Comparing the Elation Impression and the Martin MAC301 Wash First published August 5, 2009 by Arnold Serame The photometric data on the Lighting Shootout is taken from manufacturer's data sheets and is only as accurate as the manufacturer reports. The problem are LEDs. As reported by Mike Wood reports on his review on the Elation Impression, our eyes can see wavelengths of light that fall outside of the "official" curve that light meters are supposed to adhere to. In fact, Mike points out, that older, less precise light meters are actually better at reading these extreme wavelengths. What we're seeing here is that, depending on the light meter used, comparing light measurements between the Elation Impression and the Mac301 Wash Automated LED fixtures are problematic. What doesn't help is that there are some inconsistencies in the way Elation reports the light output out of the Impression. On page four of their photometric sheet, they report that the Impression outputs 88,000 candela. Later, in their illuminance distribution diagram, they show 87,985 lux at 10m, which is a whole order of difference at 8,765,800 candela. That type of output is clearly wrong as that is the kind of output a 1500w or 2000w fixture would output. Just to confirm, we can look at the component LEDs.
Luxeon touts the Luxeon Rebel LEDs to "redefine power LEDs with their small size, high packing density and the industry's best lumen output per LED". For information's sake, here are some comparative figures from the Luxeon site.
Depending on the LEDs chosen, it confirms that the Rebel LEDs are at least slightly brighter than the K2s. But, the MAC301 Wash does have a sliding zoom lens - which I would presume, could possibly degrade the potential light output of the fixture. With the combination of having 17% more, brighter LEDs, we can reasonably expect that the MAC301 Wash to be a certain percentage brighter than the Impression. So, looking at the Lighting Shootout Automated LED section : I would say that, the first two lines in the section, the data on the Impression taken from the Illuminance Diagrams, are clearly out of order for the kinds of compnent LEDs used in the Impression. I presume the more accurate measure of the Impressions output, is taken from page four of their datasheets, which shows candela at 88,000, showing the output at 98 footcandles at 30', with 183 footcandles for the MAC301 at 30'. Are these numbers entirely accurate? Probably, completely not and the question will remain until there's some kind of official head to head light measurement. But, for now, I would say, looking at the component parts of both lights, I would surmise that the edge in brightness, if that's important to you, would go to the MAC301 wash. But, I would say that for most lighting designers, the choice between the two fixtures, in most situations, revolves less about competitive brightness, and more around rental price, availability, and how important that zoom is for their particular project. The Impression's had the headstart at permeating the U.S. rental market, but with LED technology changing rapidly, I'm sure this year and next will see an ongoing revolution on LED based light fixtures. Probably on the horizon, is a new revolution in lighting, the equivalent of the Source 4 fixture in LED technology that will upend our current assumptions of LEDs. This article is the first in a series of articles on LED Theatrical fixtures. External Links : Elation Impression photometrics Martin Mac301 Wash photometrics Luxeon Luxeon K2 LEDs Luxeon Rebel LEDs |
|
|
|
Lighting Shootout >
Lighting Shootout : Impression vs. MAC301 |