Would be nice to see this comparison repeated in a room without a white ceiling. The light was going around the little 50cm panel and hitting the ceiling, creating a much larger source! Love the videos! very helpful!
Exactly my thought. Even then, the CRLS is definitely still harder than the booklight, which is certainly evident along his neckline. I don't hate the look, but perceived source area is key, so if you want soft, a 50cm source is always going to offer more of a hurdle. If the space is conduce though, I think the CRLS definitely offers a nice conservative setup.
CRLS #4 really does have something natural and special to it. That spill also really mixes in the color of the room nicely, versus a direct source. Thanks for demonstrating these!
You can achieve exactly the same thing with a white poly board. Paying a ridiculous amount of money for something like CRLS is totally ludicrous! (Especially the #4)
Excellent demo. I must have set up book lights 1,000 times but it’s clear that there are modern alternatives that deliver the same (or shockingly similar) look with far less rigging and power.
This is what Ive been saying on a few platforms recently , there is some mojo going on about book lights with the bros,s , but they are not a magic "cinematic " bullet . Size to subject is the only rule . These larger LED Mat lights are for the win . Hugely quicker and more efficient .
I love how you always turn your living room into a full blown mini studio :D I really like using crls when there is limited space or when you wanna boom a reflector out over a balcony or something.Great video as always luke.love your channel!
Best CRLs demo I have seen yet. Thank you. The smaller size of the 50cm plate plus the number 4 diffused surface gave a really interesting look, higher contrast than the other larger sources. I’m looking forward to giving these a try.
I’m a big fan of bounce light. Haven’t invested into CRLS myself, but want to. Rent every so often. But definitely have my 6x6 Ultra Bounce and Magic cloth on me on almost every shoot. Thank you for the comparisons.
I do love your honesty! Encouraged to do so, and it’s an option. I do have to tell you that I did buy some cookie baking sheets that do exactly the same thing. And the amount of spill that’s adding to the ambient is considerable. I like your work!
I love the detailed comparison. Haven't seen such a good one yet. I would have liked to also see just a bounce without diffusion. More tungsten vs LED and HMI vs LED content would be super interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Awesome video, Luke! I love seeing the comparisons of all the lighting setups side by side. I know it's inefficient, but I love the look of the 2k open face booklight. 🤘
Love this. I have to look into that mars monitor. I just got my godox and love it for doc Interviews. Might have to send it through some magic cloth. That might be my favorite look of the bunch.
I noticed the following: - 2K open felt a little dim but in a natural way. - Nanlux felt source - CRLS #4 warmed the temperature of your face but the dimness of the 2K on your shirt. I wonder if the reflected light from the bricks causes that warmth. - Godox F600 was cooler and slightly popped your shirt's brightness.
Great, straight to the point comparison. Would have loved to see the CRLS with the back spill controlled. Maybe a demo of their new Snapbridge product with DOP Choice? 😉
exactly ! I loved the look of the crls #4 ( I have one as well) but the great thing about that look is also the bounce you get with lighting the whole ambience as well, makes it really natural. CRLS for inside locations, where you can bounce the light around, it's the best use case for sure ! But in a bigger place, or if you don't have wall to bounce, i think the booklight is a better option.
Price is relative to a lot of variables. Until you feel ready to put your money down for a well made, all-in-one tool you could just use a 6x6 or 4x4 ultrabounce behind the CRLS; and depending on how you want to incorporate the spill, use the black or white side. 🙂
I really like this unit for quick tight set-ups. I’m currently a fan of the AirGlow/“Bounce House” using a 600 watt 2x1 panel, but the F600 Bi is a strong choice!
Very nice testing. I like the Open Face booklight the best, but it's negligible to the Nanlux book and CRLS. That Godox seems to have cooled up your face quite a bit. And looking at the background to your face, it's for sure that light. I like comparing the catch light as well. The CRLS system is great, I mean it's filmmaker dependent, but I tend to like that slight more contrasty fall off than the wrap around of a panel light. Having just stepped into the CRLS game myself .... I look forward to doing more with that system. As usual, thank you for your time to share your tests.
i do like the CRLS #4 shot the most. nice shadows and nice color. The Godox is to "cold" in comparison with the others. 3200K is more than you started with (started with 3060K) But a great side by side comparing. Thank you
Really interesting comparison, Luke. Thanks! Definitely differences, but all acceptable. Especially when the subject (or the subject's handlers) give you a small time window, I can see ease of transport and speed of setup playing as big a factor as the aesthetic choices (for my little world, at least). Would be interesting to see the CRLS both with and without spill, but even so.... Thanks again Luke!
thank you for doing this test. Comparison between LED and Tungsten is great! Real Tungsten light looks much more natural on skin! Even with the same setup, tungsten gives me the feeling of light quality from a movie, skin looks like in real world, rooted to sunlight - the book light looks like quality stuff - while with the nanlux LED it looks a bit on a cheap side, like the typical "corporate movie" stuff with all that green tint, and it looks flat. even with a new semi-pro Bi-Color like the nanlux, we are in the year 2024 not there where we should be. for the CRLS - you used it absolutely good, results are great and I think that's the intention of CRLS to give a most natural impression. But for the technical comparison with the CRLS #4, I think the result is is not a fair, because you light up all the huge white roof / wall in the background, that gives you a much bigger bounce area than just the 50cm of the CRLS. why did you not close the barn doors / black out the spill light? CRLS is great, but #4 basically works like a poly / foam board - its still based on regular physics and a 50cm bounce is not as soft as a 4x4 (as your test suggests). i think a very cheap and good combination is a tungsten PAR (good spot but bad shadow quality) in combination with CRLS (#2 / #3) that improves the size and light quality
Thanks for the test! I'd be curious to see the Prolycht 675 w/ spotlight max hitting the CRLS.... also that combo with the 6' magic cloth in front of the CRLS
You could certainly give that a try, but putting that combo through magic cloth would probably not get you what you want in terms of output and would probably defeat the purpose of CRLS.
They all looked great (almost splitting hairs at this point and comes down to preference) 2 interesting metrics would be set-up time and pack space. That might be a difference maker with the 4 great options?
I mean in terms of soft light, unless you need crazy high output or outdoors, LED sources are just the norm now, their's so many fixtures and with COB you can do all the point source methods. However there is a few cases when I can't get the light quality I want with LED, one exemple that comes to mind is the wrap around with very gradual beams. I have multiple old LTM fresnel from the 70's, and their beam even half spoted, is sooo smooth, you get that hot spot and a very nice gradual intensity all the way to the edges. And when going 2/3 or full spot, there is no hard edges, it just blends into nothingness. And sometimes I like bouncing, or diffuse when spotted to get that softer feel while maintaining a more define directionnel source. That, is something I've never found on LED sources, because they are flat by nature, you won't truly get that shape. It's even more an issue with direct lighting with bare fresnel, the shadow quality isn't the same, and I find the old tungsten beam texture much more appealing. However modern tungsten/HMI fresnel like Arri's studio series are actually much flatter that those old LTM or Mole.
I think the same - also sold most of my tungsten lights, just have a few PAR-cans lying around. did a test a few weeks ago, just used a CRLS #2 and #3 (50x50) with a spot PAR, the light quality was great!
Thanks for sharing. There's a lot of spill around the CRLS into the white ceiling. Surely that must be the reason why it's wrapping in a similar fashion as the larger sources? If this was a space with a high or dark ceiling (or the beam was focused on the reflector only), I would assume the light to be harder since the source is smaller compared to the alternatives (if placed at the same distance).
That is logical, but would be good to check out with a test. I could have been more particular with how I illuminated the #4, but just set it and went for it given the time I had.
Some have responded that they like what the spill added to the scene. There are a lot of choices to be made out there and there doesn’t have to be only one right way🙂
I think what’s problematic is saying that a 50x50cm reflector provides that same “soft, wrappy feel” as you put it as a 6x6 book light. That can't be true if they are at the same distance to the subject. It’s close in this example because half the light is bouncing off the low, white ceiling in addition to the panel. I pointed it out because people like me who are interested in learning more about lighting and CRLS could be misled by the (title of the) video. It looks great, but your findings are not transferable to other locations.
I see what you’re saying. I don’t think I’m misleading anyone or presenting this as a clinical side by side. It’s a real world set up that compares another way of using the tools we have at hand. Instead of a white ceiling you could use the new SnapBridge or an ultrabounce. CRLS is not necessarily paint by number, it’s also looking for the serendipity of reflected light.
Thank you for making this comparison. I've been testing out the Godox LiteFlow Reflectors as a way to add dabs of light into the background, not necessarily for the talent. You really need powerful shapable spotlights to see the effect. It's like the reflectors absorb much of the light they reflect. It's a simple concept but it does require a lot of finessing the correct angles. Do you find the reflector systim more time consuming?
For starters, it would be interesting to see the difference between the reflector systems. In my first attempts to incorporate CRLS, I concentrated on using them as background hits. Once in a while they were the perfect tool to use when a lightweight reflector was easier to rig than a traditional light fixture. But I think it’s a combination of DP and crew buy in, familiarity and experience, and maybe having a little extra time to play that all help ease their use into your natural lighting habits. I’m not there yet, so I feel your growing pains🙂
I was surprised I liked the Nanlux book light over the 2k tungsten. That was the winner until you put the magic cloth schmutz in front of the Godox Panel. The Godox + magic cloth could use a little negative fill and it would look really great. But tbh, they all looked pretty good. Does tungsten have anything left to recommend it other than the units are tougher and will have longer lifetimes?
In some instances tungsten is demonstrably cheaper, especially if you are on a stage and have access to the greater power needs that often go along with larger tungsten fixtures. Tungsten presents a very pleasing look, and is still preferred by some who have the means to choose it regardless of use case.
Hi, this might be a dumb question - but I'm not a grip pro. I am looking to attach my Aputure 600D into a turtle base from a c-stand. What kind of grip equipment adapter do I need to make this possible? Thank you for the help!
You should be able to go right into the junior receiver of the turtle base with the junior pin of the 600D. Just take out the tie down knob/bolt that you would use to attach to a baby pin. There may be some funky c+/turtle base that does not accept a junior pin, but normally this would be a standard procedure. Happy turtling!
Hey Luke, was in the market for a Spectrometer but was curious if there's anything on the market you recommend (existing or future) that would incorporate both an incident meter & a spectrometer in one unit vs two separate devices. If not, is the C-800 what you would recommend? Thanks for all the education and content.
Quick question, Luke, seeing your single net in the back window. I’m needing to add to my kit-would you recommend getting a double 6x6 first, or just go straight to an 8x8 as first purchase? This is for documentary interviews exclusively.
Thought you were gonna change my mind on crls for interview key light, that was a nope. Way too much spill and not set friendly. I can just hear all the comments from the production peanut gallery about the spill and uncontainable light. Also don’t like the spill on the bg, starts to flatten the image out. What you have peaked my interest in is the 600 godox. That was a very nice demo. That through the magic cloth was very nice and way less power or gac then a book light. Thanks!!
Tbh, I'm really skeptical about the CRLS stuff. The softness of light is primarily a function of the relative size of the light source to the subject. Especially when you compare the reflector to a book light the way they diffuse light should be reasonably similar. So I really doubt that you have a similar softness. Because why would you?
That’s the intriguing part of CRLS… a #4 is basically a metal white card, so unlike a mirror I don’t think the inverse square law comes into play, but the look has a certain quality to it that I like. Knowing the range and utility of the tools available is helpful because potential collaborators may have different aesthetics than our own.
you are right, but one major thing that they do as well its in the same use case where Luke used in this video, by bouncing it around the ambient for a general fill light and just adding the crls #4 for an extra puch+ambience closer up to the subject, making it more natural. But i was using in this scene, i would probably also add a number 2 and 3, in smaller sizes, maybe like a 25cm and 15cm to enhance the rest of the scene, maybe by adding a splash of light in the background or a hard light at him, so the great advantage in my opinion as well is using a a couple more mirrors in the scence. One other option you could also do it by using the new snapbridge system and place the source light further and then the snapbridge closer to you subject so it could be even softer than the booklight system The crls system is pretty awesome but i dont use in every job, but when i use it, i'm happy to have it nearby
@@meetthegafferwhy wouldn’t the inverse square law apply to CRLs? That’s one thing I still don’t understand. A lot of results I’ve seen with these mirrors whilst sure, it doesn’t look like ‘coming from a light’ sourcey, it still looks lit and rather harsh as well when used directly as a key.
@NicolasWaldvogel The inverse square law does absolutely apply to most grades of CRLS, but I doubt there is much going on with the #4. The inverse square law is more applicable to mirrors or near mirrors.
@NicolasWaldvogel I agree, a lot of examples tend to be more moody settings. But that doesn’t have to be the case at all; I imagine it does a better job of showing off what the reflector(s) are doing if there is more contrast in the scene.
If you look at the nose shadow, the crls is clearly not even close to the book light, which makes Sense, because its so much smaller. I dont like the crls system, simply because its actually not all that flexible, if i want it somewhat soft No 4. Is the only way, but that spills quit a bit more than a softlight of the same size with a grid on it. I simply dont think a bunch of differently matted mirrors warrent the incredibly high price. You cant even rent them, because the rentalhouses need to replace them with the slightest scratch, so they need to take ridiculous rates. Crls to me is something very old and established (using mirrors and reflectors) polished up and marketed as something revolutionary. I commend them for exelent marketing. All the hip dps want them and pay top dollar for them, but i think in a few years, nobody will talk about them anymore. The only thing i actually like is the 4x4 ones for windows, but of course its heavy, and super expensive, so i basicaly never get to use them.
Agree on the shadow quality and the source's size to subject size. The use shown by Luke here might be more like a special use case for crls/lightstream. In my experience where mirrors really shine at is when you need hard light on talent moving around in a given space. As the virtual light source becomes really far away actors can move quite a bit without the immediate change in brightness, compared to a spot light directly pointed at them. Mounting your lights at the bottom of a stand pointed upwards into a mirror, is quite a neat little safety thing too and makes moving things around a bit easier as well. Not to speak of having to light through a window from the outside, when you're not on the ground floor... hanging a mirror out the window is a lot easier than a 2k 😁
It’s a fence a lot of us are on. I have found myself in the middle of cinereflect numbers too, but I see now how the new tools from DoP Choice that combines a white or black backstop with a CRLS surface could come in handy. I’ve been resistant to the CRLS wave, but I’m coming around to it, pushing myself to be more open to the possibilities and seeing it more as an additive update to how we would put Hampshire frost on 1x1 mirrors or used cracked mirrors. The price and care & maintenance are certainly barriers to entry, but not insurmountable. We may not all be able to use large truss rigs outside windows, but we can downscale those applications to our smaller sets when a DP asks or we are looking for ways to push our reflective lighting experience. Check out this episode and it’s companion: th-cam.com/video/ivmvKXKHFHs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=R5xNlhoMQurmwLqV
@@lyrgh "As the virtual light source becomes really far away actors can move quite a bit without the immediate change in brightness, compared to a spot light directly pointed at them" --> using CRLS for one year by myself, I have to say that "virtual light source" and "double the distance with one reflector" think is just true if you are using the #0 or #1 or every mirror. when the reflector is becoming more and more diffuse (#2, #3) the distance factor gets smaller and smaller, till #4 - the reflector becomes a new light source - like every bounce card. its a tool you use for a certain effect like every other tool, its not a swiss-army-knife of great light. often do you light the talent directly in the face with a hard light? I did it myself for a very small interview room, using #3 next to the talent as a very dramatic light and it worked great ;)
what I like about CRLS is the philosophy behind it, how to mimic the natural light with primary and secondary light sources, bounces and so on. its like a new way how to light / how to get a certain effect and also be open and surprised by some "happy little accidents". I use it for one year now, and im still learning, using it more and more and I move away from the setups of many different light sources (like on a standard 3-point light interview to have an example we can talk about) more into a way of "what light I want to mimic? ok it comes through this window, would bounce on the wall / floor and makes this part of the room brighter" - for me, the results I like look more natural lit. of course you can do this results with every shiny material / bounce card / mirror you build for yourself. the CRLS is getting into a professional level, so if used in big sets, if one reflector breaks, or you need another three pieces, you just go and buy / rent them - they all have the same quality.
@@noBfilm Absolutely, the diffused ones can be ok for a bit of fill when you're working with very limited space or difficult rigging situations, the bigger ones can be made to work for close ups, the smaller ones can be neat for a product shot. But every bounce is as good as it gets and gets that job done, I guess... If talent needs to play a space and not just stand at a mark, for me it's the #0 where it's at. Faking the sun, that's where I find the use of mirrors really interesting. Say for the scene Luke set up here, clrs #0 for the background (sunlight coming through the window) could come in handy.
CRLS seems fine for certain situations but how do you control the spill without setting up a Forrest of flags? You could easily put a 40 degree grid on something like Godox F600bi
That’s one of the selling points of CRLS, that the reflectors are not spilly, and the new SnapBridge reversible unit could be an effective tool in this instance.
@@meetthegaffer I think I overlooked the fact that you can use different levels of diffusion with the variety of CRLS reflectors. But I would still like to see a comparison of spill and softness of say a #3 reflector(lightstream says its is 50 degrees), to a Mat light of equal size with a 50 degree grid. One advantage of CRLS would be the lack of multiple shadows for example.
@@nshea3286 the CRLS is an awesome tool to use, but it's not the best option on all use cases, that's for sure ! I have one kit as well and i don't use it every single work that i do, but in certain times, for me, it can be the best option for sure. I mostly like to use my kit for indoor work and bouncing it around in the room and adding some splashes of light in a very natural way. With one and tree mirrors, i can do a back light, an ambience light and a 'spot light' somewhere in the scene. It's not necessarily faster, but i have a lot of control with the different sizes an diffusion. But if im in a place that i dont really want ambience (or i can't) i would just use another light, like a panel or a something else. As far as diffusion goes, it's kinda tricky because it's relative to the size of the light relative to your subject so the diffusion system, mostly helps you choose how much spill you will have on your scene with the different numbers. One great thing about the system is that you can work round the inverse square law rule because you can throw light from a further place and use a mirror closer to your subject to have a more diffused look for example, even though you are using a smaller source of light, it's closer to your subject. It's also a great system to use with moving subjects because the souce of light is further than it is in reality so you have a much more natural light falloff, which with a panel light, it ill be much more noticeable and less natural
How good does the old school 2K look................ and to think I have virtually given mine away these past few years. Mind you the planet wouldn't stand much of chance if we all went back to using tungsten 🙁
Not a very good CRLS test imo. Youre essentially using your white ceiling as a 20x20 bounce source. Of course its going to look similar to the book light.
@@meetthegaffer Question... how far away was that CRLS and how wide an area would you say it covered to give you the amount of light you got? My thought is use one to bouce in light into the fill side of a backlit car scene.
I just love the 2k booklight you set up. Least sourcy.
Would be nice to see this comparison repeated in a room without a white ceiling. The light was going around the little 50cm panel and hitting the ceiling, creating a much larger source!
Love the videos! very helpful!
Exactly my thought. Even then, the CRLS is definitely still harder than the booklight, which is certainly evident along his neckline. I don't hate the look, but perceived source area is key, so if you want soft, a 50cm source is always going to offer more of a hurdle. If the space is conduce though, I think the CRLS definitely offers a nice conservative setup.
CRLS #4 really does have something natural and special to it. That spill also really mixes in the color of the room nicely, versus a direct source. Thanks for demonstrating these!
Good point about the light spill adding to the colors of the room.
The eye light is very nice with CRLS
You can achieve exactly the same thing with a white poly board.
Paying a ridiculous amount of money for something like CRLS is totally ludicrous! (Especially the #4)
@@RemDCRLS isn’t for everyone just like a White Poly Board isn’t for everyone. Different tools, different workflows, and different preferences.
@@DANAMIONLINE we need a poly board in the Comparison next time :D
Excellent demo. I must have set up book lights 1,000 times but it’s clear that there are modern alternatives that deliver the same (or shockingly similar) look with far less rigging and power.
This is what Ive been saying on a few platforms recently , there is some mojo going on about book lights with the bros,s , but they are not a magic "cinematic " bullet . Size to subject is the only rule . These larger LED Mat lights are for the win . Hugely quicker and more efficient .
@@robinprobyn1971100% agreed.
@@robinprobyn1971 That Godox + magic cloth had a really good look. Put in a little negative fill and I’m sold.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Yes ,soft key and neg for the win.
I love how you always turn your living room into a full blown mini studio :D I really like using crls when there is limited space or when you wanna boom a reflector out over a balcony or something.Great video as always luke.love your channel!
Best CRLs demo I have seen yet. Thank you.
The smaller size of the 50cm plate plus the number 4 diffused surface gave a really interesting look, higher contrast than the other larger sources. I’m looking forward to giving these a try.
The tungsten looks good.
I’m a big fan of bounce light. Haven’t invested into CRLS myself, but want to. Rent every so often. But definitely have my 6x6 Ultra Bounce and Magic cloth on me on almost every shoot. Thank you for the comparisons.
I do love your honesty! Encouraged to do so, and it’s an option. I do have to tell you that I did buy some cookie baking sheets that do exactly the same thing. And the amount of spill that’s adding to the ambient is considerable. I like your work!
Just another excellent class Luke !!! Cheers
I love the detailed comparison. Haven't seen such a good one yet. I would have liked to also see just a bounce without diffusion. More tungsten vs LED and HMI vs LED content would be super interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Awesome to see these setups!
Tungsten for the win.
Nice working with you this week on the interview. Great channel too. You are a wealth of info. Subscribed 🙂
Great episode Luke!
Awesome video, Luke! I love seeing the comparisons of all the lighting setups side by side. I know it's inefficient, but I love the look of the 2k open face booklight. 🤘
Love this.
I have to look into that mars monitor.
I just got my godox and love it for doc Interviews.
Might have to send it through some magic cloth.
That might be my favorite look of the bunch.
always informative! Love you channel Luke
In terms of electricity draw, it’s amazing how efficient the 600 can be relative to the others.
all looks are so nice, I would use Tungsted for Movie , LED for music video and LightBridge for Interview setups.
I noticed the following:
- 2K open felt a little dim but in a natural way.
- Nanlux felt source
- CRLS #4 warmed the temperature of your face but the dimness of the 2K on your shirt. I wonder if the reflected light from the bricks causes that warmth.
- Godox F600 was cooler and slightly popped your shirt's brightness.
Great, straight to the point comparison.
Would have loved to see the CRLS with the back spill controlled. Maybe a demo of their new Snapbridge product with DOP Choice? 😉
I think John Roche has demo’d that on his Gaffer Salon channel and Lightbridge has demos galore. It could have certainly come in handy here!
@@meetthegafferdo you think the snap bridge is worth the pricetag?
exactly ! I loved the look of the crls #4 ( I have one as well) but the great thing about that look is also the bounce you get with lighting the whole ambience as well, makes it really natural. CRLS for inside locations, where you can bounce the light around, it's the best use case for sure ! But in a bigger place, or if you don't have wall to bounce, i think the booklight is a better option.
Price is relative to a lot of variables. Until you feel ready to put your money down for a well made, all-in-one tool you could just use a 6x6 or 4x4 ultrabounce behind the CRLS; and depending on how you want to incorporate the spill, use the black or white side. 🙂
Direct with the F600 at 16% power is amazing, and much more compact. Very compelling, especially for tighter locations.
I really like this unit for quick tight set-ups. I’m currently a fan of the AirGlow/“Bounce House” using a 600 watt 2x1 panel, but the F600 Bi is a strong choice!
Very nice testing. I like the Open Face booklight the best, but it's negligible to the Nanlux book and CRLS. That Godox seems to have cooled up your face quite a bit. And looking at the background to your face, it's for sure that light. I like comparing the catch light as well. The CRLS system is great, I mean it's filmmaker dependent, but I tend to like that slight more contrasty fall off than the wrap around of a panel light. Having just stepped into the CRLS game myself .... I look forward to doing more with that system. As usual, thank you for your time to share your tests.
Wasn't familiar with the CRLS system, looks very intriguing. Like the minimalism of it.
i do like the CRLS #4 shot the most.
nice shadows and nice color.
The Godox is to "cold" in comparison with the others. 3200K is more than you started with (started with 3060K)
But a great side by side comparing. Thank you
Really interesting comparison, Luke. Thanks! Definitely differences, but all acceptable. Especially when the subject (or the subject's handlers) give you a small time window, I can see ease of transport and speed of setup playing as big a factor as the aesthetic choices (for my little world, at least). Would be interesting to see the CRLS both with and without spill, but even so.... Thanks again Luke!
thank you for doing this test. Comparison between LED and Tungsten is great! Real Tungsten light looks much more natural on skin! Even with the same setup, tungsten gives me the feeling of light quality from a movie, skin looks like in real world, rooted to sunlight - the book light looks like quality stuff - while with the nanlux LED it looks a bit on a cheap side, like the typical "corporate movie" stuff with all that green tint, and it looks flat. even with a new semi-pro Bi-Color like the nanlux, we are in the year 2024 not there where we should be. for the CRLS - you used it absolutely good, results are great and I think that's the intention of CRLS to give a most natural impression. But for the technical comparison with the CRLS #4, I think the result is is not a fair, because you light up all the huge white roof / wall in the background, that gives you a much bigger bounce area than just the 50cm of the CRLS. why did you not close the barn doors / black out the spill light? CRLS is great, but #4 basically works like a poly / foam board - its still based on regular physics and a 50cm bounce is not as soft as a 4x4 (as your test suggests). i think a very cheap and good combination is a tungsten PAR (good spot but bad shadow quality) in combination with CRLS (#2 / #3) that improves the size and light quality
In a more detailed test I could have shown with and without spill. Another time.
Thanks for the test! I'd be curious to see the Prolycht 675 w/ spotlight max hitting the CRLS.... also that combo with the 6' magic cloth in front of the CRLS
You could certainly give that a try, but putting that combo through magic cloth would probably not get you what you want in terms of output and would probably defeat the purpose of CRLS.
Thanks! LS good comparison.
They all looked great (almost splitting hairs at this point and comes down to preference) 2 interesting metrics would be set-up time and pack space. That might be a difference maker with the 4 great options?
Great video. Surprised to see the difference between the tungsten to led, makes me want to work with tungsten
I mean in terms of soft light, unless you need crazy high output or outdoors, LED sources are just the norm now, their's so many fixtures and with COB you can do all the point source methods.
However there is a few cases when I can't get the light quality I want with LED, one exemple that comes to mind is the wrap around with very gradual beams.
I have multiple old LTM fresnel from the 70's, and their beam even half spoted, is sooo smooth, you get that hot spot and a very nice gradual intensity all the way to the edges. And when going 2/3 or full spot, there is no hard edges, it just blends into nothingness. And sometimes I like bouncing, or diffuse when spotted to get that softer feel while maintaining a more define directionnel source.
That, is something I've never found on LED sources, because they are flat by nature, you won't truly get that shape.
It's even more an issue with direct lighting with bare fresnel, the shadow quality isn't the same, and I find the old tungsten beam texture much more appealing.
However modern tungsten/HMI fresnel like Arri's studio series are actually much flatter that those old LTM or Mole.
I think the same - also sold most of my tungsten lights, just have a few PAR-cans lying around. did a test a few weeks ago, just used a CRLS #2 and #3 (50x50) with a spot PAR, the light quality was great!
You're the best Luke!
The 2K open is quite the value these days. Noticed an Arri 2K fresnel for $150 the other day.
Use one bounced into my ceiling for the light and heat in the winter haha
Thanks for sharing. There's a lot of spill around the CRLS into the white ceiling. Surely that must be the reason why it's wrapping in a similar fashion as the larger sources? If this was a space with a high or dark ceiling (or the beam was focused on the reflector only), I would assume the light to be harder since the source is smaller compared to the alternatives (if placed at the same distance).
That is logical, but would be good to check out with a test. I could have been more particular with how I illuminated the #4, but just set it and went for it given the time I had.
This comment is everything. Thanks for the time and effort but man this is a mistake.
Some have responded that they like what the spill added to the scene. There are a lot of choices to be made out there and there doesn’t have to be only one right way🙂
I think what’s problematic is saying that a 50x50cm reflector provides that same “soft, wrappy feel” as you put it as a 6x6 book light. That can't be true if they are at the same distance to the subject. It’s close in this example because half the light is bouncing off the low, white ceiling in addition to the panel. I pointed it out because people like me who are interested in learning more about lighting and CRLS could be misled by the (title of the) video. It looks great, but your findings are not transferable to other locations.
I see what you’re saying. I don’t think I’m misleading anyone or presenting this as a clinical side by side. It’s a real world set up that compares another way of using the tools we have at hand. Instead of a white ceiling you could use the new SnapBridge or an ultrabounce. CRLS is not necessarily paint by number, it’s also looking for the serendipity of reflected light.
Gac? Ground area coverage? Thx for the thorough comparison! Echo what someone else said about relative setup time/ease for small crew.
Very interesting was just thinking about this the other day
Great tutorial and comparison... but how did you miss focus despite that remote monitor?!! Is the Hollyland monitor peaking not that good?!
What’s not good is my own operator skills and focus. Between turning the camera on and off and sitting back in and not checking. Too many hats.
Thank you for making this comparison. I've been testing out the Godox LiteFlow Reflectors as a way to add dabs of light into the background, not necessarily for the talent. You really need powerful shapable spotlights to see the effect. It's like the reflectors absorb much of the light they reflect. It's a simple concept but it does require a lot of finessing the correct angles. Do you find the reflector systim more time consuming?
For starters, it would be interesting to see the difference between the reflector systems.
In my first attempts to incorporate CRLS, I concentrated on using them as background hits. Once in a while they were the perfect tool to use when a lightweight reflector was easier to rig than a traditional light fixture. But I think it’s a combination of DP and crew buy in, familiarity and experience, and maybe having a little extra time to play that all help ease their use into your natural lighting habits. I’m not there yet, so I feel your growing pains🙂
the 2k booklight and CRLS are the ones for me. Which set up did you like more after watching your video?
Great comparison. The Godox FS600 looks like a great piece of kit. I see that someone forgot their gloves. How times have changed.
LOL
Camera inception there in the beginning 😂😂 you were filming a phone monitor where you were filmed by a camera with a monitor et
Great examples! 👏👏👏
I was surprised I liked the Nanlux book light over the 2k tungsten. That was the winner until you put the magic cloth schmutz in front of the Godox Panel. The Godox + magic cloth could use a little negative fill and it would look really great. But tbh, they all looked pretty good.
Does tungsten have anything left to recommend it other than the units are tougher and will have longer lifetimes?
In some instances tungsten is demonstrably cheaper, especially if you are on a stage and have access to the greater power needs that often go along with larger tungsten fixtures. Tungsten presents a very pleasing look, and is still preferred by some who have the means to choose it regardless of use case.
Love this thank you
Hi, this might be a dumb question - but I'm not a grip pro. I am looking to attach my Aputure 600D into a turtle base from a c-stand. What kind of grip equipment adapter do I need to make this possible? Thank you for the help!
You should be able to go right into the junior receiver of the turtle base with the junior pin of the 600D. Just take out the tie down knob/bolt that you would use to attach to a baby pin. There may be some funky c+/turtle base that does not accept a junior pin, but normally this would be a standard procedure. Happy turtling!
@@meetthegaffer thank you!
for my personal preference, I like the 2k but with a 2nd one added to it, runner up CRLS key
Hey Luke, was in the market for a Spectrometer but was curious if there's anything on the market you recommend (existing or future) that would incorporate both an incident meter & a spectrometer in one unit vs two separate devices. If not, is the C-800 what you would recommend? Thanks for all the education and content.
I believe the Sekonic C800 is your best option at the moment. Also check out the app Cine Meter II if you have an iPhone.
Good old fashioned tungsten is still the one to beat in terms of look. These days, a hassle to work with unfortunately.
Quick question, Luke, seeing your single net in the back window. I’m needing to add to my kit-would you recommend getting a double 6x6 first, or just go straight to an 8x8 as first purchase? This is for documentary interviews exclusively.
6x6 is a nice size on talent in tighter spaces, but 8x and 12x are better for windows.
Thanks Luke!
Thought you were gonna change my mind on crls for interview key light, that was a nope. Way too much spill and not set friendly. I can just hear all the comments from the production peanut gallery about the spill and uncontainable light. Also don’t like the spill on the bg, starts to flatten the image out. What you have peaked my interest in is the 600 godox. That was a very nice demo. That through the magic cloth was very nice and way less power or gac then a book light. Thanks!!
I think for the use of CRLS, a spotlight mount is a very handy attachment if you want to work clean and without spill light
Tbh, I'm really skeptical about the CRLS stuff. The softness of light is primarily a function of the relative size of the light source to the subject. Especially when you compare the reflector to a book light the way they diffuse light should be reasonably similar. So I really doubt that you have a similar softness. Because why would you?
That’s the intriguing part of CRLS… a #4 is basically a metal white card, so unlike a mirror I don’t think the inverse square law comes into play, but the look has a certain quality to it that I like. Knowing the range and utility of the tools available is helpful because potential collaborators may have different aesthetics than our own.
you are right, but one major thing that they do as well its in the same use case where Luke used in this video, by bouncing it around the ambient for a general fill light and just adding the crls #4 for an extra puch+ambience closer up to the subject, making it more natural.
But i was using in this scene, i would probably also add a number 2 and 3, in smaller sizes, maybe like a 25cm and 15cm to enhance the rest of the scene, maybe by adding a splash of light in the background or a hard light at him, so the great advantage in my opinion as well is using a a couple more mirrors in the scence.
One other option you could also do it by using the new snapbridge system and place the source light further and then the snapbridge closer to you subject so it could be even softer than the booklight system
The crls system is pretty awesome but i dont use in every job, but when i use it, i'm happy to have it nearby
@@meetthegafferwhy wouldn’t the inverse square law apply to CRLs? That’s one thing I still don’t understand. A lot of results I’ve seen with these mirrors whilst sure, it doesn’t look like ‘coming from a light’ sourcey, it still looks lit and rather harsh as well when used directly as a key.
@NicolasWaldvogel The inverse square law does absolutely apply to most grades of CRLS, but I doubt there is much going on with the #4. The inverse square law is more applicable to mirrors or near mirrors.
@NicolasWaldvogel I agree, a lot of examples tend to be more moody settings. But that doesn’t have to be the case at all; I imagine it does a better job of showing off what the reflector(s) are doing if there is more contrast in the scene.
If you look at the nose shadow, the crls is clearly not even close to the book light, which makes Sense, because its so much smaller.
I dont like the crls system, simply because its actually not all that flexible, if i want it somewhat soft No 4. Is the only way, but that spills quit a bit more than a softlight of the same size with a grid on it. I simply dont think a bunch of differently matted mirrors warrent the incredibly high price. You cant even rent them, because the rentalhouses need to replace them with the slightest scratch, so they need to take ridiculous rates.
Crls to me is something very old and established (using mirrors and reflectors) polished up and marketed as something revolutionary.
I commend them for exelent marketing. All the hip dps want them and pay top dollar for them, but i think in a few years, nobody will talk about them anymore.
The only thing i actually like is the 4x4 ones for windows, but of course its heavy, and super expensive, so i basicaly never get to use them.
Agree on the shadow quality and the source's size to subject size. The use shown by Luke here might be more like a special use case for crls/lightstream.
In my experience where mirrors really shine at is when you need hard light on talent moving around in a given space. As the virtual light source becomes really far away actors can move quite a bit without the immediate change in brightness, compared to a spot light directly pointed at them.
Mounting your lights at the bottom of a stand pointed upwards into a mirror, is quite a neat little safety thing too and makes moving things around a bit easier as well. Not to speak of having to light through a window from the outside, when you're not on the ground floor... hanging a mirror out the window is a lot easier than a 2k 😁
It’s a fence a lot of us are on. I have found myself in the middle of cinereflect numbers too, but I see now how the new tools from DoP Choice that combines a white or black backstop with a CRLS surface could come in handy. I’ve been resistant to the CRLS wave, but I’m coming around to it, pushing myself to be more open to the possibilities and seeing it more as an additive update to how we would put Hampshire frost on 1x1 mirrors or used cracked mirrors. The price and care & maintenance are certainly barriers to entry, but not insurmountable. We may not all be able to use large truss rigs outside windows, but we can downscale those applications to our smaller sets when a DP asks or we are looking for ways to push our reflective lighting experience.
Check out this episode and it’s companion:
th-cam.com/video/ivmvKXKHFHs/w-d-xo.htmlsi=R5xNlhoMQurmwLqV
@@lyrgh "As the virtual light source becomes really far away actors can move quite a bit without the immediate change in brightness, compared to a spot light directly pointed at them" --> using CRLS for one year by myself, I have to say that "virtual light source" and "double the distance with one reflector" think is just true if you are using the #0 or #1 or every mirror. when the reflector is becoming more and more diffuse (#2, #3) the distance factor gets smaller and smaller, till #4 - the reflector becomes a new light source - like every bounce card. its a tool you use for a certain effect like every other tool, its not a swiss-army-knife of great light. often do you light the talent directly in the face with a hard light? I did it myself for a very small interview room, using #3 next to the talent as a very dramatic light and it worked great ;)
what I like about CRLS is the philosophy behind it, how to mimic the natural light with primary and secondary light sources, bounces and so on. its like a new way how to light / how to get a certain effect and also be open and surprised by some "happy little accidents". I use it for one year now, and im still learning, using it more and more and I move away from the setups of many different light sources (like on a standard 3-point light interview to have an example we can talk about) more into a way of "what light I want to mimic? ok it comes through this window, would bounce on the wall / floor and makes this part of the room brighter" - for me, the results I like look more natural lit. of course you can do this results with every shiny material / bounce card / mirror you build for yourself. the CRLS is getting into a professional level, so if used in big sets, if one reflector breaks, or you need another three pieces, you just go and buy / rent them - they all have the same quality.
@@noBfilm Absolutely, the diffused ones can be ok for a bit of fill when you're working with very limited space or difficult rigging situations, the bigger ones can be made to work for close ups, the smaller ones can be neat for a product shot. But every bounce is as good as it gets and gets that job done, I guess...
If talent needs to play a space and not just stand at a mark, for me it's the #0 where it's at. Faking the sun, that's where I find the use of mirrors really interesting. Say for the scene Luke set up here, clrs #0 for the background (sunlight coming through the window) could come in handy.
Luke could please send a link the meter cases? I've been hacking cases for too long.
longroadcreative.ca/
Thank You!
Still prefer the look of that 2K through the book light over the others.
You're not in focus. focus is set to the candles on the table behind you. Having said that, this was very helpful / informative.
The bane of my existence! Such a loser.
@@meetthegafferwell handled
CRLS seems fine for certain situations but how do you control the spill without setting up a Forrest of flags? You could easily put a 40 degree grid on something like Godox F600bi
That’s one of the selling points of CRLS, that the reflectors are not spilly, and the new SnapBridge reversible unit could be an effective tool in this instance.
@@meetthegaffer I think I overlooked the fact that you can use different levels of diffusion with the variety of CRLS reflectors. But I would still like to see a comparison of spill and softness of say a #3 reflector(lightstream says its is 50 degrees), to a Mat light of equal size with a 50 degree grid. One advantage of CRLS would be the lack of multiple shadows for example.
@@nshea3286 the CRLS is an awesome tool to use, but it's not the best option on all use cases, that's for sure ! I have one kit as well and i don't use it every single work that i do, but in certain times, for me, it can be the best option for sure.
I mostly like to use my kit for indoor work and bouncing it around in the room and adding some splashes of light in a very natural way. With one and tree mirrors, i can do a back light, an ambience light and a 'spot light' somewhere in the scene. It's not necessarily faster, but i have a lot of control with the different sizes an diffusion.
But if im in a place that i dont really want ambience (or i can't) i would just use another light, like a panel or a something else.
As far as diffusion goes, it's kinda tricky because it's relative to the size of the light relative to your subject so the diffusion system, mostly helps you choose how much spill you will have on your scene with the different numbers.
One great thing about the system is that you can work round the inverse square law rule because you can throw light from a further place and use a mirror closer to your subject to have a more diffused look for example, even though you are using a smaller source of light, it's closer to your subject. It's also a great system to use with moving subjects because the souce of light is further than it is in reality so you have a much more natural light falloff, which with a panel light, it ill be much more noticeable and less natural
I use a 2k tungsten for a heater
How good does the old school 2K look................ and to think I have virtually given mine away these past few years. Mind you the planet wouldn't stand much of chance if we all went back to using tungsten 🙁
who´s the meter case manufacturer? thx
Long Road Creative
longroadcreative.ca/
Bye bye blondes and redheads. More of these comparisons Luke....please.
El zone would be nice
Interesting
Not a very good CRLS test imo. Youre essentially using your white ceiling as a 20x20 bounce source. Of course its going to look similar to the book light.
It is a large bounce, but quite a ways back. We could say it’s a very poor man’s version of the SnapBridge🙂
Godox litemons liteflow 20x20 is 50%off right now 10/20/2024
?
@@meetthegafferit's a CLRS clone.
Oh, copy.
@@meetthegaffer Question... how far away was that CRLS and how wide an area would you say it covered to give you the amount of light you got? My thought is use one to bouce in light into the fill side of a backlit car scene.
@@DavidGriffin Maybe 8 feet from subject.