How much power is enough power?

R Miller wrote<p>

 

<i>Hi Thomas,</i><p>

 

Hi! :)<p>

 

<i>With regards to using GN, you wrote:</i><p>

 

"Doing the math, based upon Speedotron spec sheets, a 4803CX has a GN of 1000. A pair of Force 10's has an equivalent GN of plus 1000. A pair of D1204's has a combined GN of 910. Four D402's has a combined GN of plus 1000. If one were to use a pair of Speedotron 4803CX's, then all numbers would, of course, be doubled."<p>

 

"To me GN is the most reliable indicator as the efficiency of any unit is then automatically taken into consideration."<p>

 

<i>It may be that I misunderstand your comment, in which such case I apologize for stating the obvious, but be careful when using GNs for such comparisons. First, a doubling of the power, with all other things kept constant, will NOT double the GN but will increase it by a factor of about 1.4.</i><p>

 

What I was referring to was the using of two seperate 4803CX's who each have GN's of 1000. The power packs would be used seperate as opposed to being combined. The point was to give some equivalencies to what was out there to be purchased.<p>

 

Yes. How these seperate power packs will adjust the overall final guide number will be in how they're used. Much in the same way taking twenty candles and spreading them about a room will more efficiently light a room as opposed to bundling the twenty candles all together into one big flame. The addition of one more candle to the bundle of twenty isn't going to noticeable affect the lighting characteristics in a room but putting that one candle in a darkened corner would.<p>

 

<i>Second, a GN that gives a good result in a relatively small, light colored/highly reflective room will not give the same result outside or in a very large, dark room.</i><p>

 

Absolutely. I agree. And these points are automatically taken into consideration. It's hard on these forums to perfectly map out a hypothetical senario that will take into consideration all real world variables. In one of my posts above, I tried to lay out a generalized church based scenario, with distances, for this mental exercise.<p>

 

The beauty of the just being released Canon 1D MkII is that it's basically dead quiet up to ISO 800. It may not have enough pixels for the number of people I suggested but it should mean the yet to be announced 1Ds MKII, expectedly, is going to have similar noise characteristics and this will help greatly with the needed two stops to allow for distance and light absorption problems:) The 1D MkII also has better dynamic range and will also handle contrasty lighting better. Canon's thinking for the both of us:)<p>

 

The 1Ds MK II is rumored to also have 16MP, equal to Kodak's recently announced PRO SLR/c. Now if they'll cut loose with it in the $5k (US) range, there's gonna be a lot of happy campers:)<p>

 

Thanks for your thoughtful input. The more the merrier.<p>

 

At this time and point, I'm seeing that I need to add two more D402's and one more D1204 power packs to the party and an additional M11 head. Once that's squared away, I can decide if to add a pair of Force 10's or a pair of 2405CX's with 202VF heads.<p>

 

Thanks to everybody's input as this exercise greatly helped address issues assessing the amount of power, resonably, I should expect to have available in a large group lighting kit.<p>

 

To those wondering why's this pest-control guy worring about putting such a kit together. It's easy. The back's not twenty-seven anymore and if it goes out, I won't be able to make a living at pest-control and will have to shift over to photography. I climb up ladders, onto roofs carrying forty pound backpacks. It's easier to buy equipment when you're making money then it is when you're broke because your back doesn't like you anymore:)<p>

 

I'm realistically assessing my lighting needs, buying the basic foundation equipment and putting them on the shelf in the shop at the ready. Then, if need be, I'd only need to throw a few bucks at the pile to finish it off and make it operational. It's a sort of plan "B" work related insurance policy:) "Okay genius!" "Now that your backs out, what are you going to do?"<p>

 

Thanks again to everybody's input. It's been a great help.<p>

 

 

"...Having lit the Houston Symphony orchestra a few years ago with high intensity

"long throw" reflectors...<P>

 

<I> Not familiar with "long throw" reflectors. I'll look for them over on B&H's web

site.</I><P><B>Different brands use different names for these. Profoto calls them

MAgnum reflectors for example. What you are looking for is a narrow angle, high

intensity reflector. It is also sometimes called a sports reflector.</B><P>

 

 

 

and using 6,000 watt-seconds of Speedotron and Elinchrom equipment, and

struggling with getting good depth of field at f/8 + 1/2, no I don't think you have

enough power.

 

<P><I> Based upon what's been written here by you and others, the total ws will be

some 10k ws but I'm looking at GN as opposed to overall ws.</I><P><B> to

double the f-stop you have to double the power.</B><P>

 

 

 

Light's to center of stage distance was about 50' to 60'. With those distances there

was virtually no fall off from the front edge of the stage to the back riser.

 

<I>That's an interesting observation.</I><P><B> It is a fact of light.</B><P>

 

 

 

The long throw reflectors let me tune the light across the group for evenenss.

 

<I> I'm under the impression from past reading that grids or louvers will help both

control spill and even the lighting intensity out front to back.</I><P><B>Grids and

louvers effectively absorb light. They won't be very useful in this situation.</B><P>

<I>Kodak just announced a Pro SLR/c for those with Canon lenses.</I><P> I meant

to write Kodak Pro SLR/C instead of SLR/n twice.</P>

You also wrote that the rumored EOS 1Ds mark 2 may have a 16Mp sensor. That isn't

even a 20% increase in resolution over the current EOS 1Ds. The other thing is that

they will have to drop the individual pixel site size in the down below the current 7

micron size. That will negatively affect noise and resolution. Canon (or anyone else)

could make a 50MP 24x36mm size chip now but you wouldn't be happy with the

resulting images.

A thought on resolution:

 

If you scan a 2-1/4 sq negative at 4000 ppi, you get 64 million pixels.

 

A 14 mp digital doesn't seem like much compared to that.

Steve,

 

It doesn't seem to make much sense comparing a 2 1/4 square piece of film scanned at 4000 dpi with a 14mp chip like that in the Kodak 14N.

 

I've scanned 2 1/4" square film at 4800 dpi and the result is not as good as that from the Kodak 14N. A Kodak ProBack 16mp chip image is eveb better with really no comparison at all to a scanned 6x6 trans or neg.

As to the scanning of a 2 1/4 neg, a lot of what you're picking up in the scan is noise or what's called grain. If you stop over at dpreview.com, there's been a lot of conversation about the size of drum scanned file Vs actual usable information. Also there's been a lot of joshing in conversation about who's spending all this money to have all these expensive, time consuming, drum scans made:)

 

Michael over on Luminous Landscape has posted a lot of information in regard to this subject matter also. He's also pretty much dumped all his MF gear as it's quite clear to him that the 1Ds is equal in task to most MF gear and with Canon coming out with the 1Ds, MF has lost it's advantage.

 

As to pixel size, dynamic range and pixel noise; Canon's been doing some mighty exciting and excellent work on this matter. The newly announced 1D MkII is pretty much noise free up to ISO 800 and the AA filter is so light that it barely needs sharpening. The 1Ds is 11 MP's and is pretty much noise free up to ISO 400 and is quite usable at ISO 800. The Kodak pro SLR/c that's been announce has a 16MP sensor and is pretty much, based upon released samples, noise free up to ISO 200; after that it goes over the cliff of useability:) Canon, I bet will easily be able to best Kodak's engineers up to ISO 400 if not ISO 800 and still be able to hold their current nine stop dynamic range.

 

So I have the money at the ready and am in stand-by mode waiting for Canon to announce the next generation 1Ds MkII. It's rumored that it will be announced in two more months. I expect it to be showcased at Photokina in September this year for a bit more then Kodak's Pro SLR/c.

 

Hope the above helps with the scanning debate.

Ellis wrote<p>

 

<i>You also wrote that the rumored EOS 1Ds mark 2 may have a 16Mp sensor. That isn't even a 20% increase in resolution over the current EOS 1Ds. The other thing is that they will have to drop the individual pixel site size in the down below the current 7 micron size. That will negatively affect noise and resolution. Canon (or anyone else) could make a 50MP 24x36mm size chip now but you wouldn't be happy with the resulting images.</i><p>

 

It may be only a 20% increase in resolution but the advantage is that it will provide 20% more detail in the same given space and will allow for some cropping and still retain the high resolution of the 1Ds current chip density. This is a good thing. As the saying goes, more is better:)<p>

 

As to the pixel pitch size. A few corrections are in order:) The pixel pitch of the 10D is 7.4 microns. The pixel pitch of the 1D Mk II is 8.2 microns and the pixel pitch of the 1Ds is 8.8 microns. This can all be easily verified by reading a review and doing the math; sensor length, divided by the number of total pixels in the long dimension.<p>

 

Considering that Canon has a virtually noise free ISO 800 product in the 1D MkII, at 8.2 microns, I'd say that Canon is going to be surprising a lot of folks in a few months with a noise free ISO 800 1Ds MkII at 16MP:) This noise free performance is what gives the now generation of Canon sensor bodies their edge over MF film equipment.<p>

 

Using your example number of a 7 micron pixel pitch on a 1Ds sensor. A 1Ds sensor size is 35.8 x 23.8mm. When you divide the sensor by .007, you'll have a sensor that's 5114 x 3400 pixels or r17.4 MP total. Usable pixels would be about 2.4% less then the total pixels or about 16.982mp. Canon's right next to that with the 10D being 7.4 microns.<p>

 

Hope the math above is found helpful.<p>

I'm not sure that Tom's pixel math means that much.

 

Some space is taken up by the dividers between pixels, and that could vary from chip to chip.

 

You would really need to go back to some kind of engineering documentation to see what the real size of the pixels is.

Interesting stuff mentioned here about sensor pitch. Here my old 4x5 digital back has a 14 micron spacing; for its scan bar. Maybe these big pixels work better with a big camera :)

This is a link to a Canon news release, posted recently on DPReview.com. In the news release "New CMOS sensor", Canon comments about the size of the pixel square for both the 1D MkII and the 1Ds. As for the traces, if you're up on CMOS technology, the traces are a lot less then 0.13 microns. That's not gonna make a 8.8 micron square even remotely close to seven microns:)<p>

 

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos1dmkii/page3.asp">Canon news release </a><p>

 

Considering that my math agrees with the numbers Canon's engineers supplied for the news release, there's no reason to believe that my math is in error in regard to the pixel pitch size of the 10D sensor. Either which way, it seems that many are going to be very surprised with Canon's next generation 1Ds and the corresponding pixel density increase. I'm sure this same group will be also surprised by how noise free ISO 800 is going to be. This is a good thing:)<p>

"Michael over on Luminous Landscape has posted a lot of information in regard to this subject matter also"

 

Is this the same guy that couldn't tell the difference between a fisheye lens and a normal wide angle lens? The one who ran a lens test and managed to focus the two on totally different things?

Just to bring this pixel pitch size digression back to the lighting topic. Think about it; ISO 100 Vs ISO 800...... have you done the possibilities? Noise free images, three stops faster than ISO 100 and how will this affect your power requirement needs?

I originally started this thread commenting that I'd be shooting at ISO 100. It seems that my power requirements are up around plus 10,000ws. By having a clean ISO 800 at the ready, 10,000ws gets dropped down to a more fiscally manageable 2,500ws with a stop to spare:)

 

This is major money savings:) What it means is that I would only have to add one D1204 and a pair of D402's to the kit and the power requirements would be met. I would have three D1204's for the front mains. Two D402's for the rims and a pair of D402's for background seperation. And still be able to get an f/11 if not a possible f/16, depending upon room lighting conditions and distances to subject matter.

 

"Okay!" "You guys in the back!" "What's with the dark colored robes?!" "And who let all this dark wood and drapery in here?!" "What is with all this high open cathedral ceiling architechture?!" "Who built this place?!" "Aaaaaah, it's a church, boss." :)

 

Various possibilities come into play with a clean ISO 800 at hand. One has an extra three stops to play with over a clean ISO 100. Power requirements are cut by one stop from 10,000ws to 5,000ws (one stop) and from f/8.0 you can stop down to a more desirable f/16, using the other two stops.

 

You can fine tune the above numbers anyway you choose, based upon the efficiency of the strobe units being used. This efficiency reason of light creation is why I choose to use GN's as opposed to ws. Either which way one chooses to do the math, an extra stop of headroom is a major thing when it comes to high levels of power requirements and the act of cutting your power requirements in half. Having an extra stop or two, to stop down with, above and beyond power requirements, is an even greater plus.

 

Looking to the future.

Robert wrote.<p>

 

<i>"Michael over on Luminous Landscape has posted a lot of information in regard to this subject matter also"

 

Is this the same guy that couldn't tell the difference between a fisheye lens and a normal wide angle lens? The one who ran a lens test and managed to focus the two on totally different things?</i><p>

 

Considering the number of lame things we've all said and done in our life's history, to focus on one goofy item, considering the good that Michael has done, is being disengenuous at best.<p>

 

Shall we focus on all your life's foiables and apply this abherent behavior to the validity of this comment of yours?<p>

The best image quality is the result of the lowest ISO whether you're using film or a digital chip. I hear people talking about "noise-free" 800 ISO digital captures and if you look closely the lower ISOs are always better.

 

This thread was about lighting power requirements. If the scenario originally described is the criteria, just use as much light as you need to get a reasonably f-stop at 100 ISO. Buy the lighting or lease it. There's no substitute for having enough light for the job.

Brooks wrote<p>

 

<i>The best image quality is the result of the lowest ISO whether you're using film or a digital chip. I hear people talking about "noise-free" 800 ISO digital captures and if you look closely the lower ISOs are always better.</i><p>

 

Have you been following the reports by noted individuals that have personally used the 1D MkII and read how quiet the images were up to ISO 800?<p>

 

As to best, there's no best when the noise level is so low that it's not noticeable. There's grain is ASA 100 film. And there's noise, admittedly in ISO 800. But when the noise of an ISO 800 image, is lower then the grain of ASA 100 film, then go with the ISO 800.<p>

 

At this point it becomes argumentative in that there has been a lot written by notable photographers who use digital both professionally and exclusively that have, via valid testing, proven the noise characteristics of digital are lower then grain characteristics of film.<p>

 

Yes, I agree with your off topic comments and made note of this tagent going off thread. You'll notice that I commented and brought comments back on thread in the post about three stop gain because of virtually noise free ISO 800 and how this will make for more flexability in both power needs and more lattitude in the addition of an extra stop or two.<p>

 

Go with what works, that's what's important.<p>

Thomas,

 

If the noise characteristics of a certain digital chip are better than the grain characteristics of 100 ISO film then take a look at a larger piece of 100 ISO film.

 

I've been shooting digitally with a Koda ProBack for 3 years now and it's easily better than 6x7 100 iso film. There is little to no noise and the resolution is great up to about a 16"x16" image.

 

But is it better than 100ISO 4x5 film ? Not quite. So if the limiting factor of 100 ISO film is the grain, and you want the highest quality image, shoot a larger format than 35mm or 120 film.

 

It's limiting comparing the smaller formats, film and digital, against each other when you could just go to a larger format and leave them all behind. 4x5 film or the new 22mp digital backs render these arguments moot.

 

Maybe it's not really about the best, ultimate image quality after all. Maybe it's about using smaller formats because that's what you have. If that's the case then go with what you have rather than what would be ideal.

 

Still, it's cheaper to buy or rent the amount of light that you need than invest in the latest greatest digital capture unless money is no object. Since you started talking about using Speedotron Brown line flash equipment my thought was that spending less money was the object.

<I>Have you been following the reports by noted individuals that have personally

used the 1D MkII and read how quiet the images were up to ISO 800?</I><P>That is

a relative statement and they are comparig it to are other digital cameras at ISO 800,

noit other digital cameras or even the same DSLR at ISO 100 or 200. personally I think

a camera that had equal characteristics at ISO 100, 200, 400 & 800 wouldbe

terrific.<P>

 

I have done a lot of shooting with a 1Ds and a Kodak 645C Pro Back, both at ISO 100.

I'm not idley speculating based on what I have read when I talk about this

subject.First of all the Kodak Pro Back technology is a few years old. I first saw &

handled one in a store in October of 2001, and it had been out for a month or two

then. I would expect the chip technology in the 1Ds, being a couple of years newer, to

be better. And for a 24x36mm sensor what is in the 1Ds is damn good. But finished

images from the Kodak Pro Back still look better to my eye, less "digital" if you like.

Don't get me wrong: Canon makes great cameras, but there are better offerings ( a

head to head comparison of the 1Ds and the 11Mp versions of the Leaf Valeo or the

Jenoptik backs might be very intersting for example) from other manufacturers. And

as to rumors of a 1Ds mk.II: Canon execs said in public at PMA, to dealers and to the

press, that there is no a replacement of the 1Ds planned for this year. Does this mean

they were telling the truth, being deliberately misleading, or didn't know? That is a

real question for right now and we will know in the fullness of time. But these weren't

the kind of hemming and hawing answers you get when people have signed an NDA.

The surprise introduction of the new Kodak might change Canon's plans, or cause the

price on the 1Ds to drop, especially if sales of the 1Ds falter.

<I>Still, it's cheaper to buy or rent the amount of light that you need than invest in

the latest greatest digital capture unless money is no object.</I><P> There is a lot

of sense to Brooks' argument.

Brooks wrote.<p>

 

First. Thanks for your below comments as it helps flesh out your thinking a bit more. Forums can be so thin, when it comes to fleshing an idea out:)<p>

 

<i>If the noise characteristics of a certain digital chip are better than the grain characteristics of 100 ISO film then take a look at a larger piece of 100 ISO film.</i><p>

 

Outwardly that sounds like a very insightful idea but ten or fifteen feet up in the air at the top of a ladder, handheld, a single shot, scanning back view camera might not be very do able:)<p>

 

<i>I've been shooting digitally with a Koda ProBack for 3 years now and it's easily better than 6x7 100 iso film. There is little to no noise and the resolution is great up to about a 16"x16" image.</i><p>

 

And how does this back compare today against Leaf's current 22MP MF backs at some twenty to thirty thousand dollars? Money at these levels do matter to most:)<p>

 

<i>But is it better than 100ISO 4x5 film ? Not quite. So if the limiting factor of 100 ISO film is the grain, and you want the highest quality image, shoot a larger format than 35mm or 120 film.</i><p>

 

Again, for the purpose that I've described, a 4x5 would be, shall we say, less then the best choice of equipment:) Again, how does current 22MP technology compare against the 6MP backs of three years ago? And what will be the best choice of equipment for the situation that I've described?<p>

 

<i>It's limiting comparing the smaller formats, film and digital, against each other when you could just go to a larger format and leave them all behind. 4x5 film or the new 22mp digital backs render these arguments moot.</i><p>

 

They sure do up to the point where you go into price negotiations for the backs and the support equipment that's required to process the images. Shall we talk storage?<p>

 

Now all of a sudden, the relevance of the smaller format becomes un-moot if you will. I like how conversation turns to LF when 35mm is discussed. The 35mm digital format has killed the MF market so now we have to go to thirty thousand dollar 22MP backs and 4x5 view cameras to compete. Isn't that sort of like comparing a formula V against a formula 1 race car? These are two different formats, two completely different usages characteristics so therefore, to compare the two becomes argumentative and an invalid argument at that:)<p>

 

<i>Maybe it's not really about the best, ultimate image quality after all. Maybe it's about using smaller formats because that's what you have. If that's the case then go with what you have rather than what would be ideal.</i><p>

 

Nice ego touch:) Or maybe it's a third possibility; about using the right piece of equipment for the job. Since I don't have and nobody has a 1Ds MkII and could easily afford a decent 4x5 view, it's not about ego, money or what I have or don't have. It's about the future and what will be presented to photographers and how photographers will use this additional clean ISO to their advantage to help in their lighting requirements.<p>

 

<i>Still, it's cheaper to buy or rent the amount of light that you need than invest in the latest greatest digital capture unless money is no object.</i><p>

 

Money is always an object, for all of us unless we're "The Donald" or one of the high tech top dogs like "Larry" or "Bill".<p>

 

<i>Since you started talking about using Speedotron Brown line flash equipment my thought was that spending less money was the object.</i><p>

 

There's that ego thing again:) Actually it's spending smart as opposed to spending less. If you do your research, you'll find that the Speedotron's Brownline light output and consistancy is just as fine as anything that Elinchrom or Profoto puts out. As to the Brownline system Vs Blackline, the main difference has to do with how hard you can hammer the equipment during a shoot and recycle times. I don't need the strengty/durability of the Blackline system, nor the faster recycle times as I'm not going to be doing fast shooting fashion. Also, the Brownline system is able to better handle dirty, spiky electricity then the higher end units, including the Blackline setups. If I need more GN, there's always the Blackline 2405CX power supply with a 202VF head attached. That combination will give me a GN of plus 700 but at this time and point, based upon what I've read here and what's coming down the pike from Canon, I won't need that much power. Oh lucky me!:)<p>

 

Color corrected, GN for GN the Brownline setup is the best bang for the buck. There's cheap and then there's esoteric. But you're welcome to spend all you want on anything else your heart desires. Oh! I will be adding a pair of Force 10's and they to are the best bang for the buck. You can spend more but you won't get better. Nothing I've read says to the contrary:) GN, consistancy of flash, CC'd tubes, durability of build, all are what counts in my book. Move a stand, add a filter or diffuser and voila, instant lighting control. My appologies for overly simplifing:)<p>

Ellis

 

We all remember Canon's spokesperson over on Rob's site saying that Canon had no intention of replacing the 1D.

 

Canon has to do this or people won't buy what's in the manufacturing pipeline as sales would come to a screeching halt as people waited for the next generation to come out.

 

Canon's behavior as to marketing and how tight lipped they are about new introductions is very well known by those that follow these things. The cat's out of the bag on the 1Ds MkII and in a few months we'll all know whether or not the source was accurate or not. I tend to believe this source as it stands to reason. Especially since Kodak has made this last announcement of a Pro SLR/c. The /c is what put the needle in Canon's side and will make them come out of the closet on this one:)

A noise level that would be acceptable for a picture of one person close up may turn faces into unrecognizable blobs when you shoot a large group.

 

I'm not sure enough attention has been paid to the business issue here. Are you trying to equip yourself for something you have not done or do rarely? If so, it's a bad investment.

Thomas,

 

When I first started out in commersial photography I has a 1600ws Brown Line pack and a several M11 heads. There are three issues with Brown Line equipment and they have nothing to do with the quality of light.

 

Recycle time on the Brown Line packs is relatively slow. That's not usually an issue unless you are shooting portraits or people and are anxious to catch a fleeting expression. But the slow recycle time does encourage to you make the next exposure as soon as the ready light comes on. If you do shoot as soon as the ready light is on then the pack is ony at about 80% of full power and your exposures become erratic with random under-exposure. For the pack to be up to 100% power you have to wait an additional 2-3 seconds after the ready light. Not usually a problem on negative film unless you're showing the client a contact sheet but it is a real problem when shooting un-bracketed transparency film.

 

The third issue I had with Brown Line packs relates to the kind of studio work I was shooting at the time. Shooting product photography on 4x5 film I found that 1600ws wasn't enough in many cases. Often I would have to do multi-pops on the pack. Doing sequential 8-12 multi-pops on a Brown line pack causes it to overheat. You can actually smell a burning smell. It smells like cooked PCBs.

 

My comments are not about ego unless ego dictates using the right tool for the job and it could be interpreted that way, I guess. Instead my comments concerning the Brown Line packs stem from actual experience with these issues. You can work around these consistency problems by slowing your shooting rate but you can't avoid the low power issues of a 1600ws pack compared to a 4800ws pack if you need the power. The Brown Line powerpacks turned out to be an extreme pain in the ass to use.

 

As far as using a 4x5 in awkward positions... Many times I've had to mount a tripod head on the top step of a 20ft. ladder bucket lift or scaffolding to gain an elevated view with a 4x5 camera. It's awkward and it's difficult to adjust f-stop and shutter speed etc. but if that's what's needed then that's what you do.

 

The reason 4x5 large format comes up in discussions involving 35mm camera, shooting professional jobs, image resolution, size of enlargement etc is because often a larger format IS the proper tool for the job. Used 4x5 view cameras are pretty cheap right now and their lenses seem like bargains today. It would not be a bad thing, if you are doing professional photography, to be familiar with all the formats. Having a choice to use the right tool for the job, rather than forcing a job with an inadequate camera/resolution solution, is a wonderfully liberating thing.

Thomas,

 

One last point. You asked how does the 22mp back compare to the 6mp chips of a few years ago ?

 

I've not had the pleasure of using the new 22mp backs yet. But I can tell you this...the 16mp back in the Kodak ProBack blows away any 6mp chip DSLR on the market today, including the Fuji S2 using it's 12mp interpolated file. It's also better than the 8mp Canon and 14mp Kodak DSLR. There's no comparison.

 

The new 22 mp backs will be better resolution than the 16mp Kodak Proback but by how much, I don't know. Resolution is one thing but a real advantage to the rectangular 22mp chip is it's physical size relative to 6x4.5 film. The larger physical size should provide better color and tonality but it also will be closer to the proper size for wide-angle lenses available in the 6x4.5 format.

Steve wrote.<p>

 

<i>A noise level that would be acceptable for a picture of one person close up may turn faces into unrecognizable blobs when you shoot a large group.</i><p>

 

I'm in agreement with you on you're above. I'm not trying to get in the argument of small format Vs MF Vs LF. It's been shown that the top end Canon 1Ds will provide needed detail. Is it the end all digital sensor body? Of course not. But having a clean ISO of 800, coupled with the high density pixel count is going to open many doors up for the professional. One of them being needing less power. That's a good thing.<p>

 

<i>I'm not sure enough attention has been paid to the business issue here. Are you trying to equip yourself for something you have not done or do rarely? If so, it's a bad investment.</i><p>

 

I don't think the business issues are intentionally being ignored. I started this thread about the amount of power needed for a hypothetical situation and we've come to an agreement that realistically speaking I was about two stops underpowered. That's a bad thing. But with the advent of the next generation digital noise reduction technology, that will give about three additional stops of leeway to the user of the sensor body.<p>

 

The business aspects of 35mm Vs MF Vs LF are (and I'm sure you'd agree) too far reaching to deal with in this thread. Expectedly, one would need a couple of differing formats to be fluid within the industry as in this case, one size won't fit all:)<p>

Brooks wrote<p>

 

First, before I contine, I just want to say that I'm in agreement with your below. If you reread my earlier response to you, I tried address the issues you listed below.<p>

 

<i>When I first started out in commersial photography I has a 1600ws Brown Line pack and a several M11 heads.</i><p>

 

I'm running one head to a power pack as opposed to many heads to a power pack. In construction, I developed a rule to buying equipment, never buy equipment that you're going to use at max potential usage, more then eighty percent of it's rated load capacity. Things last longer this way and don't break as often; less down time.<p>

 

<i>There are three issues with Brown Line equipment and they have nothing to do with the quality of light.</i><p>

 

Not knowing which door you were going to open first, I had to throw consistency of light quality in there:)<p>

 

<i>Recycle time on the Brown Line packs is relatively slow. That's not usually an issue unless you are shooting portraits or people and are anxious to catch a fleeting expression. But the slow recycle time does encourage to you make the next exposure as soon as the ready light comes on. If you do shoot as soon as the ready light is on then the pack is ony at about 80% of full power and your exposures become erratic with random under-exposure. For the pack to be up to 100% power you have to wait an additional 2-3 seconds after the ready light. Not usually a problem on negative film unless you're showing the client a contact sheet but it is a real problem when shooting un-bracketed transparency film.</i><p>

 

Being aware of the above issues, I took this into consideration in my choice of equipment. I'm not suggesting that Brown Line is the end-all, be-all equipment but the choice of equipment was based upon the equipment serving my needs, not based upon financial consideration as a cost saving device. I'm the kind of person that does his research twice and buys once. And then makes adjustments as necessary from there. LOL :)<p>

 

<i>The third issue I had with Brown Line packs relates to the kind of studio work I was shooting at the time. Shooting product photography on 4x5 film I found that 1600ws wasn't enough in many cases.</i><p>

 

From my research, 35mm is f/16, MF is f/22 and LF is f/45. So yes, Brown Line, by design, is good to go with 35mm but woefully underpowered for LF, f/45 work. Got that info from a local studio using 4x5 for some of their work during the research phase. In my case, I'll have three M11's hanging on the end of three seperate D1204's. My future plans, should I find need, will be to, at minimum, add a pair of Force 10's, GN 540, ea. Between those five lights, I would have what one might call a good start. The four D402's, with MW3R's and MW3U's hanging off their plug will do fine for rims and seperation lights.<p>

 

<i>Often I would have to do multi-pops on the pack. Doing sequential 8-12 multi-pops on a Brown line pack causes it to overheat. You can actually smell a burning smell. It smells like cooked PCBs.</i><p>

 

Again, I'm in agreement with you. If I ever feel the need to pick up a 4x5, I'll be sure to take your advice to heart and pick-up a couple of heavier packs such as a pair of Black Line 4803CX's. Myself? I'd do multiple pops about one time and then pick-up the necessary gear:) Rent it or buy it, I don't care, as getting the right equipment for the job is what I do care about. I don't have the patience to play games with my work.<p>

 

For what I'd be using the Brown Line setup for, I'd do maybe three or four pops and then reset the lights or the stage. Four or five more pops and then another reset. My style and the type of stuff I'd be expecting to do will be a lot slower paced then what multiple pops will call for. If I need to pick-up the pace, I'll step up to the Black Line line of power packs.<p>

 

<i>My comments are not about ego unless ego dictates using the right tool for the job and it could be interpreted that way, I guess.</i><p>

 

I'm just teasing with ya as you comment, the way it was layed out could have easily been misconstrued as an underhanded slight. As in; "Oh you poor pitiful dear." "You're havin ta save money buying Brown Line." "Look honey, (in a bluenose tone) he has Brown Line." "Snicker, snicker". "Oh how quaint." :) Juuuuuuust kidding:)<p>

 

<i>Instead my comments concerning the Brown Line packs stem from actual experience with these issues. You can work around these consistency problems by slowing your shooting rate but you can't avoid the low power issues of a 1600ws pack compared to a 4800ws pack if you need the power. The Brown Line powerpacks turned out to be an extreme pain in the ass to use.</i><p>

 

Using them the way you described, I'm surprised you let the D1604 live to talk about it:) f/45 on a GN of 540, divided up among several lights, could be very frustrating, in the least.<p>

 

<i>As far as using a 4x5 in awkward positions... Many times I've had to mount a tripod head on the top step of a 20ft. ladder bucket lift or scaffolding to gain an elevated view with a 4x5 camera. It's awkward and it's difficult to adjust f-stop and shutter speed etc. but if that's what's needed then that's what you do.</i><p>

 

Again, I'm in agreement with you. As I've posted, a couple of times, my question wrapped around a hypothetical situation so I could see if my projected requirements were matching my equipment list. And from people's responses, such as yours, I found out that I was woefully underpowered by up to two stops for my thinking. But soon to be released 35mm digital technology will give users two or three additional stops, which will help with this underpowered situation.<p>

 

<i>The reason 4x5 large format comes up in discussions involving 35mm camera, shooting professional jobs, image resolution, size of enlargement etc is because often a larger format IS the proper tool for the job. Used 4x5 view cameras are pretty cheap right now and their lenses seem like bargains today. It would not be a bad thing, if you are doing professional photography, to be familiar with all the formats.</i><p>

 

Used 4x5's back in the late 70's for product shots of dishes and eating utensils. I'm clearly not an expert and would have need of starting over from the beginning but do have some, limited experience. You could say I have enough experience to know better:)<p>

 

<i>Having a choice to use the right tool for the job, rather than forcing a job with an inadequate camera/resolution solution, is a wonderfully liberating thing.</i><p>

 

I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I'm putting this lighting setup together, to the extent that I am, as I hate that hamstrung feeling because you don't have enough of something. Hence the question; "How much power is enough power?" So when the time becomes ripe, I'll be at the ready to pick the crop.<p>

 

Thanks for taking the time for your thoughtful reply.<p>