Just a question from Paul or anyone else....I am looking at replacing out the modeling light to a clear GE ESS. The lamp is longer than the standard lamp by a 1/4" which is 3.0" instead of 2.75" for the standard lamp.
This is a clear lamp (ESS) and in past tests of this lamp, which I currently do not have, is a full stop brighter than the standard frosted lamp. Can anyone tell me more? Will it fit ? Thanks?
No way a clear lamp is 1f brighter than the frosted one unless it's a short life lamp. If the lamp is longer than the lamp supplied and recommended for Einstein it will degrade the 100% WYSIWYG modeling vs flash patterns.
In Full agreement with Paul Buff on this. In 25 years of working with various flash heads with 250 watt quartz halogen modeling lights from various vendors I've never seen what oneeyeblind remembers seeing. Maybe he mistakenly compared a frosted 150 watt q-H bulb to a non frosted 250 watt q-h? The length difference makes me think that is the case but without being there I don't know what else could be the reason.
Before I got rid of my Photogenic 1250DRs I got some X1600s compared these units to each other without reflectors and found that I was getting a stop more intensity with the Photogenic with an ESS bulb. When I got the Einsteins I compared it's model light to the X1600 and found that the light output was the same (I no longer had the Photogenics to compare but I did have this reference). Now the only thing I might have done is to compare the X1600 at lower model setting since I was not very familiar with the units. One person that could do a direct comparison is someone that has both units..........and yes.... Paul... with his PL1250DR and far more Eisteins could say for sure.
Finally I must say...I love the units. It is sooo nice to have such fine lights. For the time the DR series of light were fantastic....but these units are so much nicer that I would agree with Paul...they are in a class by themselves...love the CC.
Paul had his thinking cap on when he design these....thanks!
oneeyeblind wrote:
Before I got rid of my Photogenic 1250DRs I got some X1600s compared these units to each other without reflectors and found that I was getting a stop more intensity with the Photogenic with an ESS bulb.
Ditto Neuffy. If you're using the stock 7" reflectors for both, the AB/WL ones aren't parabolic but conical, so they're not as efficient as the photogenics (which is parabolic IIRC). Some people used old Balcar reflectors on AB/WL for this reason...
IMHO the Photogenics standard reflector is horrible. A big bright hotspot in the center and too shallow to be efficient . . . a large amount of uncontrolled spill light that never sees the reflector at all. It's about 25° . . . too narrow for studio use . . . OK for weddings with telephoto lens. People get hung up on parabolic shapes and most think it's a particular curve. It's not. AB reflector is just as efficient as any other reflector . . . shooters don't often understand what efficiency means. A spotlight is no more efficient than a flood light - it just puts out a higher intensity over a smaller area . . same amount of light (Lumenseconds). A high on axis output (Guide Number) is not a measure of power or efficiency . . . just the degree of beam concentration.
The standard 7" AB/WL reflector is conical for a purpose . . . to provides a wide 80° coverage without hot center, and flat field for lighting backgrounds without edge falloff. If you want more center weighted pattern and higher output, the 8 1/2" reflector is parabolic and provides very even feathered pattern.
Regarding modeling lamps: The clear 250W ESS lamp produces 5000 Lumens and generally produces a spiderweb looking modeling pattern full of hot and cold spots. The frosted version, as we use in Zeus and Einstein produces 4850 Lumens . . about 1/20f stop less, and produces a clean modeling pattern free of anomalies. Combined with the frosted glass dome and absolutely the same focal point as the flashtube and extremely precise voltage regulation of flash and model, Einstein produces absolutely correlated flash and model patterns and 1/10f tracking of flash and model over the entire 9f variability, even with varying line voltage. I am not aware of any other system that uses voltage regulated model lamps and few model lamps track the flash closer than 1/2 f stop.
Paul Buff wrote:
The standard 7" AB/WL reflector is conical for a purpose . . . to provides a wide 80° coverage without hot center, and flat field for lighting backgrounds without edge falloff. If you want more center weighted pattern and higher output, the 8 1/2" reflector is parabolic and provides very even feathered pattern.
Thanks for the clarification on the cone design..I don't think I remember reading that anywhere.
But does that still mean that a parabolic reflector will have a hotspot in the middle and therefore it'll be more "efficient" (aka brighter) than a conical reflector in the middle as well? Just wondering if what I stated about why the photogenic measured higher w/ a light meter (assuming the hot spot is being measured) is correct...
I think I will go with Paul's response as good. Yesterday I used the lights and found the model lights very tune to power....very very please. As far as the discussion of the lights I compared them without any reflector on either light....I think this discussion which I started has gone full circle. Thanks and best of luck to all of you.
kenyee wrote:
Thanks for the clarification on the cone design..I don't think I remember reading that anywhere.
But does that still mean that a parabolic reflector will have a hotspot in the middle and therefore it'll be more "efficient" (aka brighter) than a conical reflector in the middle as well? Just wondering if what I stated about why the photogenic measured higher w/ a light meter (assuming the hot spot is being measured) is correct...
No, the term "parabolic" is very general - a catch all phrase - and does not define a particular reflector geometry. A well designed parabolic reflector can produce a very even coverage without hot center, or a very hot center, or a dark center surrounded by a brighter periphery. It all depends on the particular curve, the diameter and depth and the position of the flashtube (and modeling lamp) within the reflector.
I have found, particularly recently, that the designer must draw and compute intersecting vectors every few degrees and typically use a combination of bezier curves and circular arc shapes, and spend a lot of time analyzing vectors in order to produce a reflector/light combination that yields the desired results. I was always impressed by how good a reflector the original Novatrons produced, and how poor the Photogenics standard reflector is (IMHO).
There are just too many factors to describe with a simple word like parabolic . . . the size and shape and position of the lamps, whether or not the rays cross the centerline as they are projected, etc. My recent work with "retro reflectors" (front loaded like satellite dishes) in the PLM and Retro Laser reflectors has been very educational and revealing. I've probably spent 200 hours recently in drawing vectors and shapes for PLM V2 to achieve the desired combination of high output, flat coverage in the active area, sharp cutoff of spill light and illumination coming from the widest possible cross section of the reflector (to provide large effective source size.
Then there is the question of what happens when a diffuser is placed on the front of such a reflector. If the rays don't hit the diffuser evenly from all surfaces of the reflector one ends up with a diffuser face that is not evenly illuminated. When you combine all this with a focusable design and try to maintain a critical mix of all parameters above it becomes a daunting task. Finally, getting all of this translated to and umbrella or softbox style design where the shape depends on bending rods and fitting fabrics it can drive you crazy.
On that note, the hopefully final PLMV2 designs are being made right now and my fingers are crossed . . . it comes down to that.
If it comes down to design compromises, I'd be more than willing to give up even illumination of the diffuser for any improvement at all in focusability/efficiency/etc.
Sounds great that they're approaching availability.
If the CAD models translate to fabric (they should) you won't have to give up anything . . . should have incredible output, good diffuser evenness, calibrated focusing positions and the full source size for shadow control at all settings, and very sturdy on-axis mounting for Buff and Elinchrom lights plus 7mm umbrella mount for other lights. I'm working on speedrings for Profoto and Dynalite and studying speedrings for others.
The only compromise I had to make is the ability to widen the pattern substantially without sacrificing the above important parameters. I am trying to find suitable heat resistant frosted plastic for mild diffusion that can produce wider patterns without the drastic pattern widening/output loss of nylon diffuser fabrics. This may take a while. You should end up with Guide Numbers in the 600 range, very even coverage and a complete cutoff of spill light.
I plan to file patents on this design and V2 will make the knock-off Arlington Camera copies obsolete. I'm sure they came from the China crook that made V1 for us.
Paul Buff wrote:
I plan to file patents on this design and V2 will make the knock-off Arlington Camera copies obsolete. I'm sure they came from the China crook that made V1 for us.
There have been documented problems with Chinese manufacturers making counterfit products based on items they were hired to produce. This happened to the toy train maker, MTH. The Chinese manufacturer they hired for production sold some MTH designs to another manufacturer, who used them to produce an item for another brand, Lionel. There was a big lawsuit and a big mess. MTH was given a $40M judgement, which bankrupted Lionel. Meanwhile, Lionel was suing another brand, K-Lines, for stealing blueprints to manufacture some of their items. K-Line declared bankruptcy and the Chinese owner changed the name and was back in business.
I have a question regarding Einstein and syncing it with other brands triggers.
I am sorry if that was asked before.
Do you guys know or checked is there a chance to trigger the Einsteins with the cheap eBay Triggers like – CACTUS V4.
I know that there is CyberCommander and such – but I don’t have the extra money in my budget to add over £300 for the set.
I will mix the light in studio with Nikon speedlights so I will need to adjust the power manually anyway…
So I prefer to wait and gather some more money – but only if Cheapo Triggers will do the job?
RDKirk wrote:
I've been saying since 1994 that the Chinese are playing us for the world's biggest chumps.
Not just them...India as well. Other countries have very weak protection over intellectual property and we're training them to make stuff w/ all the outsourcing. A lot of companies don't care and would prefer to make higher profits now while losing their company's technology (not saying this is Paul...he doesn't have much of a choice w/ the lack of umbrella manufacturing here)...
Back to Einstein...the Cactus triggers should work fine. I used the V2s (the V4 is basically a tweaked V2s) and RF602 w/o problems a/ AB and speedos and the RP JrX works fine w/ the Einstein too. Only PW have issues w/ the RF at this point AFAIK (and the long sync cable is a better workaround than the Canon RF flash condom :-)
RDKirk wrote:
I've been saying since 1994 that the Chinese are playing us for the world's biggest chumps.
Actually, I have no axe to grind with China or other countries. They are simply acting in their own interest, as do all countries. It's America that has failed to protect our interests. As in America, there are some really good people in China and some morally corrupt ones.
As in America, there are some really good people in China and some morally corrupt ones.
When I say "China," I'm talking about the policies of the government, for which "da peeple" have less say even than in the US. When I say, "Playing us for chumps," I'm not only speaking of economic issues, but issues across the board.
The Chinese government has no issues with controlling what they want to control. If a corporate official embarrasses them sufficiently, they have no problem putting a bullet into his head. If the Chinese government wanted to curtain copyright and patent infringements, they could do it, and they make it happen within days.
K-Line declared bankruptcy and the Chinese owner changed the name and was back in business.