After reading up on the popularity of CFLs here on the DVInfo forum, and learning about their advantage for providing adequate lighting while keeping the set cool. I decided to head out to Home Depot and see what these new lights were all about, and could they be effective in studio work.

I was mildly surprised to find that the N:vision brand has several lights covering a good range of brightness, and in three popular color temperatures. It was the 5500K models that caught my eye, and I purchased one 13watt (equivalent to a 40watt incandescent bulb) $6, and three 23watt (equivalent to 100watt incandescent bulbs) $8ea.

I also purchased some cheap ($6ea), 8” clamp lights to both house and mount my new CFLs.

I then created a mock one camera interview, and to spice things up, (and for good comparison), I used an example setup similar to what’s found on Nino Gianotti's lighting website, EFPlighting.com (in regards to creating backgrounds and basic interview lighting).

Rather then going into the boring, "preaching-to-the-choir details". I’ll cut to the chase and have you follow the link below to view the results. (Note: We’ll have to use a flickr account until the DV image gallery is back up).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45378940@N00/sets/72157600047456886/

To view a slideshow:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45378940@N00/sets/72157600047456886/show/

The 23watt CFLs barely cut it for background lighting, gel them and they are barely useful. However, Alzo Digital has some 85watt monsters, equivalent to 300watt tungsten, and putting out a whopping 4800 lumens, thus opening up the possibility of more dramatic lighting. (I’m tempted to spring for one of these and see what’s possible).

http://alzodigital.com/online_store/replacement_lamps.htm#ALZO%20cool%20lites

Hopefully this will be of help to some of you out there. Take care and good shooting.

None of this is any surprise to me ;-)

I get people telling me all the time that those Home Depot N:Vision bulbs aren't adequate at 80/82 CRI but yet I use them and don't see any of the sick pallor people talk about with low cri solutions.

Also, on background lighting. There's no question about that these smaller wattage bulbs can easily be overpowered by the frontal lighting. It takes a much more surgical approach to light with all softlight. That's why most people end up using "hard" conventional lighting for the background.

A fresnel cuts a great swatch of light thanks to the focused beam and barn doors. And a cookie becomes more defined also thanks to hard lighting. They also light through a gel more efficiently too.

Ceramic Metal Halide and super hi wattage LED's have the best potential to offer energy efficient hard light instruments.

Here's an example of what's coming down the line for LED's:

http://www.physorg.com/news93198212.html

That one puts out 1000 lumens, but I found another one that I have samples of for my product development that puts out 1800 lumens! Yes, that's from one small LED, not an array of LEDs. I can tell you it is one very bright light.

The pricing is still rather high and even at these high wattages for an LED it's still too small for anything but about the equivalent of a 180 to 200 watt pepper fresnel or spot--but you can see the progression that will happen there. Someday we'll be talking about a 500w LED and they will probably win the war for energy efficiency because they don't emit as much UV as HMI/ceramic metal halide so therefore don't output the same amount of heat--like fluorescent.

By the way, didn't you notice any 30w or 40w bulbs at Home Depot. I've only bought the 30w ones and a while back I noticed they (or maybe it was Lowe's) started carrying a 40w version. It's just a matter of time until we have higher wattage self-ballasted CFL's commonly available at home improvement stores. As the public catches on to their energy efficiency and the great range of color temps available more people will use them which will be great for us because it will mean more choices.

Hey Richard, I agree it may take a balance of both hot and cool lights to make it happen. The benefit is that you can have the CFLs directly on the talent and crew, and the backgrounds far enough away and not radiating their heat.

The CFLs being so soft and limited in their range do little to spill over or effect the background, so that's a benefit. Barndoors or a little tape and black foamcore can fix very tight setups.

I get the same look with the lowell kits. The only indication would be the sweat on my forehead and clothes. It's not a pleasant experience. In fact, I've setup early, shut down for hour to allow things to cool before restriking when the talent arrives. By the third take it gets warm again.

Lowes, at least my in area, does not carry the N:vision brand. They have the 2700K and 3200K bright effects. I emagine CRI 80 or less. However, my eyes told me the story when I first struck the N:vision's 5500K's. I knew these were the ones to get. Any minor differences are handled in a custom white balance. Even my HC1 faired well in the test, grainy, but colors were good.

I was pleasant surprised by this little experiment, and didn't do much past $50 at the hardware store. However, It's not really a portable solution yet. The advantage of my lowell kit to having 2000watts of light in four units that will fit into a suitcase will have to be addressed. I may have to modify existing kits to accomate these lights and still have portability. Including having to carry at least one hard light.

I have a partial solution for getting a controllable fluorescent light.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=48737&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

The Smith-Victor A120 is fairly large and a single 32-40W compact fluorescent can fit in it's socket. I used it on a shoot yesterday as a hair light. I think this is fine for a single person interview, but the strength of one of these bulbs is marginal. I modified the socket mount of a Smith-Victor PL12 so it can accomodate a socket Y-adapter and put two 40W CFLs in it. It needs diffusion to prevent dual shadows, but it is reasonable bright. Of course, I recommend the barn door accessories for these lights. I even made a grid from plastic grid from the hardware store that I painted black.

The interview yesterday was a 3-person interview on a white background. It was lit by a softbox w/200W fluorescent (like one pictured at coollights), the two-bulb PL12 and the single-bulb A120. All bulbs/lamps were 5000K and matched nicely. Oh, I put a kicker on the background with a clamp-lamp and a 32W 5000K bulb.

There was enough light for exposure at F2, but when I zoomed in with my V1 it went to F2.4 and it started to look a bit dim. It isn't outside of color-correction range, but I would rather have more light for a set this size.

If I did my attachment right, there is a picture of the set showing the softbox w/200W, PL12 w/2x32W, and a kicker with aluminum foil attached before I switched the lamp to a 32W 5000K. This is a no-budget shoot, so my lights were much better than nothing and everyone was happy they weren't cooking under tungsten. We were able to leave the door open without worrying about the sunlight spilling in to cast the wrong colors.

One thing that surprised me is the lack of light from the 200W fixture. I think the orientation of the elements in this giant mogul-based fixture is not really the best for a softbox.

The more I experiment, the more I want one of the coollights 6-lamp PL55 banks (CL-655). Those lamps are oriented correctly for best efficiency. I might want a fabric grid, but I would be willing to cannibalize the one from my softbox.

I think a great interview kit would be something like a fresnel with 5500K HID lamp, a coollights CL-455 as fill, and a CL-655 as key. I suppose if the lights were bright enough that a reflector could be substituted as fill. I would like a kit bright enough to use my Brevis35 and my current kit isn't quite there.

Hey Marcus, I concur with your comments regarding bulb strength and design. Simply swapping in a CFL bulb into a rig not well suited or specifically designed to benefit is no better than just using the bulb itself inside a tin can.

What these bulbs lack in range and throw, their lack of heat makes them well suited for close proximity use on people. They are more pleasing and comfortable than even a 200watt tungsten in a Rifa44. (I got the 44 because it was the smallest and least intense thing for this kind of use. I certainly couldn't use it on a larger set. I have lowel omni's at 700watts for that).

Anyway, I used a 23watt (100watt equiv) CLF without any cover or diffusion, as it's very diffuse nature was a perfect match. I do recommend barn doors for the key, as it can spill into the background for small sets (such your example).

The fill was a 13watt (40watt equiv) and I used some translucent white tracing paper as the diffusion and cut. If lighting more than one person, or a larger area it's limited range won't do.

I'm thinking about one of those 85watt (300watt tungsten equivalent) CFLs, and how it would do in a modified rifa44 soft box. Would it throw enough light so I can use a foldable fabric bounce for the fill? That would be perfect as a portable, close proximity interview light. Small enough to squeeze into a porta-brace bag with the camera, or large backpack for on the go and as carry on when flying.

I do know one thing, I have some shoots scheduled in the OR, and one of those CFL's will clamp nicely to the ceiling, out of the way and should prove interesting as a soft flood.

While on the subject, I wonder what it would take to mount one these on a camera, and how to power it? They are very light and use much less wattage. Possibilities.

I had a DP in Hollywood that made one of my fluorescent worklight conversions a while back and was going to mount on the top of his camera but he wanted a dimmable and I couldn't find a suitable CRI high enough to not cause problems with actual film use. Yes he was really shooting film. If it had been for video there would have been little or no problem is my guess. Dimmable is something we can't do well in CFL spirals for the time being.

For on camera lights what you would need would be a very small unit with a hot shoe mount on the bottom of it and one of your 13w units is probably about as large as you could handle before the whole thing would be too big. A spiral works best actually with a round parabolic reflector around it so a smaller fixture with the hotshoe would do it and then maybe you could fashion some barn doors on it like I do.

Of course, powering the whole thing with a battery is another problem. You would need an inverter so that the ballast could see AC 110v voltage as it expects. With inverter and light, I can't imagine that the usable time would be very good.

I wonder if another possibility might be modifying a battery powered fluorescent worklight which would have much of the infrastructure ready for portable use. Then you just need to figure out how to mount it to the camera. Find the smallest one you can...

One thing that surprised me is the lack of light from the 200W fixture. I think the orientation of the elements in this giant mogul-based fixture is not really the best for a softbox.

Was that the Maxlite unit? I'm surprised you didn't find it adequate. I use mine these days without silk on the front. But to tell you the truth, I end up using the 4x55 more now or just spirals when space is too tight.

The more I experiment, the more I want one of the coollights 6-lamp PL55 banks (CL-655). Those lamps are oriented correctly for best efficiency. I might want a fabric grid, but I would be willing to cannibalize the one from my softbox.

This brings up a good point. While I have some attention here, we've got eggcrate prototypes now. I enclosed a picture here of one for a 4x55. It's about 12mm thick (7/16") and should be black when finished. The sample was just aluminum unfinished. Simply slide out the barndoor unit and slide in the eggcrate.

You said you prefer fabric grid. Is that for portability sake? Or is it because the apertures are usually larger on a fabric one? Or both...

I think a great interview kit would be something like a fresnel with 5500K HID lamp, a coollights CL-455 as fill, and a CL-655 as key. I suppose if the lights were bright enough that a reflector could be substituted as fill. I would like a kit bright enough to use my Brevis35 and my current kit isn't quite there.

Which video camera will you be using that 35mm adapter with? Personally I prefer 255 and 455 but I'm not using any 35mm adapters and those really need a lot of light. In fact, I wonder if this is why you felt the light inadequate from the 200w unit.

My VX2000 in fact works so well that many times the 30w spirals, well placed are all I need. In my last vlog entry I had only 3 30w 5500K lights running. A magenta wash on the wall, a fill and a key--all in fluorescent worklight conversion housings with barn doors. The office I used was too small for the other larger units. As per what we were saying earlier, I had to pay particular attention to not get the fill and the key on the wall or it would wash out the magenta which looks great until some other light spills on it. Hence why you're right, a very small portable HID unit (70 to 150w range) would be a great addition to a portable kit for the guy who doesn't like to heat his talent up.

Or how about this: a 60w LED (yes one single LED) which would be the equivalent of about a 180w light--putting out around 1800 lumens. The nice thing about that is it doesn't emit as much UV as the HID solution--hence not so hot like the metal halide. The catch is that the LED is still pretty pricey so any instrument you make with it will be much higher than a tungsten equivalent. I was thinking about a small pepper type fresnel for this LED and am experimenting with it now. Should have a sample housing in soon to make a very small fresnel unit with it.

I just bought a pair of the following for $35:

HIGH-OUTPUT COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS
PART NO. WATTS WATTS VOLTS STYLE LUMENS TEMP. TYPE LENGTH
CFS3065321E26MED 65W 300 120 SPIRAL 4,160 3200K E26 MED. 7”
http://www.garvinindustries.com/pdf/18.pdf
The cri is 86

These are the first compact flos that I have had that really put out an honest 3200k. I would rate the light quality as quite good. I would have no problem mixing them with tungsten 3200Ks. Neither my camera or a sheet of diffraction gating showed a difference. They are huge lamps though, about 6" in diameter with a very large ballast. The good news on the ballast is no hum.

I find the tungsten equivalent watts ratings for all compact flos to be much too high. These lamps are 65watts I would rate them at about 150-180 watts equivalent. This is consistent with what I have observed from other manufacturers. Multiply the flo watt rating by no more than 3 to get the tungsten equivalent.

Yes that's possible. Even I get lazy and multiply everything by 4 but its the case that those super small self-ballasted units have a less efficient ballast than the separate ballast units. So you're right multiplying by 3 maybe more right on many of the spirals. The spec to watch for is "power factor" and its rarely quoted on spirals and other small wattage self-ballasted. Power factor on ballasts like I use in my pro fixtures is high like .98 and 1.0 is perfect. The small wattage spirals have a power factor of .75 or .8 many times.

Check these out: http://www.fullspectrumsolutions.com/42w_power_compact_bulb_412_prd1.htm

They claim these have a 94 + CRI; they'd be great even if the CRI were 90, don't you think? I think the high CRI is due to the fact that they're specially made for "light therapy".

Those are going more towards the blue end of the spectrum (why they call them "Blue max" : ). I like 5500k as it's dead center of white. You might want to consider Alzo digital's 85watt, 5500K CFLs. A few bucks more for twice the lumen output.

http://alzodigital.com/online_store/replacement_lamps.htm#ALZO%20cool%20lites

Yes I agree. FSS changed their manufacturer and only carry 5900K now. Too bad.

"You said you prefer fabric grid. Is that for portability sake? Or is it because the apertures are usually larger on a fabric one? Or both..."

I don't necessarily prefer fabric, but it is hard to beat it's portability. I would also like to keep both grids and barn doors working together. For your lights, I would probably just put velcro on the barn doors and attach fabric. That way, I could place it in any position. Close to the bulbs would allow a bit of spill and further out on the barn doors would cause a sort of "snoot" effect. Also, unless the aluminum is very thin, more squares means more light blocked.

"Which video camera will you be using that 35mm adapter with? Personally I prefer 255 and 455 but I'm not using any 35mm adapters and those really need a lot of light. In fact, I wonder if this is why you felt the light inadequate from the 200w unit."

I own the Sony V1 and we also used the Sony A1 CMOS HDV and the Sony Z1 on the shoot. They all were down into the F2.x range, which doesn't leave a lot of room. I have the Brevis35 which doesn't eat a huge amount of light, but just one f-stop of light needs double the light. That brings my desires into the range of the 655.

The actual reason I felt the 200W (I think it's the same fixture pictured on your site) was inadequate is because the 2x32W Smith-Victor PL12 was almost as bright as the 200W softbox. I can only assume that the orientation of the tubes and the fabric eat a lot of light. Perhaps I will go without the fabric next time.

"My VX2000 in fact works so well that many times the 30w spirals, well placed are all I need."

I kinda miss my VX2000, but the V1 normally has a much better image.

"In my last vlog entry I had only 3 30w 5500K lights running. The office I used was too small for the other larger units."

Size does matter. I think my lights were about 6 feet away from their nearest talent, so that means about a quarter of the light is hitting them as opposed to a close interview with the lights 3 feet away. In a one-camera interview, it would be a simple matter to bring the lights in a bit to pick up an f-stop, but the director wanted my camera to do what I would call "effect" work. He wanted the overly tight and roaming composition. This required the two other cameras to ensure coverage. I was the only camera operator, so this couldn't be done with only one stationary camera. More tripods meant that I needed more space to get shots. I guess this particular interview is a special situation, but I would still like to graduate to something more powerful when money is available.

"Hence why you're right, a very small portable HID unit (70 to 150w range) would be a great addition to a portable kit for the guy who doesn't like to heat his talent up. Or how about this: a 60w LED (yes one single LED) which would be the equivalent of about a 180w light--putting out around 1800 lumens. I was thinking about a small pepper type fresnel for this LED and am experimenting with it now."

Fresnel lights are the cornerstone of a lot of light kits for a reason. I think I just learned this reason. Although I prefer soft light, total control is sometimes going to be required. A cool-running daylight-balanced fresnel sort of fixture that doesn't cost $HMI$ money would be quite useful. The little Lowel Pro-light is a nifty fixture and it would be great if it could be 5500K and cool without costing two thousand dollars.

Mr. Cool lights up there has patterns and instructions on his website for putting barndoors on clamp lights as well ( http://www.coollights.biz/wordpress/archives/21 )...I'm running with GE Softwhite CFL's in ACDelco Clamp lights. The GE's go up to 150watt equiv and the ACDelco's don't have the friction knuckles, they're bolted in place so you wan't have to keep buying them when they fall apart...you can get them online, nice long cables too. :) I'm going to see about getting a couple of those monster CFL's above...very nice.

Make sure you are using a balanced audio system with these lights, they're really buzzy...and soundtrack pro can only remove so much before the voices are destroyed...listen to the audio in my short scare tactics for examples after scrubbing, and I've got all my footage from my latest short online at http://www.yafiunderground.com/bolts.php This is straight out of the camera...you'll be able to hear how much RF these lights through out.

Mr. Cool lights up there ...

Great. My new name ;-)

Make sure you are using a balanced audio system with these lights, they're really buzzy...and soundtrack pro can only remove so much before the voices are destroyed...listen to the audio in my short scare tactics for examples after scrubbing, and I've got all my footage from my latest short online at http://www.yafiunderground.com/bolts.php This is straight out of the camera...you'll be able to hear how much RF these lights through out.

You know this is interesting. I never have this buzzing problem but I hear other people say occasionally they do. We should try to scientifically figure out what we can do to make sure we don't get buzz when using these things so we know exactly what to recommend to someone when they say they have the problem.

Also, unless the aluminum is very thin, more squares means more light blocked.

The aluminum is very thin. I noticed no one is really putting out a large aperture eggcrate for their fixture. If you had your idea, what would be the aperture width and depth for the eggcrate.


I kinda miss my VX2000, but the V1 normally has a much better image.

I have a Red reserved but I'm still not sure that's what I want. I haven't decided on my true HD path yet but before I saw the Red I really liked the Thomson Infinity. The only reason I went with the Red was the extra versatility of the higher definition modes which I might want someday.


Size does matter. I think my lights were about 6 feet away from their nearest talent, so that means about a quarter of the light is hitting them as opposed to a close interview with the lights 3 feet away. In a one-camera interview, it would be a simple matter to bring the lights in a bit to pick up an f-stop, but the director wanted my camera to do what I would call "effect" work. He wanted the overly tight and roaming composition. This required the two other cameras to ensure coverage. I was the only camera operator, so this couldn't be done with only one stationary camera. More tripods meant that I needed more space to get shots. I guess this particular interview is a special situation, but I would still like to graduate to something more powerful when money is available.

I'm mostly working by myself and when using 30w fixtures they are always around 3 feet or so away. Never more than 6. It just doesn't work well--drop off is too steep with any softlight, these included.


Fresnel lights are the cornerstone of a lot of light kits for a reason. I think I just learned this reason. Although I prefer soft light, total control is sometimes going to be required. A cool-running daylight-balanced fresnel sort of fixture that doesn't cost $HMI$ money would be quite useful. The little Lowel Pro-light is a nifty fixture and it would be great if it could be 5500K and cool without costing two thousand dollars.

Now you know why I'm moving into other areas of attack. I knew after a while we would need a "hardlight" solution but I'm not going to sell tungsten. Everyone else can if they want but I'm heading in more interesting directions. We can get you a 150w fresnel for significantly under $2000 and most likely under $1000. We may even be able to do the 60w single LED fresnel under $1000. And how about this, maybe even with a choice between 3200K and 5600K.

I'm not sure about the size of the grids. I guess what really matters is the ratio between size and depth. If I could adjust the position of the grid so I can choke it down or open it up, I think even an even cell-size vs. depth would be appropriate. That would give options for up to 90 degree spread (45 degrees to right and left) down to completely snooted so that the beam cast is almost straight and the size of the light itself.

I have never taken apart a fresnel light, so I don't know how they accomplish focus. Is it a simple matter of changing the distance between the lens and the bulb? If so, it should be easy to get one of these made with a CMH or that LED you linked. A nice benefit of a fresnel made with cool light would be the safety factor and the ability to use it outdoors with a battery for quickly filling backlit scenes.

The RED looks absolutely dreamy, but it's way beyond my means and a bit large for what I do.

Peter, I thought I would build a light bank for the spirals but I ran across one that has 9 sockets, is only 8 inches square, weighs about 3 pounds (with bulbs) and cost about 80 bucks.
What's unique is it has 2 circuits. One switch for 5 sockets and one switch for the other four.
I put 5 N:vison Daylight (5500 kelvin) bulbs (Home Depot) in circuit 1, and 4 soft white (3300 kelvin) (Lowes) in circuit 2.
It so happens that because the Daylight bulbs have a higher CRI they put out 1300 Lumens. The Soft White put out 1600 Lumens. They're almost the same total light output.
Anyhow I used the setup on a TV Shoot in an Interior Design Company. I ended up using only the soft white bank to bring up the brightness on the models. It blew me away how bright these lights were. I made side extenions out of wood to protect the bulbs (in transit) and covered the inside with mylar to increase the output further. I also now have a second unit, they make a great green screen lighting unit also.

Gary

I own the Sony V1 and we also used the Sony A1 CMOS HDV and the Sony Z1 on the shoot. They all were down into the F2.x range, which doesn't leave a lot of room. I have the Brevis35 which doesn't eat a huge amount of light, but just one f-stop of light needs double the light. That brings my desires into the range of the 655.

Marcus, I agree those small CMOS cams ring in around f2.0 or near full. While the Canon was around f3.4-3.7. (I've posted a frame grab from HC1 under the same setup -in my flickr account, the link is provided below).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45378940@N00/446288238/

This is why I consider the HC1 and others like it best for outdoors, or mid-day (natural light) camera. Otherwise, to prevent extra gain/grain you'd have to use studio lights so hot they would interfere with the talents or blow out portions of the shoot. I can get away with using the HC1 while shooting medical procedures in the OR, only because they use highly intense lights anyway, and I stay within f3-f4 range.

It's a shame because I like the small form factor of the HC1 and that it can be held and controlled in a professional manner. However, it's limited and if I were to go with CFLs, I'm inclined to stick with my G1. Even with CFLs, anything beyond 2000 lumens of lights can get uncomfortably bright, no matter how cool, in order to make these small camera's work.

Peter, I thought I would build a light bank for the spirals but I ran across one that has 9 sockets, is only 8 inches square, weighs about 3 pounds (with bulbs) and cost about 80 bucks.
What's unique is it has 2 circuits. One switch for 5 sockets and one switch for the other four...Gary

Gary, where did you find that multi-socket device? Was it at home depot?

I think that might be the ticket, and your experience seems to confirm that. I was considering a multi-outlet surge protector and using some $2ea direct plugin light sockets. to create a cheap array.

Peter, I got got it here. But you can go directly to the store. They also hace a 16 bulb fixture but that may be overkill.
Gary
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160054227930

We should try to scientifically figure out what we can do to make sure we don't get buzz when using these things so we know exactly what to recommend to someone when they say they have the problem.

I was using an audio technica-ATR55 both wired and wireless into my XL1s. When playing the buzzy footage back to a friend of mine who graduated from Fullsail for audio engineering, he instantly said..."Oh, sounds like you're using an unbalanced audio system." He described that the process I use to scrub buzzy audio is essentially the same thing done in XLR (balanced) based systems to get clean audio over long (read:antennas) cable runs.

Two positive leads, one is phase inverted at the source (microphone). It's re-inverted at the receiving end. When you phase invert a signal and over lay it with the original, the waves cancel one another out. Due to the fact that the mic signal is out of phase on separate cables, when inverted back to normal at the end, nothing happens to them...but anything that entered the cable en route gets phase cancelled when the receiving end inversion occurs.

The unbalanced system doesn't have the inversion electronics happening, therefor anything that enters the line en route stays as you can hear in my footage listed above. The power cable proximity acts as a large broadcast antenna (audio runs over power lines when unavoidable should be perpendicular when crossing to minimize 60hz {UK-50Hz there's an exchange rate calculation ;) } rf field contact) and the transformer in the balast buzzes, spiking with each discharge of the electronics into the tube...higher frequency lights = higher frequency buzz which don't get eliminated by 60hz power hum filters.

Switching to a balanced audio system (new mic, cables and XLR input block-canon ma100) allows me to twist the power cable and the mic cable to gether and get no buzz entering the line :) ...although this is not a recommended cable run technique. I can get it to buzz by touching the microphone to the light...but that's pretty extreme.

Of course. I should have thought of that is the difference. I always use balanced cables and inputs/outputs on everything and I never have any interference problems as a result. I will say though that I still think that wireless sucks even when using balanced runs.

"This is why I consider the HC1 and others like it best for outdoors, or mid-day (natural light) camera. Otherwise, to prevent extra gain/grain you'd have to use studio lights so hot they would interfere with the talents or blow out portions of the shoot."

From what I've said so far, you might think I would agree. Actually, I was rather pleased with the Sony A1 and it's CMOS performance. For under $2000, this camera produces a nice image. I really place the "blame" for any difficulties I had on the lights and my mistakes. I should have used the two-bulb fixture as a backlight and the single as the fill. The 2x32W fixture was overkill as fill to the 200W softbox.

It's ultimately the fault of the softbox having poor efficiency. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice light for 200W, but I don't think it's the right way to go for soft fluorescent light. The PL55 fixtures like the coollights CL-455 are probably much more efficient because they spread out the light with the bulb itself and don't need any diffusion between them and the talent. The softbox requires reflection and diffusion to get softness. The softbox is also probably more time-consuming to set up than an all-inclusive fixture with barn doors.

Okay, here is why it's okay to go crazy with fluorescent light. You can use as much light as you want because your talent will never be looking at anything brighter than a fluorescent tube. No, it's not pleasing to put your face right into a fluorescent tube, but it's not like looking into the sun or even a bright tungsten fixture. Spreading the light out has many benefits. The only problem is control and big barndoors and grids can mitigate the issue.

The benefit of having excess light is that you can bring your camera into the ranges where the lens and imager look best. Wide open with just a bit of gain is okay, but F4 with no gain is better. This does require much more light, but we're not talking about thousands of watts. If I use my 2x32W fixture as a basis, I think it would be okay as a fill if the key was 4x as bright (2 f-stops). That gets us into that 9x30W CFL fixture Gary has or probably the CL-455 with 4x55W long tubes. I've worked with a Diva400 that uses the same 4 tubes and it was pretty darn bright without being blinding.

With lots of light, you can also increase the contrast between the talent and the background without bringing the lights in too close. Of course, if you don't want this, the extra light can always be turned down. Extra lights for the green screen are mentioned by Gary as a good use of an extra fixture or two. I can't imagine a better light for the green screen as fluorescent tends to reduce hot spots.

Marcus, I agree that you can use enough light to get a Sony HC CMOS cam back into F3 or 4, just that, and from my experimentation, you won't heat things up, but it can uncomfortably bright. So, yes, something like the HC1 can be used professionally, and that I do in the ORs or during the afternoon where light is already abundant, (I like my HC1 -best $1400 ever spent).

However, for me, I get the benefits of both a pleasing level of light and zero heat by just opting for the my Canon G1. This means less lights, less gear, no barn doors, etc. It's simple physics is all. I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out my findings.

If I were reading this thread and only had one of the HC cameras, then it's not a hopeless situation, as having multiple CFLs point at you is still better than even one 300Watt tungsten. I do agree, that talents would complain more about the heat than about the brightness. Besides, it's to be expected, and the alternative is swap out CFLs back to tungstens and know what those cheeseburgers on the warming racks must feel.

"but it can uncomfortably bright"

I can look directly at any fluorescent source without serious discomfort. All performance fluorescents produce a similar amount of light per square inch so there aren't any super bright spots. More lumens with fluorescent just means more area. No, it's not fun to look right into the light, but the talent is usually looking a bit towards the camera rather than a light.

Assuming about 20 lumens per watt (studio tungsten is more efficient than consumer), compare the ~13,000 lumens that a simple Arri 650 puts out from a face about 6" in diameter to the 11,600 lumens from the relatively huge CL-455 fixture with 4x55W tubes. Even if the Arri is not as efficient as 20 lumens per watt, it is clear that a fluorescent fixture is much easier to look into than a tungsten.

There may be some cumulative effect at looking in the direction of a huge fluorescent fixture, but it isn't really all that bad. Couple that with the cool comfort and fluorescent is a huge improvement overall to talent being shot by video. Nobody seemed bothered at all by the brightness of the lights during the interview and another f-stop of brightness shouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't start to hurt until you get these energy efficient point light sources like the ceramic metal halide (hmi by another name) and my 60w single LED (1800 lumens). Both those really leave spots in the eyes if you look at them too long. Particularly the daylight versions...

Marcus, do you remember what your shutter speeds were for the shoot? I believe that you had the iris wide open. The HC1 is having trouble, adding more lights creates issues bleeding into background, and not much gain in image quality, etc., but I would think both your V1u and FX1 would have enough to pull it off.

I may consider upgrading my HC1 to a V1U. I need something small and professional looking. Currently only a dressed A1/HC1 and a V1u fit that ticket.

My goal of using these CFLs is less gear and small proximities. Otherwise, why bother, I'd just break out the big guns. I like the idea of everything in one rolling case.

"The HC1 is having trouble, adding more lights creates issues bleeding into background,"

Could you explain that? Bleeding into the background? Do you mean spill?

All cameras were set to 1/60 shutter.

My goal with fluorescent is to have equal look as tungsten kits, daylight compatibility, low temperature, and the reduced electrical draw that can allow shooting in locations with insufficient wiring and/or from batteries.

I favor somewhat soft lighting, so I would probably be using somewhat larger tungsten fixtures anyway (softboxes).

I favor somewhat soft lighting, so I would probably be using somewhat larger tungsten fixtures anyway (softboxes).

I think HD in general favors soft light. How often do you work with talent that has perfect skin? How often do you work with a room and background that has great details, etc. HD picks up all these imperfections so softlight helps balance that out.

Another thing on your comments about the 200w light. It's also a truth that the ballasts in these self-ballasted lights aren't as efficient as fixtures like the CL-455, and others that have separate ballasts. Those ballasts that are chosen with the criteria for all the things we appreciate in video production are hard to rival for quality, efficiency, etc. The spec known as "power factor" in any ballast tells the real story. You want as high a number approaching 1 as possible -- where 1 is perfect. It describes how much of the theoretical output you really reach when operating. Our ballasts are somewhere in the range of .95 to .98. The ballast on the typical 200w light is more in the .8 range so it's wattage output is not as efficient as one of the CL-455 ballasts. You just can't fit that sophisticated of circuitry in such a small package as that required by these self-ballasted lights.

I did some further testing with the HC1, and have better results with a classic three light setup (key, fill and back or edge). I did this over my lunch break, so if you see gear in the scene, etc. I wasn't too concerned. My only goal: to get a clean, noise-free image with minimal lighting.

The trick? Well, as Marcus indicated, just add more light. Only, I went over-board initially. Too much. Taking a redo, I only needed one extra 23watt CLF to the key, thus using two 23watt CFLs to equal a single 200watt tungsten output (Duh! Don't know what I was thinking, or not). Anyway, that did the trick, I was able to use F2, and 0dB for a noise free image that would pass muster.

Here's a link to my flickr site, and the slide slow for 1/60sec shutter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45378940@N00/sets/72157600060424743/show/

and for 1/30sec shutter:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45378940@N00/sets/72157600060585748/show/

Peter, I agree that your current rig does the job. Personally, I would want more light so that a bit of zooming would be possible. It looks like the amount of light you have is just on the edge of workability for the HC1. The shots that looked good were 1/60 f1.8 6db and 1/30 f1.8 and 0db. Without increasing gain to an unacceptable level, there is almost no leeway in this setup. I might switch to 30-40W bulbs/lamps. Regardless, it does work and it cheap and portable. What is that? A 3-point setup for $50? Really, the only thing I noticed was that the backlight was a bit low and hitting mostly the neck area instead of coming down and hitting the hair and shoulders. I'm thinking you may not be using a light stand and can't get high enough. Get one more 8-ft. stand and you have a nice portable setup that gets the job done for a ridiculously small amount of money and space. A bungee cord or two will strap the stands to your rolling cart.

This is clear proof that CFL works and can be made into a portable kit. It's the brains that count, not the cost of the equipment.

Richard, I'm sure you are right about the 200W lamp. I'm thinking I might just take off the diffusion the next time I use it and want more light. The source is so spread out that it's not really that harsh without. I think one factor in favor of keeping the 200W softbox is that it looks more professional than my other lights.

Peter, I think I might know why you feel more light is too much in your setup. You may be running into effects from the inverse square law. Your light may be so close that the side of the talent's face that is closest to the key is getting much more light than the other side. Think of it this way:

Assume you are doing a profile shot of someone and their nose is pointing toward the key light. The tip of their nose is closer to the light than their ears by about 6 inches. If the key light is very close, the nose could be getting twice as much light as the ears from the same light. This will cause a highlight on the nose and the ears to underexpose. Of course, this is not a normal situation, but your real scenario may have the light so close that you are getting highlights on the keylit side of the face too soon. Pull the light a bit farther back and you will get more even exposure across the face. Of course, this requires more light and these open fixtures may spill even more, but you get the idea.

P
Richard, I'm sure you are right about the 200W lamp. I'm thinking I might just take off the diffusion the next time I use it and want more light. The source is so spread out that it's not really that harsh without. I think one factor in favor of keeping the 200W softbox is that it looks more professional than my other lights.

It does look pro. Walk in a room with that 8U bulb and people notice it. ;-)

Hey Marcus, I realize I could have used more light and the placed the stands farther away, etc. The backlight was just set on the table as I did this over my lunch break and only had about 15minutes. But that was the challenge, how quickly and cheaply could it be done, and with as little room as possible? (Do understand that I have about five-grand invested in both photo and video light kits, gels, etc. I could easily just spend the usual half-day in perfecting the set).

I'm aware of the back light, I just set it on the table as I was impressed with that particular clamp that would double as a stand. I could have also moved the key around another 15 degrees, and up a foot to address the neck shadow, and place the nose shadow directly downwards.

I also dealt with the 'discomfort' of direct light, as looking down the nose of those CFLs can be distracting in close quarters. So using a simple Y adaptor, I was able to angle the CFLs to prevent direct lighting and rely more on reflected lighting from the housing.

There are folks here whom are just starting out, and I, like you, wish to convey that it's not about going into debt trying to get 'the kit' in order to do the job. It's about the application and thinking things through. Being a problem solver, starting with the basics and working from there. There really is no magic to this, just lots of practice and patience. So yeah, $50 bucks might have been a stretch, and maybe a $100 for a few more lights would be a better start.

I highly recommend those starting out to check out Nino Gianotti's website epflighting.com. That will give you the visuals needed to get started. What I've done here is apply similiar techniques with $50 of Home Depot goodness. So, no more excuses.

It does look pro. Walk in a room with that 8U bulb and people notice it. ;-)

I think these lights alone will earn some points. It's just that presentation is part of the game. Many folks in the profession are familiar with the hoods, and their absence may raise questions. Give it some time, folks will adopt.

BTW, Andrew I'm interested in learning more about these new high output LEDs. They speak compact to me. Any pictures?

How about a fluorescent spiral in a worklight fixture with barndoors attached. Looks confusingly like a video light almost doesn't it. LOL...

On the 60w LED I'll post pictures soon of the LED and the fixture I've chosen for it too.

Update. I just shot an outside situation where senior management of a mall was demonstrating (to corporate) how traffic was being controlled during their huge construction projects. Anyhow, the sun was at an unflattering position, could not use reflectors. I used one of my cfl spiral boxes on half power and run off an inverter in my car. Voila! no harsh shadows.
The CFL's are very viable and useful.
Gary

That's great. The normal expectation is that you need an HMI to do that kind of work outside.

Gary, is this what you're using?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160054227930#ebayphotohosting

Just finished adding barndoors to my clamps

Note the ACDelco neck attachment is by bolt, not by friction knuckle...I've gone through 10 of the knuckle based lights, but still use the same 5 ACDelcos! Paint is high heat paint for grill interiors. Bulbs are CFL GE Softwhite bulbs. They have wattage equivs up to 250 tungsten watts.

Wow, good job. Just like the one I did ;-). So your bulbs are drawing 60 actual watts? That's a pretty big one. Didn't know there were GE ones that big yet.

Looks like you decided to use all rivets. I'll be interested to hear how that goes. I found that with the thin aluminum fixtures, its better to attach the hinges to the worklight with machine screws, nuts and lock washers. More secure. Also, looks like you decided not to add the compression spring and wing nut to one side of each hinge. Sometimes I found that the rivets (after much movement of the barndoors) become too loose and the upper and lower barndoors (which are subject to gravity more don't stay in place as well). Hence the reason for adding a machine screw, compression spring and lock washer on one side of the hinge and rivet on the other. Allows tightening up the movement should it get too loose.

If you have time, could you post those pictures in my forum under the user articles DIY section? See link below:

http://www.coollights.biz/forum/index.php?board=6.0

Yes Mark that's it. I put 5 100watt daylight (5500k) in one circuit and 4 100watt 3500k in the other circuit.
Gary

I don't have the screws because the hardware store was closed when I decided I wanted the screws...they're open now and pop rivets are both cheap and easy to remove...after one night, I've already got some play in one of my hinges, so I'm switching it over.

I'm also going to double check the wattage of the largest bulb I can get from GE...their website says 26, but I'm sure I found one bigger at target.

[snippet]
Now you know why I'm moving into other areas of attack. I knew after a while we would need a "hardlight" solution but I'm not going to sell tungsten. Everyone else can if they want but I'm heading in more interesting directions. We can get you a 150w fresnel for significantly under $2000 and most likely under $1000. We may even be able to do the 60w single LED fresnel under $1000. And how about this, maybe even with a choice between 3200K and 5600K.

Richard - I was rereading this thread and thought of a question I have wanted to ask you about your new endeavors. Above, you talk about a "150w fresnel..." and I was wondering what kind of a bulb you were indicating in that. Also, do you mean an actual 150 watts of a tungsten equivalent? Because, unless I have it wrong, you can get an Arri fresnel (tungsten, of course) at 150 watts for way less than $1000.

I, for one, am very eager to see your new developments. I am in a position to wait (a little) to make some lighting investments and your new product ideas sound especially attractive. Keep us posted.

Thanks.
TVH

Richard - I was rereading this thread and thought of a question I have wanted to ask you about your new endeavors. Above, you talk about a "150w fresnel..." and I was wondering what kind of a bulb you were indicating in that. Also, do you mean an actual 150 watts of a tungsten equivalent? Because, unless I have it wrong, you can get an Arri fresnel (tungsten, of course) at 150 watts for way less than $1000.

I, for one, am very eager to see your new developments. I am in a position to wait (a little) to make some lighting investments and your new product ideas sound especially attractive. Keep us posted.

Thanks.
TVH

Hi Terry,

One thing you can count on, I never quote a product equivalent wattage up front and I always state that its equivalent wattage when I talk about a higher one. The 150w is a ceramic metal halide 150w bulb/ballast in a fresnel fixture. With metal halide you have from 80 to 140 lumens per watt. I usually quote 3 times for equivalent with HMI or metal halide to be conservative so the 150w actual is almost a 500w tungsten equivalent.

In addition, its not really a "cool light" as such. I call it a "relatively cool light" and certainly way more energy efficient than tungsten (which there are plenty of other people supporting so I don't see why I need to jump on that wagon). It's energy efficient in lumens per watt but it still puts out a lot of heat so we still need a bit of aircon to displace it's heat. Why? UV is the reason. These bulbs emit a lot of UV. Anything that emits UV is a great heat generator. It's why we'll have some kind of UV protection on our glass of these fixtures. This technology is about the most energy efficient point light source we have at the moment besides the 60w MLED I'm also working on--but that's only 60w and I don't know when we'll see bigger.

So, less than $1000 for a tungsten wouldn't be any news at all--you're right. You can find $200 brand new tungsten fresnels and even less in some cases. I meant we will break sub-$1000 prices for an HMI generic equivalent--ceramic metal halide. I'm not sure I can promise hot restrike yet though for the 150 but hot restrike may be possible on the larger wattage pars I have planned (575w and 1200w). What does "generic equivalent" mean? It means that HMI is by no means a proprietary technology (just a trademark that's way overused by some fixture manufacturers) and there have been other competitors in the same technology family which is basically ceramic metal halide for quite some time now. I wrote a Part I article on this recently:

http://www.coollights.biz/wordpress/archives/31#more-31

I'm completing part II very soon. What I'm basically saying is that you can find other less expensive HMI equivalent parts (bulb and ballast) to do the same thing just like you can find generic drugs that are cheaper than the original name brand...

Not cheap but look at this beauty:

http://www.teksupply.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&storeId=10001&productId=65629&langId=-1&division=TekSupply&pageId=ItemDetail&parent_category_rn=&top_category=&breadcrumb_trail=Lighting+Fixtures+%26+Bulbs%7CLight+Bulbs&breadcrumb_categoryIds=35044%7C35054&isDoc=

or try this link:

http://tinyurl.com/2a4lnx

Yes, you can use that one in my softbox fixture, the CL-SFT1. It's one of the ones I recommend to use with it. The other one is pretty good too and is quite a bit less but it seems like its back ordered a lot.

http://www.servicelighting.com/catalog_product.cfm?prod=MX35871