Is a 6000w continuous light bright enough to replace a strobe

>>3094050
Hot lights are the way of the FUTURE, bro.

>>3094051
Aren't LED's actually the future though? And they run completely cold.

>>3094050
Great if you want all your models squinting.

>>3094054
Hot lights is a term used to describe lights that are always on, while confusing - LED's fall into this category.

>>3094050
Literally cancer... literally.

>>3094050
No

>>3094288
What kind of wattage would be powerful enough to achieve this then? Would enough LED's be able to do it?

>>3094398
all you're achieving is squinting and tiny pupils
use strobes

>>3094399
>what are video shoots?

>>3094419
video shoots are done with a shutter of 1/50ish, using video cameras with a base iso of about 500 and fast lenses, giving you a tonne of leeway beyond the usual 1/250 sync shutter, iso 100 and a lens stopped the fuck down you'd use in a photo studio setting
how would you even compare that

>>3094399
>>3094221
this
shooting people is gonna suck and look like shit

>>3094050
if all you shoot is product then hot lights are fine and 6000w is super overkill, all you need is a few 250w, a 100w and maybe a 750-1000w for that.

>>3094398
Going by watts is a little misleading because they don't fully linearly map to actual illumination (it's a measure of the bulb's power consumption, not its output so different bulb efficiencies at different power levels come into play), but it'll put you in the ballpark.

What you're missing is how to move between the ratings for continuous lights and flashes. Here's what you need to know: A 300 watt-second strobe uses 300 watts of light in the course of a second. A 60 watt bulb uses 60 watts in an hour.

File: Screen-Shot-2014-09-07-at-11.29.49-am.png (58KB, 874x486px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 874x486px

>>3094490
>A 300 watt-second strobe uses 300 watts of light in the course of a second. A 60 watt bulb uses 60 watts in an hour.

but that's wrong
a 300 watt-second strobe puts out the same amount of light during the strobe duration as a 300 watt tungsten light will put out over the course of a second.

now 300 watt-seconds is not always 300 watt-seconds, some manufactures list the total flash duration while better manufacturers only list the effective duration

>>3094050
Complete waste of energy. You don't need all that power for good portraits.

>>3094535
>a 300 watt-second strobe puts out the same amount of light during the strobe duration as a 300 watt tungsten light will put out over the course of a second.

Jumping jesus on a fucking stick, no.

Yes, you're semi-right in that the rate is converted to a whole second (much like the same way a fucking car doesn't necessarily travel 60 miles when it's going 60mph, and yes I'm aware that that's not a perfectly parallel comparison but whatever), but dear god, go read the wikipedia article if you think that a 300 watt bulb uses anywhere near the amount of power that a strobe does in any timeframe less than an hour.

File: Untitled.png (12KB, 1048x313px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 1048x313px

>>3094558>>3094535

Pic related is the conversion of 300 watt hours (e.g. the amount of energy used by a 300 watt bulb over the course of an hour) to Ws btw. Notice how it's not 300?

I don't really get the complaints about eyes and continuous lighting. Still not as bright as the sun.

>>3094558
>if you think that a 300 watt bulb uses anywhere near the amount of power that a strobe does in any timeframe less than an hour.

wait what?
are you talking about power consumption or light produced

>>3094583
Energy used, power consumption, literally exactly why in the original post I specifically mentioned that watts and watt seconds do not linearly map to illumination, and exactly what both Ws and watts measure.

And to prevent you from going there, no, a strobe's watt second rating is not set to equal out to some output of a continuous light over some length of time. In both cases, they are nothing more than a measure of the energy going into the bulb at its maximum (if it has variable settings) setting.

Watts and watt second ratings are good enough for consumers to kinda know how bright a given light is, but they are not consistent enough across the life of the bulb, the brand (or even line) of the bulb, and definitely not across manufacturers to be anything more than a ballpark estimation of light output.

>>3094399
Yo what's a good strobe to get?

>>3094054
Leds of any power above like 1w cobs run hot as fuck and need active cooling

Leds and cfl have roughly the same lumen/watt but leds beat them just slightly, that being said, 6kw of cfl is enough to light anything up. if you need more than that you're doing something wrong.

>>3094558
literally, a 60w bulb consumes 60w in a second. are you spastic?

File: 1487970308476.jpg (85KB, 824x579px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 824x579px

>/p/ is stupid enough to not know what watt means
WATT IS ENERGY PER SECOND (J/s) WATT-SECOND IS ENERY(J) AND WATT-HOUR IS WATT-SECOND TIMES 3600 SECONDS!!!

>>3094490
A 60 watt bulb uses 60 watts in an hour.
No. It uses 60(j/s) x 3600s. Watt is power or work, what you "expend" is energy(joule or watt-second, watt-hour watt-whatever).

>>3094824
It does not "consumes 60w in a second, it consumes 60 watt-seconds or simply 60 Joules.

>ameriburger and their burger system.
>1W = 0.7376 Foot-pounds-force per second

>>3094774
Einsteins, elinchrom brx, whatever their bowens counterpart is
Can't really go wrong with any of the common manufacturers, but these 3 are usually a tad cheaper than hensel and profoto
Avoid the chinese shit (jinbei and such) if you want something that works for years

>>3094990
mfw it took this long for someone to comprehend the stupid "watt second unit" aka JOULE

>>3094990
that would be the correct way of doing it if it were impulse light ie flash, this is constant lighting.