Good Egg Productions wrote:
Why not?  Well, for one, you'll melt your model's face.

The further away you can get your lights from the model, the more comfortable she will be.

Well, I'll be the 1st to admit, I haven't used hotlights for maybe 20 years. But:

1) Why would I light any differently with hot lights than I do with strobes, in terms of specularity and source distance, etc.

2) Why would the fact that I'm using modeling lights vs. dedicated video lights be different in the heat generated. Unless I bought the expensive florescent / hmi or whatever the new rage cool lights are called.

jdmax wrote:
because your modeling light will be 250 watt? 500 watt?  Not very powerful.
You might want to sub in a higher watt bulb but can the head take the heat without melting?
Does it have attachments for the right fireproof softbox designed for video hotlights?
But it is tungsten which is 100% cri so thats about your only bonus

These are expensive profoto heads, so I'm not going to replace the bulbs with something out of spec.
But you haven't seen the light output of these - it's like the floods I remember as a child for doing 8mm home movies. Now those were HOT.

John Allan wrote:
Well, I'll be the 1st to admit, I haven't used hotlights for maybe 20 years. But:

1) Why would I light any differently with hot lights than I do with strobes, in terms of specularity and source distance, etc.

2) Why would the fact that I'm using llamaing lights vs. dedicated video lights be different in the heat generated. Unless I bought the expensive florescent / hmi or whatever the new rage cool lights are called.

I think the point is that for the same output, you have to get them closer to the llama than fresnels which are designed to be placed further away and spotted in.

John Allan wrote:
The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.

No. They are not.

John Allan wrote:

Well, I'll be the 1st to admit, I haven't used hotlights for maybe 20 years. But:

1) Why would I light any differently with hot lights than I do with strobes, in terms of specularity and source distance, etc.

2) Why would the fact that I'm using modeling lights vs. dedicated video lights be different in the heat generated. Unless I bought the expensive florescent / hmi or whatever the new rage cool lights are called.

That's exactly the point.  You DON'T light video the same as you do still photos.  I mean... you CAN, but it's dangerous and uncomfortable to the model.  This is where barndoors and grids really come in handy to shape your light from a distance rather than using your same modifiers for a blast of light milliseconds long.

That said, I've used my 150 watt modeling lights to light video, but I have to really crank up the ISO on the camera.  Usually, I'm using 1000 watt lights with barndoors and it really heats up a room.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

No. They are not.

Ah - yep - they are.

John Allan wrote:

Ah - yep - they are.

You can rent video lights for a day or two and shoot some direct comparisons.  I'm sure once you get into it you'll see a few key differences start to emerge.  You won't get the same versatility and usability (for video) with the modeling lamps on your strobes that you'll get with dedicated continuous lighting.  Or you could find that it totally suits your needs.  There's no right or wrong, but usually when you use the right tool for the job, you learn why it's considered to be the right tool.

John Allan wrote:
I'm thinking about shooting some beauty video on my D800.

I'm trying to learn why I wouldn't just use my Profoto D4's modeling lights on full, rather than purchasing specialty video lighting?

The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.

Try it.
If it works well for you, keep doing it.

Some people will tell you that you need this kind of light, or that kind of light, or some other kind of light... but if you're already using something that works for you, more power to ya!

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
No. They are not.

John Allen wrote:
Ah - yep - they are.

If you want to see blinding, look straight into my Arri Daylight Compact 575 or 1000's.  Either one of those will burn your eyes if you stare right into them and they are not even considered large.

John, I know what you are trying to say, but your lights are extremely low power as compared to any of my professional Frenels.  I am not saying that you can't make them work.  I've used modeling lights in a pinch and I got the video to come out.  Leonard's point is well taken.  Your modeling lights are like candles compared to a frenel.

John Allan wrote:
It sounded so good, because I thought I could light beauty exactly how I do for film, but have the light be continuous. But yeah maybe the heat.
I know I could rent Profoto HMI that would work with my modifiers, but then again, I couldn't light the same way I'm used to up close. It would be a bit of a learning process to get the same beauty lighting, from like 10 ft away. For instance, unless I had an 8' dish it would be hard to get the same softness combined with specularity I like.

As I was typing this, I just realized that renting a profoto hmi, combined with my new focusable 8' parabolic, might give me something close. Although no grid.

Just remember that the soft boxes we use with frenels are special "High Temperature" boxes.   That is true whether or not they are daylight.  If you try to put on a regular soft box, you might melt it.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
No. They are not.

John, I know what you are trying to say, but your lights are extremely low power as compared to any of my professional Frenels.  I am not saying that you can't make them work.  I've used modeling lights in a pinch and I got the video to come out.  Leonard's point is well taken.  Your modeling lights are like candles compared to a frenel.

I'm sure you're right. I don't really have much experience with continuous lights, except par lights 30 years ago when I played in bands.
I was just hoping for a smooth transition from technology (and the use of it), that I know.

GPS Studio Services wrote:

Just remember that the soft boxes we use with frenels are special "High Temperature" boxes.   That is true whether or not they are daylight.  If you try to put on a regular soft box, you might melt it.

Oh, that probably applies to an umbrella also. Although there's no softbox front. This focusable parabolic typically has the light inside, so it may be a distance of 3-4 ft from the fabric.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Just remember that the soft boxes we use with frenels are special "High Temperature" boxes.   That is true whether or not they are daylight.  If you try to put on a regular soft box, you might melt it.

John Allan wrote:
Oh, that probably applies to an umbrella also. Although there's no softbox front. This focusable parabolic typically has the light inside, so it may be a distance of 3-4 ft from the fabric.

Yes, but umbrellas are usually a little bit less of a problem.  You don't have the ventilation issue because they are not enclosed.   You can burn one up, but it happens a lot less often than with a soft box.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM

That is actually true, and I agree with you.  My problem with using llamaing lights are that I don't like the quality of the light, I like the controllability of the frenel, I like the fact that professional lighting is precisely balanced in terms of temperature as well as the fact that they are silent.  Most strobes have fans which interfere with recording sound.

In terms of the quantity of light, the llamaing lights, in many situations may be enough.  It is a lot different than film days when we used 2K's all the time.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

ambient fill

John Allan wrote:
Ah - yep - they are.

Maybe you feel that way because you have no experience on film sets.  But the modeling lamp on that pack is about the smallest light you'll find on set and almost never used to light talent (not bright enough).

Now, having said that, if you can shoot at high iso with that camera, and you're doing beauty style work, sure, you could use it just fine.

If you need to light from distance (think something more narrative) then they won't be powerful enough.

I've been working with litepanels lately (disclaimer, they are a client) and am loving them for this type of work.  Check out the Sola as well as the panels.

http://www.litepanels.com/sola6.php

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM

When Sony sent me their F3 I was blown away by the low light capabilities compared to what I had been shooting.  The new F5(55) is even better.  The Alexa still needs more light, but still, nothing beats it (to me).

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Modern Digital Video Equipment requires much less light than video needed even five years ago.

You'd be surprised how little light professional videographers use these days . . .

KM

Yes, but they are using slower shutter speeds and shorter lenses than you use for beauty.

You'd have to really crank up the ISO to compensate.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
[...]

and then put the 85w (300w equivelent) daylight balanced florescents in them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-Photo-Dayl … 416dc5eb35

[...]

just an FYI.... I am using the ~same CFL bulbs, 85w, ~5500K

for those who prefer to avoid Ebay, they are available, cheaper, on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0019H … d_i=507846

edit to add:

I dabble in video, just fooling around trying to see ~if~ I can shoot anything I would show to anyone else. I have shot a couple clips for friends that they "directed"--- but nothing commercially oriented.

Initially shot some DSLR vids using the modeling lights on my Speedotrons and my existing modifiers.

If I cranked the iso up- it "worked" if you ignored the sound issue. 4 or 5 heads with fans however sounded pretty horrible.

I basically switched to --cheap-- CFL's in umbrellas using 2 or 3 85 watt bulbs per umbrella, and a cheap camcorder (Sony VG20)-- and get much better results. Not up to commercial standards by any stretch, but enough to learn a bit without a big investment.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:

No. They are not.

You win the award for least helpful post of all time.

Seriously.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Maybe you feel that way because you have no experience on film sets.  But the modeling lamp on that pack is about the smallest light you'll find on set and almost never used to light talent (not bright enough).

Now, having said that, if you can shoot at high iso with that camera, and you're doing beauty style work, sure, you could use it just fine.

If you need to light from distance (think something more narrative) then they won't be powerful enough.

I've been working with litepanels lately (disclaimer, they are a client) and am loving them for this type of work.  Check out the Sola as well as the panels.

http://www.litepanels.com/sola6.php

Yep - you're right never been on a film set. But when I lived in West Hollywood for a couple years, I saw quite a lot of strong lighting through silks on location sets when they were filming (It's hard to navigate around there without tripping over a film production staked out). And yes, modeling lights are not even in the same ballpark as those big lights - no argument. I was making my statement compared to the lighting I'm used to for still photography with strobes. They're really bright.

I used to use light panels quite a lot in the 90s, both in studio and on location.
When subtle long shadow transfer lighting fell out of favor, I for the most part stopped using them in favor of harder light. But I still have them and use them from time to time for fill.

John Allan wrote:
I'm thinking about shooting some beauty video on my D800.

I'm trying to learn why I wouldn't just use my Profoto D4's modeling lights on full, rather than purchasing specialty video lighting?

The modeling lights on full, are absolutely blinding, (it's a 2400 pack). They're like a noonday sun for crying out loud.

No reason, unless you're using a lot of diffusion or need to balance with daylight. I generally don't use more than 2000 watts total for my video work. Also, your modeling lights have better color rendering than HMIs or Kino Flos.

I do disagree with the "brighter than the noonday sun" bit, though. Plug in an 18K HMI and you'll understand bright. That's equivalent to about 250 of your modeling lights.

Robert Feliciano wrote:
Audio, audio, audio. That's why. The fans will be whirring the entire time. Did you notice that hot lights don't have fans?
The amount of time you waste taking out the background noise in post and money on the special mics you need to pick up only the talent's voice, you may as well buy the right lights. You may just be starting with beauty shots now with music instead of voice. But what happens when a client asks for a video with proper voice or environmental background?
And I agree with everyone else, not enough power. My Acute2 has a 250W modeling lamp. You can get a Lowel with 750W for