Paul I have the bitube specs, I would post but youll just argue it. Paul Ive used wl in the past at a studio I used to work for solid units no problems, worked great day in and day out. So I wont bash your equipment, however the way you handle yourself must lose you more customers than you think, I can't remember the last I was on an fm lighting post without it being totally piggy backed by you saying how great your product was and arguing with some one over something like printed specs etc.
Im not offended by what you do or say, I mean hell its the freakin' internet, but it does annoy me when I can't even read a thread without you claiming how your products are so superior.
Do you ever wonder why Bron, Profoto, and Elinchrom seem to stay the leading industry standard? They must be doing something right eh?
rant over.
Klane wrote:
Paul I have the bitube specs, I would post but youll just argue it. Paul Ive used wl in the past at a studio I used to work for solid units no problems, worked great day in and day out. So I wont bash your equipment, however the way you handle yourself must lose you more customers than you think, I can't remember the last I was on an fm lighting post without it being totally piggy backed by you saying how great your product was and arguing with some one over something like printed specs etc.
Im not offended by what you do or say, I mean hell its the freakin' internet, but it does annoy me when I can't even read a thread without you claiming how your products are so superior.
Do you ever wonder why Bron, Profoto, and Elinchrom seem to stay the leading industry standard? They must be doing something right eh?
rant over....Show more →
If you have these specs why not publish them here instead of predicting I will just argue about them? After all, that's what this thread is supposed to be about - answering the first poster's questions and seeking knowledge.
For the love of 'your god' people... let's nip this in the bud and show an ounce of maturity for once. How can we ever discuss anything with all this hyper-sensitivity?
If some want to participate in an 'anti-advertising crusade' every time Paul speaks up, I'd hope you'd show a bit of consistency by confronting other members as well. I noticed no one publicly has a problem with Bruce 'pimping' his products/seminars in the One-Light Setups thread... multiple times. Let's be consistent instead of cherry-picking who can and who can't.
Paul, can you explain how you can repeatedly say that the A4 is 3x slower than the Zeus? Michael is quoting t.1 and you keep treating it like they are t.5 specs. I came up with the following numbers based off of my undestanding of Michael's post and your site. Can someone with more brains than I confirm or correct the numbers below? If these are correct, the A4 is by no means 3x slower as you have stated.
kkertz wrote:
For the love of 'your god' people... let's nip this in the bud and show an ounce of maturity for once. How can we ever discuss anything with all this hyper-sensitivity?
If some want to participate in an 'anti-advertising crusade' every time Paul speaks up, I'd hope you'd show a bit of consistency by confronting other members as well. I noticed no one publicly has a problem with Bruce 'pimping' his products/seminars in the One-Light Setups thread... multiple times. Let's be consistent instead of cherry-picking who can and who can't.
Paul, can you explain how you can repeatedly say that the A4 is 3x slower than the Zeus? Michael is quoting t.1 and you keep treating it like they are t.5 specs. I came up with the following numbers based off of my undestanding of Michael's post and your site. Can someone with more brains than I confirm or correct the numbers below? If these are correct, the A4 is by no means 3x slower as you have stated.
The Zeus is about three times faster at full power n terms of both t.1 and t.5. (A4 = 1/240 t.5, 1/80 t.1 at 3200WS) (Zeus 2500 = 1/900 t.5, 1/300 t.1 at 2500WS)
It remains faster in terms of t.5 times until the A4 pack is down to about 200WS.
In terms of t.1, by nature of it's IGBT power variation, the t.1 times of the A4 drop as you reduce the power, reaching approximate the same t.1 durations as Zeus when the A4 pack is dropped to about half power and becoming faster than Zeus below this point.
So it depends on whether one is speaking of t.5 times or t.1 times.
Admittedly, the A4 pack can achieve better action stopping t.1 times when it is dialed down considerably from its full power. I have stated this many times.
Problem is instead of taking a scientific approach to this complex equation, some posters just want confrontation. It would be nice if definative info were posted from the manufacturer's data instead of bits and scraps from old manuals regarding WS being stated as 8.8 and 7.9, etc, especially when 10 appears to be 3200WS on an A4 and 1600WS on an A2 in some references while other references to this numbering scheme relate a 10 to 3200WS regardless of model.
Paul should push his products, it his products. At least he is here on the forum talking about stuff. I don't see many other manufacturers around, do you?
In it's basic form, he's one voice for one (or two) product line(s). No different than anyone else that uses a product from any other manufacturer with the exception that he actually makes the product he talks about. Everyone else is just a user. With that, he didn't say MY PRODUCT IS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE. He said "I believe" and "I think" which are not a statements of fact but of an inference.
One last thing, won't power input make a difference in output? Not all household current is the same, even from outlet to outlet. So unless you are using converted conditioned power, your output may differ. Not to mention the equipment to measure the output might need to be calibrated. In the case of packs, the condition of the battery and the total amount of stored current could alter the output. BTW, I am not a technician, just one to stir the pot.
So, mtbakerskier, perhaps you won't buy Paul's product(s) since he is only a 'manufacturer' defending the information he has posted from the same web sites we all have access to, but you will buy a product from a person that is a 'user' that culls his information from the web sites we all have access to.
With that said, thanks for the original question, thanks for all the input and thanks to all for tuning in.
The Zeus is about three times faster at full power n terms of both t.1 and t.5. (A4 = 1/240 t.5, 1/80 t.1 at 3200WS) (Zeus 2500 = 1/900 t.5, 1/300 t.1 at 2500WS)
It remains faster in terms of t.5 times until the A4 pack is down to about 200WS.
Paul,
Sorry for taking so long to respond... been crazy busy.
I'm still not getting how your saying that the Zeus is 3x faster. You're comparing different ws (3200ws to 2500ws). Shouldn't you compare the A4 at 2500ws to the Zeus at 2500ws and so on?
I charted what numbers I came up with. What in this chart do you disagree with? Also, I don't know how you can say the Zeus has faster t.5 specs when Bron only seems to post the 100ws and 3200ws t.5 specs.
One last question, why do you quote the Zeus at 1/300 t.1 @ 2500ws when your site says 1/260? I agree it would be nice to have more specs to work with.
While I respect anyone who takes the time and thought to prepare such a presentation as you did.
But you are omitting the basic info regarding t.5 info on the A4 pack - because Bron chose not to specify these industry standard numbers. This is understandable - few on this forum really grasp the difference between how the Bron system and the Zeus system function or the core of what is being discussed here, or the fact that t.5, not t.1 is the long standing engineering standard for expressing flash duration - at least in the US and all engineering references.
Also, you are using numbers for Bron that don't appear in their published specs but which have been interpreted from opinions based on rather unclear notations in user manuals from equipment that is no longer made, to my knowledge.
I stated "Zeus remains faster in terms of t.5 until the A4 is down to about 200WS" and you say you don't get it. The reason you don't get it is because you don't have Bron's t.5 specs upon which one might make an intelligent presentation.
What I suggest is you get or measure the Bron t.5 performance and complete your graph. Were you to do this you would find the A4 t.5 curve would follow the Bron t.1 curve through much of the curve, remaining considerably longer than the Zeus t.5 curve through most of the power range - exactly as I stated.
There are vast differences in how t.1 and t.5 times interact in IGBT systems such as Bron and more conventional systems such as Zeus. Unless one has a complete comprehension of these differences and their affect on actual use, incomplete graphs and explanations only serve to confuse the issue.
I'm not here to convince anyone about the superiority of one sytem vs another - only to present what I know and to clarify to the extent I can, short of devoting my life to a thesis about the subject.
Paul Buff wrote:
the fact that t.5, not t.1 is the long standing engineering standard for expressing flash duration - at least in the US and all engineering references.
Paul, you yourself were posting your t0.1 specs at the beginning of this thread. There is a very simple rule of thumnb that you yourself have used here in the past: t0.1 times are usually about 3 times as long as t0.5 times.
We have t0.1 specs for both packs. There is nothing wrong with comparing those specs - it is an "apples to apples" comparison:
Paul Buff wrote:
I believe you will find the Zeus 1250 and 2500 packs coupled to the bi tube head to provide the shortest durations possible (1/3000 t.5, 1/1000 t.1 at 1250WS) at this power level, at any price.
I recently did some scientific testing using a splitter to feed a bi tube from 325WS on a Zeus 1250 pack and achieved 1/5300 t.5 - 1/2100 t.1. I think this is as fast as you can get without endangering things.
Also, you are using numbers for Bron that don't appear in their published specs but which have been interpreted from opinions based on rather unclear notations in user manuals from equipment that is no longer made, to my knowledge.
Though specs were directly from the Pulso A4 manual. That pack was the direct precursor to the Grafit. The Grafit improves on those specs, no question.
I can scan the full manual and post it online if you like. It certainly supplies a lot more useful information than the highest and lowest durations you linked to from Calumet. I have to say youy **really** make a lot of incorrect assumptions based on just those two numbers.
Yes, it is an older pack that was made until 1998. Interesting that they were posting such great specs more than 10 years ago, isn't it?
If you had ever used a Bron pack, you would realize that the "10.0", "9.0" notation system for their power output is their standard on all of their packs. Going from 9.0 to 8.0 is a 1 stop - 1/2 power - reduction. Going from 9.0 to 8.9 is a .1 stop reduction.
You can set a 1600Ws pack to have a top number of "9.0" and a 3200Ws to have a top number of "10.0" if you like. Then you can read relative power directly across packs - a very nice feature. The packs all ship with "10.0" as the top number, because they don't know what mix of packs you will have in *your* studio.
You really need to find out the **facts** on your competitors before you post specific information about someone elses product that is wrong.
I stand by my postings and by my history here. Kevin and Simon, among others, undewrstand exactly what I have posted in this thread.
Here is another detailed discussion on t0.1 and t0.5. Sorry to be tedius, just trying to discount the notion that t0.1 is some big mystery.
The relationship is actually pretty straightforward. Both t0.1 and t0.5 times are part of the same ISO specification. The formula to translate t0.1 to t0.5 is:
* this rule of thumb can be applied: t0.1 = 3 x t0.5 (t0.1 time is three times the t0.5 time)
I.E.: If a flash unit has an effective flash duration of 1/1500 second, its total flash duration is approximately 1/500 second and motion will be frozen with approximately the same sharpness as a 1/500-second shutter speed.
Most manufacturers quote t0.5 times because it gives them a "better" number (shorter apparent duration.)
The ability to compare the t0.1 number to shutter speeds, and to a shutters stopping ability, is one of the big advantages of working using t0.1 numbers. A t0.5 time means that at that point, 1/2 of the total flash energy has been discharged - there is still enough light output to cause motion blur in pictures.
Most photographers have a sense of shutter speed they need in "natural" light to freeze a certain level of motion. The t0.1 number gives the best appoximation of motion stopping ability.
I still don't see how the Zeus could claim 3 times faster flash durations based on Kevins graph and the other data provided by others. It seems to be around the same times. 3 times faster is a big difference, and I don't see that difference at all.
sboerup wrote:
I still don't see how the Zeus could claim 3 times faster flash durations based on Kevins graph and the other data provided by others. It seems to be around the same times. 3 times faster is a big difference, and I don't see that difference at all.
You are correct! At best, they are about the same, up to the point where the Broncolor gets to much shorter durations ("faster speeds".)
If anything the Bron is just a little better than the Zeus, but I would call it a toss up for the speeds they both cover.
mmurph wrote:
There is a very simple rule of thumnb that you yourself have used here in the past: t0.1 times are usually about 3 times as long as t0.5 times.
We have t0.1 specs for both packs. There is nothing wrong with comparing those specs - it is an "apples to apples" comparison
Best,
Michael
The "simple rule of thumb" doesn't apply to IGBT comtrolled flash durations and has no relevance whatsoever. Without specs of both time statement no comparison is possible.
Yes, you have t.1 specs for both packs, but don't have t,5 specs for Bron. Since t.5 is the engineering standard for these expressions this is what I based my statements, and stand by them. I have explaned this several times.
If, indeed, you compare a Zeus pack to a Bron pack and come to the conclusion they are comparable in t.1 times this comes out a pretty good endorsement for Zeus I would think. But the fact remains that when used close to its full power, Zeus is still faster by any measurement.
But this isn't supposed to be a contest and I'm certainly not saying Zeus is the functional equivalent of Bron.
mmurph wrote:
I.E.: If a flash unit has an effective flash duration of 1/1500 second, its total flash duration is approximately 1/500 second and motion will be frozen with approximately the same sharpness as a 1/500-second shutter speed.
Best,
Michael
The above statement is simply incorrect and has no semblance to truth in and IGBT or thyristor flash. If Bron would illustrate what occurs when an IGBT controls flashpower there would be a better understanding. I will certainly make these illustrations when we produce our first IGBT flashes next year.
Paul Buff wrote:
Since t.5 is the engineering standard for these expressions this is what I based my statements, and stand by them.
Both t0.1 and t0.5 times are defined by the *same* ISO standard, ISO 2827.
If, indeed, you compare a Zeus pack to a Bron pack and come to the conclusion they are comparable in t.1 times this comes out a pretty good endorsement for Zeus I would think.
That would have been a good point on the 1st page of this post. It only took 5 pages to get that out there.
But the fact remains that when used close to its full power, Zeus is still faster by any measurement.
What "fact"?
You said at 1250 Ws the Zeus time is 1/1000. The Bron power output at 1/1000 is 1440Ws. Slightly more power than the Zeus at that time.
At 2500Ws the Zeus time is 1/300. The Bron power output at 1/500 is 2240 Ws. I would have to interpolate to get the Bron time at exactly 2500Ws, but it should be slightly better. At 1/250 they are at 2880Ws.
But this isn't supposed to be a contest and I'm certainly not saying Zeus is the functional equivalent of Bron.
Paul Buff
Paul, I did not care at all about Zeus output. Since the my first post - the 3rd post in this thread - I have just been trying to state the facts on Broncolor output. That is according to their manual, and according to the power pack that I have here.
I can dial in any power, and it will show me my shortest duration available. Or I can set the duration and then adjust the power over about a 4-5 stop range while keeping that same duration. All shown on readouts on the pack. You just have to be more careful before making statements about competitors products.
Maybe we can get this locked? Or get it deleted and Kevin can post some nice spreadsheet and graph summaries?
Hey Kevin, could you go get that info for all of the packs on the market for comparsion, in all of the permutations - single head, bi-tube, etc.?
mmurph wrote:
The Verso is not as fast as the Grafit.
Here are the details from the Pulso A4 manual. Note that Broncolor indicates full power as a "10.0" on their pack. A "9.0" is 1 stop down from full. In this case, with the Pulso A4, it is 1600Ws.
I have the Pulso A4. It is marked explicitly in t0.1 times, as is the manual - only t0.1 there. My first post copied the numbers out of the manual.
I did the test you asked - I get an 8.8 at t0.1 of 1/1000, t0.5 of 1/3000. That is 1/5 of a stop down from 1600Ws - call it 1480Ws.
Pluso A4 with 2 heads - bi-tube - delivers exactly the same duration - 1/1000 t.1, 1/3000 t.5 - at 1450Ws, as indicated by the "8.8" in the middle of the table below.
Grafit is as good as the Pulso A4 across the board, better on the high end (shortest duration.) It goes to 1/10,000 t.1, the Pulso A4 goes to 1/6000. ...Show more →
I thought there was something fishy about the numbers floating around on this post. So I went to Bron website and also anaylized the chart posted. Here's the problem:
Grafit A4 is "10" at 3200WS. A2 is "10" at 1600WS.
On the chart posted, Grafit A4 achieves 1/1000 t.1 duration at "7.9". 7.9 on an A4 pack is not 1450WS as was stated, it is 740WS.
On the same chart the A2 produces 1/1000 t.1 duration at "8.8". This is 1.2f below 1600WS, or 685WS.
It looks like Kevin picked up this error in his chart. Congrats Kevin - even the users don't seem to be able to figure this out.
Regarding these times, they are in non-color correct mode (achieving the fastest possible duration without regard to color. ) When you use an IGBT circuit to achieve shortest possible flash duration the color temperature becomes dramatically colder - perhaps 6700°K at the parameters stated unless a color correction mode is introduced (which these packs incorporate).
If one understands IGBT shutoff of a pack one knows it is physically impossible for the t.1 time to be shorter than the full power t.5 time at any power greater than 1/2 the full power of the pack. In the case of an A2 has a 1600WS t.5 duration of 1/450 second. Shutting off the tube at 1/450 second will yield 800WS at a 1/450 t.1 time if no color correction is used. This is as fast as it can get. According to Bron, shutting it off at about 685WS yields a 1/1000 t.1 time (without color correction). This is consistent with the above and with IGBT design.
If you set the pack to constant color I believe you will find the 1/1000 t.1 power is considerably lower than the 700WS range - perhaps 300-400WS. Since Bron doesn't publish these specs I can tell you the exact number.
I have to say youy **really** make a lot of incorrect assumptions based on just those two numbers.
