Jump to content


Photo

New light source


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 26 March 2008 - 12:58 PM

http://news.zdnet.co..._22-192842.html
  • 0

#2 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 26 March 2008 - 02:41 PM

Excellent lumens to watts ratio. Super efficient. I wonder what the CRI is like and if it has a flicker discharge. Also if they can make it any lower in power.
  • 0

#3 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 26 March 2008 - 03:08 PM

Excellent lumens to watts ratio. Super efficient. I wonder what the CRI is like and if it has a flicker discharge. Also if they can make it any lower in power.


And what the cost may be...
  • 0

#4 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 March 2008 - 06:53 PM

Here's the specs from their web site:

http://www.lifi.com/...ulletinLIFI.pdf

It looks quite good, there are no spikes in the spectrum, but it does have a couple strange notches at 411 and 452 nm. CRI is claimed to be 88 - 95.

Flicker should be no problem, as it's operating in the RF range.

It does look expensive to make, and may initially only be cost effective for high power applications. With no electrodes in the bulb, life should be quite long, and I don't see any reason for it to degrade over its life. They say it's still 80% at 25,000 hours.

There's no mention of prices. I guess like J.P. said, if you have to ask, you can't afford it.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#5 Drew Ott

Drew Ott
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts
  • Student
  • Austin, TX

Posted 26 March 2008 - 06:59 PM

Sounds promising. Even if it does cost a fortune, won't it drive down the prices of current light sources?
  • 0

#6 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 26 March 2008 - 08:53 PM

They say its 6000k, so even if its really expensive, so is HMI. It might be competitivly priced once its out. smaller bulb = smaller point light which means sharper shadow detail from an open face or fresnel.
  • 0

#7 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 March 2008 - 12:34 PM

They say its 6000k, so even if its really expensive, so is HMI.

The CIE coordinates they give for it land closer to 6600K, though they say 6400K. Production volume will determine the cost. It looks to be comparable to HMI when they get up to the same volume.



-- J.S.
  • 0

#8 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 27 March 2008 - 12:50 PM

Was the blue rimmed, white centred beam on the wall from our 'bulb'?

S
  • 0

#9 Chayse Irvin

Chayse Irvin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 27 March 2008 - 01:53 PM

Wow. That is amazing. It would probably give a beam as sharp as a carbon arc. but that will depend on the reflector behind it.
  • 0

#10 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 27 March 2008 - 03:40 PM

I can't wait to call for a "6K PlasmaBeam"...
  • 0

#11 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 March 2008 - 05:05 PM

.... but that will depend on the reflector behind it.

One of the peculiarities of this technology is that the tiny globe has to be mounted in the side of a big block of material. It might not put any light behind the plane of that surface. It has to do with getting the RF energy into the globe.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#12 Mike Simpson

Mike Simpson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin

Posted 28 March 2008 - 10:42 PM

[quote name='Michael Nash' date='Mar 27 2008, 01:40 PM' post='224475']
I can't wait to call for a "6K PlasmaBeam"...
[/quote

I agree. The need a more futuristic nickname though.
  • 0

#13 Mitch Lusas

Mitch Lusas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 March 2008 - 02:17 PM

140 lumens per watt!!! And they're so small. I would love to be on the first shoot that was able to use them.
  • 0

#14 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 30 March 2008 - 04:20 PM

In the next 6 months to a year some more pretty amazing light sources are going to be introduced so hang in there. And light sources more for use in our industry. This light source is more industrial than for film.
  • 0

#15 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 March 2008 - 12:38 AM

That looks promising. I don't know the things involved in powering it, but I can see some serious fixtures using this technology pretty quickly if they are efficient and tough enough. A cluster of these would be nice in a china ball, for example.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

The Slider

CineLab

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Opal

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Opal

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks