- Joined
- Mar 8, 2011
- Messages
- 25,311
- Reaction score
- 9,104
- Location
- Iowa
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
480sparky said:If someone had a sense of how 'bright' a 1,000 watt tungsten-filament lamp was, then that person could be led to believe that the 100 watt LED would product the same 'brightness'.
Do you mean say, a 100 LED fixture that has one hundred, three-Watt, super-efficient LED's positioned very close to highly reflective material that produces 90% reflective efficiency, as opposed to running 1,000 Watts of electricity through a teenty-tiny length of filament?
Not sure why you're referring to one hundred 3-watt LEDs, and why you're comparing it to a 1,000-watt incandescent. I never mentioned anything about 300-watt LED lights.
Because you seem to be uninformed about HOW MUCH LIGHT LED fixtures are capable of putting out, and you seem to be ignoring the fact that LED arrays typically have hugely-efficient reflector material, extremely close to the lamps themselves, and because your posts consistently seem to be minimizing LED lights and the performance they tend to produce. I have a 9-led flashlight, with four, 4-Watt bulbs and it produces bright,bright, bright light, and has lasted three years on one set of AA batteries. A 100-watt LED fixture can easily surpass the light output of a 1,000 watt bulb of old-timey technology in some 1920's style reflector.
You mentioned 100-Watts LED and 1,000 Watts t-f, and left the impression that the old-timey technology is the better tech. It's not necessarily, not in 2017. You set up a strawman at the top of your post. I tore your strawman down. You framed the discussion incompletely. Fixed it for you. You wrote: "If someone had a sense of how 'bright' a 1,000 watt tungsten-filament lamp was, then that person could be led to believe that the 100 watt LED would product the same 'brightness'."
That's a bogus comparison. I detailed the equivalent type of gear to your strawman 1,000 Watt t-f lamp...an inexpensive 100-bulkb count LED array. Your strawman was the erquivalewnt of something like a 1,000 Watt tungsten-fiulament lamp, and "five little 20-Watt-bulb nightlights". Youset up the "gravel truck vs barbie Corvette" comparison....I went on to set a more-accurate comparison between like-for-like, not The Hulk vs Schoolboy.
I hope that explains why you were confused: because the comparison you put forth was misleading. For example, 500-Watt photofloods put out LESS light than typical $40 made in China 100-LED lights. And your example 1,000 Watt tungsten filament lamps" these produce BLINDINGLY-harsh light that leaves retinal burn-in if the lamp is even glanced at for a second without diffusion material over it, while LED arrays typically are 1,000-times or more greater in actual AREA, producing light that is orders of magnitude softer, and more-usable for photography, right out of the box.
Your 1,000 Watt tungsten-filament is blinding because the filament is LESS_THAN the area of a match stick shaft, while the LED array is larger, and has more reflector material, is cooler, uses 20x less energy, and so on. "Brightness" alone is not to be confused with suitability for photography use; otherwise, we'd all be lugging arc welders around. The Lowell Omni-Light and Tota-Light lines of light, using tungsten-filament lighting...I've used them...they SUCK unless they are heavily, heavily diffused, with utterly brutal shadows and incredibly bare, bald specular highlights.
Focusing in on your 1,000 Watt tungsten filament vs 100-Watt LED strawman, the fact is that the 1,000- tungsten lamp will need a good three to four stops of diffusion to make light that is even workable for photography....thus rending it the virtual equivalent of an undiffused, LARGER-AREA 100-Watt LED light unit. My point was probably missed by not writing all this out, so people could see that we need to look at the "nature" of a 1,000 Watt tungsten filament lit up like the Sun, versus 100 Watts of light that is actually suitable for photography.
it's not the brightness necessarily: it is the suitability for actual use (harshm,unbworkable light that needs heavy diffusion vs ready-to-use lighting; battery life? 1,000-Watt T-F? Car Battery, 8 hours, 100-Watt LED, Car Battery, Days of runtime; hot enough to burn flesh or set the house on fire, or cool to the touch LED?,etc).
Ummm... it's totally obvious you really didn't read my posts. Set your drink down and go back and read them.
If there's something you don't understand about them, feel free to ask me.