lights very nice and they make lighting the the talent very easy.

I still have the boxes in which the bulbs came in and use them to transsport the bulbs. The lights themselves are pretty large when assembled and so I disassemble them completely for storage and transport. I've bought one of the large Pelican transport cases http://pelican.com/cases_detail.php?Case=1780t so all my lights, bulbs, stands/booms etc. go into this case.

What they mean by that rating is the sockets and input of the fixture can be any voltage in that range. This is a universal line voltage input solution like a fresnel which also could be any voltage, but just the bulb changes based on which voltage is actually going in.

Thus, the real limit is the CFL bulb inside. There are practically no universal voltage CFL bulbs out there because the ballast in the base is really abbreviated in the name of keeping it "compact" as in the name CFL. Thus, you'd have to change out your bulb from 110v to 220v models when you go to a different country. Just like you would for a fresnel. So that rating can be very misleading if you don't understand the caveats that go with it.

Ahh... ("Ding" Light bulb going on) I opened the fixture up and its a direct wire to the bulb! You're right. thanks for the advice on that.

This seems to be an old thread that has been resurrected, so I'll throw my thoughts in.

I've been lighting lots of interviews with Lowel Caselights ever since they arrived on the market, but they belong to another company, and I am going to buy some fluorescents of my own very soon. After hours of reading posts on all the boards I've decided to go with Richard's Cool Lights ( http://www.coollights.biz ).


I was all set to go with some equivalent-looking fluorescents from PC lighting but on the DVX user board, that guy got such rotten reviews that I scratched him off my list. There are also cheap softbox flos from many other sites and they all look pretty much the same, so it's a matter of the reputability of the dealer, in my opinion.

For several days I've been trying to figure out which Cool Lights I want, and I think I've about decided on one CL-455 and two CL-255's. And then I'm considering his new 150 watt HMI fresnel that's only 400 bucks. It uses a different type of lamp than the normal HMI but you can get it in 5400K, and the lamp is dirt cheap.

He also has a very nice softbox that uses a single 200 watt 5500 or 3200 fluorescent folded tube lamp. To me this looks like a better thing than the other softboxes that use multiple twisty bulbs. Two hundred watts is significantly more than the output of one 2-lamp CL-255. I'd assume the softbox reflector might not reflect as efficiently as the CL-255, but with the extra wattage, that setup might be at least the same and it's definitely cheap enough to try out.

Richard also has a line of what he's calling the "portable" fluorescents, that look a lot like the Kinos. They come in 2 and 4-lamp setups and are significantly lighter in weight than the 455 and 255 series. I could go with those too, though they are a bit pricier. I'm attracted to the reflecting barn doors of the heavier 255/455 lights because I've used those with Caselights. You adjust the barn door just right and the bulbs reflect from them too, giving you just a bit more output when needed. Of course I guess you could attach aluminum foil to the barn doors of the lighter weight fixtures and do about the same thing.

Another alternative might be to go with three of the 150 watt fresnel HMIs and one of the softboxes. The HMI fixture is the same as his 650 watt tungsten light, which looks very similar to Altman 650 watt fresnels I've used a lot and supposedly puts out about the same amount of light. You want to soften the fresnels, just attach diffusion gel to the barn doors the way you would with an open face light; to keep the light sharper, cut a gel to fit in front of the lens.

My interest in these fluorescents and HMIs is that I prefer lighting with daylight when possible, even in the studio. The cameras I use seem to all look better under daylight than they do tungsten.

"It uses a different type of lamp than the normal HMI but you can get it in 5400K, and the lamp is dirt cheap."

You might want clarification from Richard on that. I think you can even get replacements directly from B&H. You also might want to find out if these lights are hot re-strike. I don't think they are but that may not differ from other manufacturers in this wattage. Unfortunately, these are not in stock but that is supposed to change next week.

About the lamp from coollights.biz:

"However, if you should decide, for whatever reason you would rather use an Osram, Phillips or GE as your replacement in the future, you can. All the bulbs we are using are available from a wide variety of sources and follow the standards for each particular family used."

I'm fairly certain this one is not hot re-strike, but I can live with that for the cost.

Richard Andrewski has a similar instrument at CoolLights

I have 2 of these and they work great.

ken

The lights I got from Kaeser are a 9 light, spiral CFL instrument with a softbox-optional- in front. The spirals are a pain, because unlike Andrewskis' bar lamps, which can be transported easily and safely within the instrument, the spirals have to be removed to keep them from busting. If I had to do it over again, I'd get Richards' lights for that reason alone.

Having said that, the lights I have have three switches for three banks of lights, each bank adding a stop. Very Handy. The light with softbox is gorgeous. I'm not displeased.

Your list sounds good. It's always handy to have some hard light along with the soft. A 150/300 watt backlight would probably be handy as well as the larger HMI fresnel. And of course, some CTB and CTO. I'm looking at some of the same lights, the CDM 150 and the 150 and 300 watt tungsten fresnels.

Good luck with your new kit.

Bill,


He also has a very nice softbox that uses a single 200 watt 5500 or 3200 fluorescent folded tube lamp. To me this looks like a better thing than the other softboxes that use multiple twisty bulbs. Two hundred watts is significantly more than the output of one 2-lamp CL-255. I'd assume the softbox reflector might not reflect as efficiently as the CL-255, but with the extra wattage, that setup might be at least the same and it's definitely cheap enough to try out.


Is there a reason you're comparing a 900W light with 200W light? Also, there is a marked difference in the size of the lights. The Kaeser lights are a "broad source" at 32"x32" (or 42"x42").

A "soft light" doesn't make them comparable does it? Unless I'm missing something? A broad source gives a beautiful soft "wrap around" light that a light that is not broad can't achieve.

So here are the differences (in my opinion) between the two:

1. 900W compared to 200W
2. Can go from 300W-900W in increments of 300W
3. A truely Broad Source compared to one that is not.
4. The shape of the "box" has a lot to do with the quality of light. That is a lot of the light bounces around inside the box before it comes out (along with the light that comes out directly) and this is what really makes "soft boxes" what they are.
5. Being a broad source, the light fall-off is less than a light that is not a broad source.

Of course all of the above except for No. 2 are really qualities of a "softbox" and not just a soft light. I've seen marked differences between a 32"x32" and a 42"x42" at a friends studio, and was shown the difference between a "soft light" and a "soft box" and then the difference a broader source makes over a light that is not so broad.

I think each light has a use but they are not comparable. What do you think?

That's not a 900 watt light. The 200 watt fluorescent is a 200 watt fluorescent light. You'll notice that Kaiser publishes a tungsten equivalent. If you do the same with the 200 watt fluorescent, it's going to come out close to 800 watts. Those kinds of figures are misleading if people don't read the fine print. Lots of those multi-twistylamp fixtures use 24 watt fluorescents, some go a little higher. I'm not knocking them, I just think the 200 watt folded tube lamp in the softbox is about the same thing and a more consistent color temperature.

Go away for a few days and people are talking nice behind your back ;-). I'm in the USA now kids! Great to be back if only for 2 months. I can finally have a real hamburger now.

Santa's coming in this year with a 40 foot container and a couple of smaller containers so he's bringing lots of goodies to everyone that's been good this year.

Thanks everyone for the kind words.

Bill's right about the 200w bulb. Its an actual 200w bulb. I don't post that equivalent business out front to mislead people like some do. The 200w bulb should yield about 700w tungsten softbox equivalent IMHO. All these self-ballasted CFL's (as we've talked about before) have a much smaller ballast than you can have in a separate ballast unit and thus, they are not as efficient at "power factor" or actual output as opposed to theoretical output. Because Kaiser publishes the equivalent spec only we don't know actual wattage I think and thus are not really sure what we're getting there. I say tungsten softbox because people should not believe that these are equivalent to a 700w fresnel. I like to compare apples to apples, etc. Soft light has its own qualities and its best to compare a flo to a tungsten softlight so you know what you'll be getting: something with a shorter throw than a hardlight (like HMI or tungsten). All softlights have a shorter throw and thus should only be compared to each other and not to a hardlight. Thus when people say "tungsten equivalent" (and I've even been guilty of it before when I'm busy and typing fast and don't put in the "tungsten softbox equivalent" to make it a more correct comparison) you should realize that it's best to put in the "softbox" after tungsten--even if they didn't.

Just to be sure we all understand. A broad source is a soft light to clear up any confusion on the subject. It's soft because its broad. 24 x 24 or 32 x 32 -- doesn't make a difference -- they are both broad. One is broader than the other but we could have used a 32 x 32 softbox if we wanted to. I chose the 24 x 24 for the sake of portability. We may indeed carry other softboxes in the near future and probably will with popular demand. Don't be afraid to tell us what you like! We will eventually have some multi-spiral units as well. Are these more broad than a single 200w bulb? Of course, but they all yield a soft light. You're not going to get hard shadows out of any of these type bulbs.