Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

How accurate are your LED lights?

That made my brain hurt... I guess I should just move the kitchen studio outside and only shoot in the sun.
 
Glen Powell said:
That made my brain hurt... I guess I should just move the kitchen studio outside and only shoot in the sun.
Click to expand...

Ha ha. In that case, just click on the results page. Bottom line, old CRI evaluation techniques from the 60's don't cut it for todays LED's.
 
Bob you know I don't have time for that newfangled tech... I don't even have time anymore for shooting with all the rumours and leaks about WPN.
 
Marcos Montenegro said:
Great info here, but missing results for popular lights like Nilas, Digital Sputnik, Area 48s, Hexolux, to name a few.
Click to expand...


In the video he looked like he had a much more extensive list than what's posted to the website. Is their a paywall to get the rest?
 
Marcos Montenegro said:
Great info here, but missing results for popular lights like Nilas, Digital Sputnik, Area 48s, Hexolux, to name a few.
Click to expand...

Agree, theres no data either on popular K5600 Jokers, Hive plasmas

but Area 48 [under BBS] Qa is 96
 
This is very, very useful information.

I do want him to add a few lights into the mix.

- Nila (current gen)
- Mole Richardson LED Fresnels (400, 200, 150, and 100 watt)
- Hive Lighting

There's a few other I'd like to see tested this way. I'll need to figure out a way to contact Alan. On actual sets for broadcast I'm seeing Nila a lot. I've tested and shoot with the Mole LEDs regularly and want to see where they land. Hive is very nice light as well and I'm betting it scores rather high.

Also, what would be nice is if there was a heat stress test. I've noticed some LED panels in particular after sitting in say a warm gear truck end up not performing consistently.
 
As a layperson when it comes to lighting, I expect to use LEDs with unknown CRI for the purpose of general illumination of a scene.

My question is, does CRI rating matter only on subject directed lighting or can one simply make tweaks in post to reset the color if the CRI is less than optimal?

Isn't that something similar to what gels do?
 
Elsie N said:
As a layperson when it comes to lighting, I expect to use LEDs with unknown CRI for the purpose of general illumination of a scene.

My question is, does CRI rating matter only on subject directed lighting or can one simply make tweaks in post to reset the color if the CRI is less than optimal?

Isn't that something similar to what gels do?
Click to expand...

Depends on you. Nothing is stopping you from using "lesser light". I know I've used some ugly junk to add a bit of interest to the BG before and certainly for just making something like panel glow.

For me, and likely for many, it's about how this light works on skin and people. Much of that is due to subtle tones, hues, and subsurface scattering even.

For purists they may want all of the same type of fixture. For the more practical working DP, mixing and matching lights on set is fairly common. Usually though the big guys try to work with lighting that tends to fall in the same wheelhouse of general "quality".
 
There must be a more extensive list. He mentioned an Alphatron on camera unit, that is not on the published list.
 
I understand the usefulness of this kind of test, but I also wouldn't take it too seriously.

I am a big fan of LEDs for a number of reasons. Last year I did a movie with a fairly well known actress who is also a model. I was very concerned about using LEDs as a key on her just because it felt wrong. Fortunately we had a hair/make up/wardrobe test day where i was also able to sneak a lighting test in. I shot her under tungsten, hmis, natural daylight, and leds. The Leds were easier to time to look good than the tungsten. After that, I put away any reservations I had about LEDs and use them freely.

Nick
 
Nick Gardner said:
After that, I put away any reservations I had about LEDs and use them freely.

Nick
Click to expand...

You tested, and it worked. I think that's the point.

Over the last few years I've tried, and rejected several different LED panels because they didn't work. I shoot mostly close ups on hands doing stuff; skin is at any point 35-55% of the screen and I've seen some horrible results from some fairly respected manufacturers.

So testing is good to weed out the garbage that seems to found at all price points. A standard measure seems helpful.
 
Awesome post Bob. THANKS!
 
Glen Powell said:
You tested, and it worked. I think that's the point.

Over the last few years I've tried, and rejected several different LED panels because they didn't work. I shoot mostly close ups on hands doing stuff; skin is at any point 35-55% of the screen and I've seen some horrible results from some fairly respected manufacturers.

So testing is good to weed out the garbage that seems to found at all price points. A standard measure seems helpful.
Click to expand...



Hi Glen

I'd be interested as to what you found to be the best type of light source for skin tones?

We usually use a mix of HMI and KINO when skin tone is important.

We bought some LED very early on and they had a terrible greenish spike on skin

However even our 'Bad' LED can be very useful when you're looking for something specific, for example the LEDs make a great kicker in front of a computer monitor, the tiny multiple LED give a specularity (is that a word) just like a computer monitor.

We also just bought a couple of Zylights and they've been excellent as a edge/rim or background light, we need to test if they're good enough for a key, I imagine they would be...
 
I was thinking of stepping back in to try some of the remote phosphor LED's after reading about their use on 'Better Call Saul'.
 
Elsie N said:
As a layperson when it comes to lighting, I expect to use LEDs with unknown CRI for the purpose of general illumination of a scene.

My question is, does CRI rating matter only on subject directed lighting or can one simply make tweaks in post to reset the color if the CRI is less than optimal?

Isn't that something similar to what gels do?
Click to expand...


When using something like CRI, they're evaluating the completeness of the spectral output...how much light is coming out at all the various wavelengths (colors).

Filters can kind of get you there...sometimes.

The problem with filters (gels), is how they work. By definition, they work by filtering light OUT, not putting it back in. So a Green filter works by allowing the green to pass through, and blocking out magenta. The problem is that filters can never put colors BACK IN that weren't there in the first place. When looking at a spectral output, filters can knock down the peaks...but can never fill back in the valleys.

You can put a perfect filter on a questionable source, and NAIL the WB and G/M balance, but the light coming out of it will still look kind of "dull" or lifeless. Now this only matters when the viewer has a very defined expectation for the color they're gonna see. Nobody has any expectation for the color of the cabinet or wall in the background....but carries a very high and specific expectation for the color of skin-tones. This is why many are still very dubious of using these sources for their Key...but aren't really worried at all about using them elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top