Paul Buff wrote:
It looks workable, but the adapter causes the flashtube to be recessed in a tunnel that fails to deliver what looks to be about 40% of the light to the umbrella surface.
With all due respect Paul, my design places the flash tube further forward than any of your speedrings that you have been marketing for 20+ years. It's very workable and superior to your speeding modifier designs. (not sure why a direct flash octa is being compared to a PLM here though)
When my speedring is mated to my flat AB insert the flash tube is over a 1" further forward than your design. If your interested in using my design to get your flash tube out of your deep sub-reflector insert.... Go for it!
Paul Buff wrote:
It looks workable, but the adapter causes the flashtube to be recessed in a tunnel that fails to deliver what looks to be about 40% of the light to the umbrella surface.
Paul, I actually tested the 69" Rotalux mounted on both an Elinchrom 600RX and an Einstein (using the Kacey adapters). Light falloff across the face of the large octa was roughly comparable between the two lights with some additional falloff seen at outer edges of the Rotalux when mounted on the Einstein. What was surprising was that the nominally 640WS Einstein actually metered a lower f/stop centrally than the 600WS Elinchrom though that might be due to hotspotting by the Elinchrom which doesn't have a diffusion dome over the flashtube.
Kacey: The reason we are comparing PLM to Rotalux is because this is a PLM thread and because a poster made the comparison, and brought your product into it.
I questioned the tunnel the flashtube is in because the flashtube cannot illuminate the back portions of the Rotalux properly, leading to a loss of output.
Tertrode: The reason the RX600 produced a higher center hotspot than the Einstein is a combination of the tunnel effect and lack of dome. I suggest again: take both and illuminate a wall 20 - 30' away and look at the patterns and the output. Then do the same with a PLM. Look at the "Drummer" picture to exemplify the cutoff of spill light inherent in the PLM geometry. Take the same shot with Rotalux and you'll get an entirely different result
Kacey: Next you jumped into softbox speedrings and a totally new subject. If you look at the pictures you posted you can clearly see the AB1600 flash tube with Buff speedring or yours, the flashtube projects light to the entire surface of the softbox, unlike the partially blocked tunnel effect of your Rotalux adaptation to AB or Einstein.. We could argue whether the additional flashtube projection into the softbox makes a significant difference or not. The reason our speedring has some focusing effect is because most softboxes are designed to be used with such a sub reflector. Our softboxes and speedrings are outgrowths of Photoflex designs.
Too make any sense and progress on this whole thing we ought to address one subject at a time. In one thread we are comparing PLMs to Rotalux, mounting methods of Rotalux to Einstein, then AB softbox speedrings. If I were a casual reader I would say "just what is it these people are talking about."
For me - I responded directly to one issue that was questioned.
Paul Buff wrote:
I questioned the tunnel the flashtube is in because the flashtube cannot illuminate the back portions of the Rotalux properly, leading to a loss of output.
Yet at the same time you say your further recessed "focused" flash tube sub-reflector in your softbox/octa/and strips are by design.
Paul Buff wrote:
If you look at the pictures you posted you can clearly see the AB1600 flash tube with Buff speedring or yours, the flashtube projects light to the entire surface of the softbox, unlike the partially blocked tunnel effect of your Rotalux adaptation to AB or Einstein.
I don't agree with this.... Your flash tube placement in Buff Octa or any other Softbox is not any further forward than a PCB flash using my Eli to Buff adapter with a Rotalux. I think the angle you see in the other image may be misleading.
Paul Buff wrote:
We could argue whether the additional flashtube projection into the softbox makes a significant difference or not. The reason our speedring has some focusing effect is because most softboxes are designed to be used with such a sub reflector.
I thought the reason you are locked into your design is because Balcar designed it 30+ years ago and at time it was the industry standard. I know you have even talked about redesigning the Balcar insert at some point recently. I don't know anyone that would want a focusing effect in a softbox when the goal is to have even light from edge to edge. Can you explain your design consideration of why you would implement this into a softbox
I don't think we would even argue about which one of these designs is more efficient and is better optimized for any softbox on the market regardless of shape or design.
The flashtube positioning of AB/WL/Einstein in our softboxes or thrid party softboxes is essentially the same as a standard Eli or just about any other mono light and their softboxes or third parry boxes . . . actually a bit better because most other lights have a built in sub reflector in addition to the speedring sub reflector.
Now, to your Eli Rotalux adapter compared to standard speedring: One must consider what happens to the light that is emitted sideways from the flashtube. In the Buff (and all Photoflex and other third party speedrings) this light is directed forward by the the parabolic sides of the sub reflector. In your tunnel design, this light bounces back and forth between the parallel sides and is largely lost instead of being projected into the softbox interior.
As for my explaining myself to you I find this a little offensive. I think your time might be better spent by asking every other flash manufacturer (with a few exceptions including Dynalite and Profoto) to explain why they sink their tubes into a sub reflector while Paul C. Buff had the good sense to use a true bare bulb configuration with flat backplate from day one.
As for your great inventive design of putting a flat plate in your speedring . . . congratulations for 10 minutes of CAD drawing of the obvious . . . an obvious that will likely never introduce any significant performance difference from standard softboxes whose geometry is tuned to match sources with a sub reflector . . . since most lights have these. Because you have removed the sub reflector from boxes that were designed to have a sub reflector I think you will find the end result will be a darker center at the face of the box and a need to redesign the internal diffuser position and density to restore face evenness.
So, yes, your flat plate backplane is superior to the common sub reflector sold by everyone else . . . but only when the softbox itself is redesigned to take proper advantage of the change in flashtube geometry.
By the way, Balcar has nothing to do with any of this . . . you can credit Photoflex for the "standard" softbox/speedring/sub-reflector geometry.
Thanks, Dave. Those photos actually jogged my memory...I remember reading your post on POTN, and IIRC, the measurements on the face had negligible differences. I'd say if the measurements on the face are similar, it doesn't matter where the tube is :-)
Probably should take this to a separate thread to remove any confusion w/ the PLM and any threadjacking. I know you weren't comparing it w/ the PLM...you were just mentioning how the Kacey adapter worked w/ the Rotalux. They're different modifiers w/ different pros/cons and I'd hope any readers would know this...
Paul Buff wrote:
The flashtube positioning of AB/WL/Einstein in our softboxes or thrid party softboxes is essentially the same as a standard Eli or just about any other mono light and their softboxes or third parry boxes . . . actually a bit better because most other lights have a built in sub reflector in addition to the speedring sub reflector. Elichrom flash tubes are much further forward than yours. (Note Tetrode's left image in this link)
Now here is a to link yours
Eliinchrom is world famous for their even light in all their box's and every model is a different shape with one fixed flash tube. Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Link 4
Did the Swiss just get lucky all these different shapes of boxes just happened to work very well "to take proper advantage of the change in flashtube geometry" ? No, it's because their flash tube is much further forward than PCB where the entire flash tube is buried in very deep insert/sub-reflector.
Paul Buff wrote:
Now, to your Eli Rotalux adapter compared to standard speedring: One must consider what happens to the light that is emitted sideways from the flashtube. In the Buff (and all Photoflex and other third party speedrings) this light is directed forward by the the parabolic sides of the sub reflector. In your tunnel design, this light bounces back and forth between the parallel sides and is largely lost instead of being projected into the softbox interior.
A flash tube is round and emits light in all directions. Only a unmeasurable sliver of it is hitting a parallel side at 90 degrees. Angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection.
Paul Buff wrote:
As for my explaining myself to you [B] I find this a little offensive.
Sorry if you feel that way. I know this is not uncommon for you in the forums and I thought my post was respectful. (said while bowing down to King Laup)
Paul Buff wrote:
I think your time might be better spent by asking every other flash manufacturer (with a few exceptions including Dynalite and Profoto) to explain why they sink their tubes into a sub reflector while Paul C. Buff had the good sense to use a true bare bulb configuration with flat backplate from day one.
... Your insert is your sub-reflector and it is deeper and places the flash tube further back than any other brand on the market. Your Beauty dish is the only modifier that mounts on the back that does not have a recessed flash tube.
Paul Buff wrote: As for your great inventive design of putting a flat plate in your speedring . . . congratulations for 10 minutes of CAD drawing of the obvious . . . an obvious that will likely never introduce any significant performance difference from standard softboxes whose geometry is tuned to match sources with a sub reflector . . . since most lights have these. Because you have removed the sub reflector from boxes that were designed to have a sub reflector I think you will find the end result will be a darker center at the face of the box and a need to redesign the internal diffuser position and density to restore face evenness....Show more →
It is obvious! Can't believe you didn't think of it. I believe subtle differences and improvements are what make a product that just works into something to truly rave about.
Paul Buff wrote: So, yes, your flat plate backplane is superior to the common sub reflector sold by everyone else . . . but only when the softbox itself is redesigned to take proper advantage of the change in flashtube geometry.
I might buy that if all your modifiers were the same geometric shape. let me guess each one of these shapes are perfectly tuned to your recessed flash tube.
By the way, Balcar has nothing to do with any of this . . . you can credit Photoflex for the "standard" softbox/speedring/sub-reflector geometry.
Ok, I stand corrected. I thought I read they invented the concept of your mount.
tetrode wrote:
Paul, I actually tested the 69" Rotalux mounted on both an Elinchrom 600RX and an Einstein (using the Kacey adapters). Light falloff across the face of the large octa was roughly comparable between the two lights with some additional falloff seen at outer edges of the Rotalux when mounted on the Einstein. What was surprising was that the nominally 640WS Einstein actually metered a lower f/stop centrally than the 600WS Elinchrom though that might be due to hotspotting by the Elinchrom which doesn't have a diffusion dome over the flash tube.
Dave F. What was surprising was that the nominally 640WS Einstein actually metered a lower f/stop centrally than the 600WS Elinchrom though that might be due to hotspotting by the Elinchrom which doesn't have a diffusion dome over the flash tube.
I doubt the diffusion dome would account for this much light loss of the Einstein over the 600RX.
If you look at your image you can clearly see where just about all the light that is hitting the back plate of the Einstein is entering the internal components of the flash. It's not being reflected like the Elichrom or even what the solid back plate of a standard Alien Bee would do. For a design stand point it's hard to believe this design is adequately cooling the internal components of the flash.
There must be one heck of a fan in there or i'm sure we would be seeing some overheating issues arising.
Australia won't make much difference. We are projecting V2 shipments to begin about Sept 9. All issues are corrected including full unrestricted PW range, elimination of heat issues and 240V issues, tighter cam assembly and, oh my God Kacey, a highly polished backplate that increases output 2/10f (14%). Parts are being produced now and will be coming in during the first week of Sept. If you ordered three months back you should be pretty high on the list, though there is some time involved in consolidating a shipment to Oz and getting it there.
Paul Buff wrote:
"elimination of heat issues"
oh my God Kacey, a highly polished backplate that increases output 2/10f (14%).
There are heat issues with the einstein? Awesome! Are you going to block those light sucking vent holes too?
Is there a plan to recall all the V1's to fix all these design issues? How will this effect timeline for anyone placing a new order of the V2's.
If you look at your image you can clearly see where just about all the light that is hitting the back plate of the Einstein is entering the internal components of the flash.
Kacey, you make a fine after market problem solving adapter, but as an Einstein owner, and as someone who has independently and pretty rigorously tested Einstein and Elinchrom gear for published reviews, and not being someone trying to hawk product or is connected with either Paul C. Buff, inc or Elinchrom, you are spouting gibberish: Very, very little light is being "sucked" through the vents on the front of the Einstein.
If you feel a compelling need to create fake drama, Hollywood is always looking for talented writers for their so-called "Reality" shows.
Interesting discussion going on here. It is off-topic but informative nonetheless.
I really can't wait for the PLM v2. Though I've kind of given up and canceled my v1 order a while back, when these come out, I hope to buy one of each in silver.
Paul, I was just wondering about the pre-order status. Will the Elinchrom waiting list be shorter than the AB one? I'm asking this because most of the pre-orders were from the v1 converted to the v2 correct? If so, please let me know because that would change things quite a bit for me and would push me to pre-order the Elinchrom ones.
shoebox9 wrote:
This was totally unnecessary. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
I thought so too...this is how threads go into the toilet. Pretty close to an ad hominem attack. Sigh.
IIRC correctly, in that POTN Tetrode thread, the conclusion was also that the reflective backplate of the Elinchrom accounted for the extra output. Glad that's being address in the next Einstein update, and as I understand it, the V1 buyers are getting a no-cost upgrade. Otherwise, the $50 accessory discount to push your V1 Einstein order until the V2 ships wouldn't make sense...
E-Vener wrote:
Kacey, you make a fine after market problem solving adapter, but as an Einstein owner, and as someone who has independently and pretty rigorously tested Einstein and Elinchrom gear for published reviews, and not being someone trying to hawk product or is connected with either Paul C. Buff, inc or Elinchrom, you are spouting gibberish: Very, very little light is being "sucked" through the vents on the front of the Einstein.
If you feel a compelling need to create fake drama, Hollywood is always looking for talented writers for their so-called "Reality" shows.
Did you just test that since I just brought it up? Paul said himself that he is changing to a highly polished back plate that increases output a fraction. It's not fair to assume blocking all those vents would increase output as well and possibly solve some overheating issues? From what I now understand PCB published a warning that care should be take to prevent overheating when the Einstein pointed in a downward angle.
Warning: Operating Einstein for long periods of time with the modeling lamp set to full 250W with the unit pointing at a down angle can cause excess heating and possible damage to the Einstein.
Paul just listed PW range issues, loose cam assembly, overheating, 240V, back plate and known issues with the Einstein that he is addressing.
Since you just stated "I'm spouting gibberish" and you claim to have independently and pretty rigorously tested Einstein for published reviews. I'm interested if any of these design flaws that are being addressed where published in your review?
Can you post a link? I'm not sure where to look for it.
Thanks
Did you just test that since I just brought it up?
No I didn't. I tested back when I was doing my review of the Einstein for Professional Photographer Magazine a few months back. I took the covers off and stuck a meter head in. Very little light goes through the slots. Not enough to make a mention of in the review. A far greater the area of the Einstein backplate in a matte surface dull silver metal. Any one can see i the photos of the Einstein that From my questions to Mike Morgan at Paul C Buff at the time I was writing the review the reasonI was given is they chose not to use a highly polished surface to ensure an even beam pattern. I certainly haven't had any problems with it.
The range issue with Pocketwizard remotes isn't unique to the Einstein - some of the the Canon Speedlites suffer from it as well. The primary cause is a power supply. PCB, inc. is addressing the problem by switching suppliers; while Canon is being mum on the issue.
You'll need to ask PPA to send you a copy of Professional Photographer. I believe it ran in the June or July 2010 issue.
I haven't run into the the over heating issue so I can't comment on it.
... Your insert is your sub-reflector and it is deeper and places the flash tube further back than any other brand on the market. Your Beauty dish is the only modifier that mounts on the back that does not have a recessed flash tube. 
Awesome! Are you going to block those light sucking vent holes too?