ishootsports3 wrote:
I do not doubt the capability of the AB1600, the RX600 stand out to me due to the flash duration as i shoot a very large amount of sports
Flash duration of RX600 is is essentially identical to AB1600 at all power settings, as is color shift with power adjustment. Actual t.5 of AB1600 has been decreased to 1/2100 when we changed flashtube design a year or so ago - published specs (1/1600) haven't been updated. B800 Full Power duration is about 1/3500 t.5.
The fastest non IGBT monolight per WS seems to be Bowens Gemini . . . 1/2900 t.5 at 500WS. I haven't confirmed this spec.
Thanks paul, i understand the quality of your products, but the elinchroms stand out , if i were to go with your lights (current) for the application it would be the white lightening
Paul Buff wrote:
1/22,000 is the t.5 time it would take from a non IGBT flash to get a 1/7000 t.1. But the IGBT controlled motion freezing is much better than equivalent non IGBT t.1.
The reason is, on a conventional system there is still 1/10 of the total power emitted after the t.1 one time. This is just under -3 f stops and goes on for a long time. Thus, bright objects can still show some blur that belies the stated t.1 time. On Einstein, there is nothing after the t.1 time so action freezing is much sharper. Ask Rob Galbraith about this - he's the preeminent expert.
The two systems you mention are IGBT controlled. I have no idea why Profoto would publish t.5 times on an IGBT system?? If I want to play that game Einstein would come out about 1/20,000 t.5 . . . or as high at 1/30,000 if I want to ignore solid performance in order to create a real fast number. Or I could change the fill pressure n the tubes and get it up to 1/50,000 at a cost of reliability. Would yawl rather see that number? Would it make you think my product suddenly became light years faster and better?
I have to disagree that 1/8000 t.1 and 1/12,000 are equal on IGBT systems. 1/8000 t.1, if you measure it and understand the technology, will come out abut 1/15,000 t.5.
BTW, you can't measure IGBT t.1 or t.5 times using the old methods. You must use true RMS integration of light VS time. I have developed test equipment to do just that and can guarantee and verify my numbers..
This is an opportunity for the industry to clarify this so users can compare and understand. I will do that . . . if others want to keep manipulating numbers . . . they'll be gone in 60 seconds.
I have published Lumenseconds for years while others keep talking about meaningless guide numbers and assigned new non-dictionary definitions of the word range and any number of other marketing hypes....Show more →
I'm not sure why profoto does that either. I called them once, they didn't even know the t.1 times. Thanks for the explanation!
Brent Ward wrote:
I'm not sure why profoto does that either. I called them once, they didn't even know the t.1 times. Thanks for the explanation!
Wow . . . really professional!. All customer service peeps at Buff know the difference and implications. My guess is they are using gate turnoff time (somewhat longer than real t.1, and just expressing it as t.? You can't determing t.5 on an IGBT flash by the old methods . . . you have to determine, on an RMS basis, what time it takes to emit 50% of the total.
For anyone who is determining t.5 and t.1 times by the 50% and 10% points on a captured waveform, the is archaic . . . poor accuracy on conventional flash and meaningless on IGBT flash. I have developed a precision method that integrates the actual light over time (same thing a camera does) and instantly gives you exact t,5, t.1 or t. anything else . . . like t.125 or whatever, on conventional or IGBT.
Maybe when I get time I will incorporate this into an inexpensive flashmeter. But please don't start asking for it yet - I'm exhausted.
Paul Buff wrote:
Maybe when I get time I will incorporate this into an inexpensive flashmeter. But please don't start asking for it yet - I'm exhausted.
Just get the new lights to Australia, that's all we want for now :-)
Paul Buff wrote:
Wow . . . really professional!. All customer service peeps at Buff know the difference and implications.
For anyone who is determining t.5 and t.1 times by the 50% and 10% points on a captured waveform, the is archaic . . . poor accuracy on conventional flash and meaningless on IGBT flash. I have developed a precision method that integrates the actual light over time (same thing a camera does) and instantly gives you exact t,5, t.1 or t. anything else . . . like t.125 or whatever, on conventional or IGBT.
Maybe when I get time I will incorporate this into an inexpensive flashmeter. But please don't start asking for it yet - I'm exhausted....Show more →
! We are actually having a discussion and not arguing. What's going on here!
So how much light does this produce at 1/10,000 compared to a grafit 3200?
Brent Ward wrote: ! We are actually having a discussion and not arguing. What's going on here!
So how much light does this produce at 1/10,000 compared to a grafit 3200?
Where did this arguing stuff come from I'm certainly not arguing with you - just saying Profoto ought to get their act together if they can't tell a customer what t.5 and t.1 means. I thought I was having a discussion and presenting darn valuable info - don't know what ruffled your feathers! Nothing was directed at you. Maybe it's the freezing weather?
And now we're back to comparing Einstein to Grafit . . . not hardly at a 30:1 price differential. Tell me what power Grafit 3200 produces 1/10,000 second at and I'll answer that . certainly a 3200WS pack IGBT pack puts out more power at a given t.1 duration than a 640WS light. What's the point? I stated earlier in this thread Einstein has a 1/10,000 flash duration at -4f RE 640ES . . . that's 40WS.
I have a song line running through my head right now from Charley Brown (the Coasters) "Why is everybody always pickin' on me".
Merry Christmas and Happy friggin New Years to all
I was asking for a comparison since that's what I use for liquid so I could have a comparison of output for each head. I can check the jules tomorrow and see what each head is receiving.
cineski wrote:
How securely does the CSXCV Transceiver Module fit onto the Einstein? Is it deeply set w/ pressure? Or does it lock into place?
It's inserted about .4" and won't fall out when upside down. Don't expect any problem here.
! We are actually having a discussion and not arguing. What's going on here! 
I'm certainly not arguing with you - just saying Profoto ought to get their act together if they can't tell a customer what t.5 and t.1 means. I thought I was having a discussion and presenting darn valuable info - don't know what ruffled your feathers! Nothing was directed at you. Maybe it's the freezing weather?