Thanks John for sharing this ‘scientific’ work. I’m sure it took lot of your time and all of us can now enjoy it. Really thanks.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! It took a few days to process how to present the data in a readable form. It would have been a lot easier if I could have generated heat maps.

Interesting comparison. It appears the differences are very slight and we might be better served to concentrate on the photo process more and equipment much less. Thank you John.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Good point Darrell. Soo I will test out the quality when I do a shoot with a real person.

Same experience as you. Real difference in “direction” or “focus” is putting a grid in front. Then you have real control. Thx again for the amount of work you putting in to this!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

I use a parabolic softbox, but my primary reason for doing is is that I find it a lot easier to setup and take down. The extra size and weight are annoying at times, but I'll take that as long as it's easy to use.

Loved it. Very very useful.

Thank you very much for taking the time and making the efforts to demonstrate/test these. Really appreciated. It is pretty scientific, factual and very practical too. Your way of presenting the material/study carries strong objectivity. Very convincing. Thanks again.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! I have a follow up that is all about how the light looks and less scientific 😁 kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

John! Brilliant. Thank you for this video. For me, this is priceless guidance. Kudos!

@JohnGress

2 ай бұрын

Thanks! Glad it was helpful!

I would like to express my appreciation for putting together this case study.

@JohnGress

3 ай бұрын

Thank you so much! The receded face of the Litemotiv 120 might have been the cause of the difference.

Thanks for doing this video, this is really good stuff. It would be interesting to do this again *without* the diffusion and I'll be the differences would be more pronounced.

@earthrokk01

3 жыл бұрын

I think removing the diffusers will show a subtle difference. The contrast would visibly increase also.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Jared. I’m almost certain it would be pronounced but I wanted to test it as a softbox. I’m looking forward to testing light quality in a future video..

Thank you, confirmed what I was thinking as well. Selling my deep parabolic modifier and a few others to test out that new Manny Ortiz Beauty/dish/softbox with white fabric.

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks Erwin. This is my follow up and it might change your mind - kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

Totally agree. We pretty much exclusively use Parabolic's in the studio and on location. Much prefer the light and we often shoot in smaller spaces and the direction from the 120 and 90 really helps!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I’m looking forward to testing light quality in a future video.

Super interesting. Would love to see more of these tests. For example with grid attachments on each type of modifier.

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks! Here is the follow up video - kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html Grids are supposed to produce a specific beam spread so I would expect them to act as advertised.

Thank you so much for this (and ALL) of your videos! This confirms my suspicion that the extra cost/weight/setup time for the 'fancier' large soft modifiers is often not worth it- more and more I have been using my 7 foot umbrellas with and without diffusion (as a brolly box) for a lot of work. Large umbrellas are light weight , easy to setup, and cheap!! (And a 7 foot umbrella is a great soft source when diffused...)

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I used to have one of those so I can't test it. But in a few weeks I will post a comparison of the light quality from these modifiers.

This is excellent. I appreciate that you didn't let this become a controversy, but instead, turned it into finding exactly how the question that the individual commented about actually impacts your real work. The photo comparison at 13:00 did seem to show a difference, but it's not clear if the Roralux photo on the right is just less exposed, or has higher contrast because of less uniform light distribution. Your graphs illustrating the measured brightness across the field seem to show that a true parabolic reflector produces much more even lighting and more uniform light falloff than the others. Great test.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Bob! I Do prefer the look on the Rotalux lighting at 13:00 and that was a surprise. I will be interested to see the differences in quality in a future video, but for this one, I was mainly interested in seeing if the background looked different.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Now I am wondering if there was more light bouncing off of the floor with the 120 at 13:00. That might explain the shadows.

Using a parapolic softbox just shoot with the inner diffuser only and you'll get the best of both worlds. The inner diffuser is still big enough to have a big diffused light source. And the open space between the inner diffuser and the rim of the parabolic softbox acts as one big honeycomb cell of a honeycomb grid... but with silver lining inside instaed of black, so you don't lose light as much as you would using a normal black honeycomb grid. This works only on parabolic softboxes as the inner diffuser is much bigger than in normal softboxes and the "silver walls" from inner diffuser to the rim is nearly parallel to the flash' direction. Did anybody get what I mean?

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Cool. I get it. It’s worth trying when both diffusers are too soft.

This video quality is so good that wherever I pause it looks like a still image lol. Great work bro 👍🏼

@JohnGress

5 ай бұрын

Wow thanks! Glad you like it

Very very subtle differences. thanks John!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

You bet! Thank you!

Great work! Thanks for this video and please keep going!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

Very interesting and detailed! Thanks John!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

Thank you John. Love watching your videos.

@JohnGress

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! Glad you like them!

Nicely done John! I love the fall off from the Rotalux lineup, but haven't used the Litemotiv yet. Just found your channel and Instagram page and subscribed. Very inspiring and informative!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Awesome, thank you so much!

Very creative and useful comparison. Thank you.

@JohnGress

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! Glad it was helpful!

I got the parabolic but I prefer using beauty dish since it has better contrast and smaller size

What a great work! This is really helpful. Thanks a lot.

@JohnGress

9 ай бұрын

Thanks! Glad it was helpful!

Looking forward to watching this video. I have all kinds of light modifiers the only thing I have in purchased is a parabolic. I do like the idea of the ones that have a rod which will let you zoom in and zoom out changing the amount of light that gets reflected. However I was watching Daniel Norton's videos where he tested a very large one they look unwieldedly complicated to set up in the studio and for me at least looking at Daniel's examples the light looked too harsh. I'm more a fan of soft lighting from large soft boxes. Thanks for making this video though I'm looking forward to watching your test.

@JohnGress

Жыл бұрын

Enjoy! You might like this video too kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

@dab7963

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress thanks will check it out. Love your content

BOTTOM LINE: The Frontmost Diffusion Material becomes the Effective Light Source. 🤓 I suspect the benefit of the Deep Parabolics directional shape becomes evident: 1 - When you remove the diffusion material 2 - At greater distances I would love to see this experiment in large group portrait settings as I think that is one area where the characteristic beam shape of a parabolic will be useful. (Especially a True Parabolic) 😎 Regardless the Result - "Parabolics Look Cool"

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately I don’t think that is the bottom line. I’ll have a video out in a few weeks showing the quality differences in the light from the modifiers and there is a difference beyond the diameter of the forward diffusion material.

@bureaulj

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress It is the bottom line cos it's physics. Engineers at Broncolor say the same

The main issue is none of the modifiers shows here are parabolic. Not only is the shape not right the light is simply in the wrong place. In my testing the deep soft boxes can offer a different look up to when you put the front diffuser on, then it's just a homogenous source. I see my 90cm Deep softbox as a large high performance or long throw reflector. Interesting to test such things though. Thank you for the video John.

@JohnGress

Жыл бұрын

Thank you Richard. Here’s my follow up video showing that there are some differences in the light quality with the diffusion. Modifier shootout! What's the difference between Soft boxes, parabolics & umbrellas? kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

@godsakes

Жыл бұрын

Glad I'm not the only one who also thought "none of those are actual parabolic modifiers"

Thank you for this great video!

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! This is basically part 2: kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

Peace be with you! This video is so helpful! Thank you.

@JohnGress

6 ай бұрын

Awesome! Thank you!

I think the effort and endeavour, yet again, that you’ve put into the making of this is commendable, it underpins your teaching and I would like to say thanks. For me, although already an Elinchrom all be it a very limited by comparison user, this is a much more useful supported by data / informational approach than the often very good but more shoot only based instructional video, this way actually educates. We all learn very differently and you are also inclusive in that regards so appeal to a wider group of learning styles. If we’re (photographers who like to use man made lighting), are working towards continual artistic and quality image production with lighting are to improvement on our respective journeys’ in the longer term it’s important to have even a modest grasp on how light performs from the beginning of that journey which includes soft boxes and other way to manipulate and modify light performance. I believe this puts photographers in a stronger position and enables us to build upon that base knowledge and importantly develop ones own style without investing in gear that often gets little if any use in future, in this respect your video informs those buying decisions too. Only a few Creatives and talented photographers on KZread take this approach and I can understand why, it’s frankly a lot of work over and above trying be a pro photographer and putting out content. Extra thanks. Just looked back at this comment ‘...must shorten comments...’!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Ha. Thanks for your comment and full expression of your reaction to the video. I do really appreciate it. It took me a few days to figure out how to share the data but I’m kind of glad it did because that’s when I decided I need to do a practical test to better explain the information and low and behold the results on paper didn’t mean much. I found another reviewer fully dismissing parabolic soft boxes because of the light quality compared to a soft box and a parabolic reflector so I’m interested in seeing things for myself with a glass half full approach.

@guidetheride2103

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress I for one am very appreciative of your approach to you KZread channel.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

Lot of work to produce this video... thank you so much ... 1000 likes.

@JohnGress

9 ай бұрын

You are most welcome! Thanks!

Interesting, but there is a difference in design in the Litemotiv. The diffusion panel ion the Litemotiv, unlike the Octa's, is recessed and not at the front on the soft box. This additional rim would give less falloff, the same as using a deeper soft box without the front diffusion panel. Kind of like a grid around the outside. If you add a rim of black material around the front of the soft box so that the diffusion panels have the same recessed depth this might alter the results and make them more consistent.

Good video thanks for showing these examples and explains it how you did it surely answered a lot of my questions and I seen what the light did and fall off shadows were doing great content .

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much Duke! Here’s a follow up video kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

Fantastic information. Thanks

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! Here is a link to the follow-up video. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

When will you come to Colombia? Many photographers would be interested in your workshops! Thanks a lot for this video.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! Maybe one day.

Great test John, thank you for sharing that! I wanted to do that myself but you just saved me a lot of time! Now I'm anxiously waiting for your next video testing the quality of light from the different shaped modifiers.. Really only great stuff here on your channel! Bravo!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much Simon! I was really excited when I was reviewing the data and then quite surprised when I tried to put it to use.

@simonomis5246

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress yes real-world results are quite surprising..

What I really want to know is does something like the Litemotiv 120 perform much better than say the deep umbrella 125cm for twice the price? Ok, I understand the build quality might be a little better, but is the light quality that much better? Hopefully you'll cover this in one of your next videos. I'm a self admitted gear head and GAS can get me real bad sometimes, but I've yet to be sold on the super expensive light modifiers.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

I hope to do that video very soon! It would be great info for me to know too.

Hi John. Your friend from over the pond again. I’ve always watched and loved your videos. Unfortunately there is only one parabolic that I know of and that is the broncolor’s para series (88, 133 and 222). A para from what I have learnt in the past has 24 panels and the light can be moved in and out so as to change the size and concentration of the beam. There are too many companies stating it has parabolic umbrellas but they are not. A parabolic should also never be used with a diffusion as that beats the point of having a parabolic. If you do another video, would you consider renting a broncolor alongside your other modifiers so we could see if there is a truth to broncolor’s claim please. Always keen to learn more. Wishing you and your family all the best

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Mate. Those are Parabolic reflectors. This video is about parabolic soft boxes. I do have a parabolic reflector on the order and when it arrives I will post some tests 😁

@KeysPete1

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress thanks for clarifying John. Look forward to the video with the results 👍

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Appreciate your work and review on this! Btw John, can you do a video tutorial on how to use gobo to make creative portrait lighting?

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

Hyper informative video. Ty

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

Thank you for this great and thought through video! Did you use the same flash power in the second part? Or was it different to get the same metering on her face to have the same starting point for the two different softboxes?

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Good morning! Thanks! I would have adjusted the power each time using a light meter to make sure they exposures were correct.

Great video. You came to the same conclusion that I did. With the large modifier, there is not much difference. There is such a subtle variance at the large sizes, especially when you use the best brands that provide consistent quality. There is a more distinguishable difference when using smaller modifiers and focus rod deep parabolic sources. The two things that stand out most to me when considering the perception of beam angles are contrast and gradient falloff. The contrast is self-explanatory so I won't discuss this here but the graduated falloff is significant. Basically, if you want to use a shaper that will make a gradient on the background in the studio, the deeper shapers will provide more contrast and visible light falloff. By feathering the light away from the background to prevent light from hitting the background, you will clearly see the deeper the shaper, the less light spill onto the background. Thanks, John!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Dave! I’m looking forward to testing light quality in a future video.

Thanks for review! Tell pls what mic did you use during shooting yourself?

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I am pretty syre it was a Sennheiser 416 amzn.to/3oKbRof or a Sennheiser ME-2 amzn.to/3Ly4Gt2

More good information. Does your workshop schedule ever make a swing into the south?

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks! I will probably add a workshop after July in Orlando, Dallas and Phoenix.

good video - and your lighting was great! Been watching a lot of lighting videos... and when the lighting in the video itself is done badly I feel like it affects credibility - but yours looked great!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Awesome, thank you!

Great video once again, Mate. I think a workshop in Newcastle Australia is in order:)...but, if you ever came here? You would NOT want to go home. The best beaches in the world.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks mate! One of my really good friends lives in Melbourne so I would love to do one there and Sydney some day.

@71whitey

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress Melbourne is my hometown. Best city on Earth. But Newcastle is God's Country:)

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

I am not sure if this will matter to you, but I have ridden a train through Newcastle, UK =)

@71whitey

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress haha...it kind of couldn't be more of a contrast:):)

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Right!

The results are definitely more a build quality issue then a true example of deep vs shallow softbox. The physics of light is quite simple. It travels in a straight line from the source of the diffusion panel. So every single part of the diffuser spreads light in all directions evenly in straight lines. This by default means that what happens before the diffusion panel makes no difference except to the quality of light abs how evenly it hits the diffusion panel. The other interesting thing I've seen people do is place the grid inside the box and the diffusion panel over the top..... this does not in any way control the spill of the light since once again the diffusing panel spread the light after it passes the grid in this case but the quality and quantity of light definitely gets less and therefore you are only achieving a waste of power.... testing the way you have although interesting doesn't do an accurate job because the different soft boxs are all different brands and sizes and quality. Which even the same manufacturer will have inequalities regarding this..... physics is the only true way to scientifically establish the truth and everything else comes down to build quality. But as shown here the results are negligible in the real world even with the different build qualities.

this is brilliant, John. Thank you so much for your meticulous efforts on this I’d love to see this depth of analysis on CRLS reflective systems, wink wink nudge nudge 😉

@JohnGress

5 ай бұрын

Is this what you're referring to? howl.me/clIPXyktnOP

JOHN GRESS YOU ARE COMING TO NEW YORK CITY IN JUNE AHHHH

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

🤗🍷🤗🥃🤗🍸

Great video. I love how you tested out your theory and found it to be factually true but practically irrelevant. Although the difference in the spread of the light with regards to the background did not show an appreciable difference, I do think I noticed a difference in the transition of the shadows on the face. It will be interesting to see your next video regarding the quality of the light.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks Edward. I was excited at first and surprised at the end.

@eghunt1

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress Based on a video I saw by Kari Taylor I expected there to be no visible difference, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that there was measurable difference.

Thank you for your work. Wouldn't it be more relevant to compare two softboxes with diffusers having strictly the same transmission factor (Y%) and inner silver coating ? As soon as the light is properly diffused (with a low transmission factor diffuser), depth and shape no longer matter. Luminaire manufacturers are well aware of this. This explains why one can have the feeling that some softboxes are more directional than others, but the transmission factor is simply higher in one case, nothing to do with the depth and the shape of the box. Just vary Y% (by changing the diffuser) to make the same softbox less or more """directional""". The higher Y%, the more important is the shape of the softbox and the quality / specularity of the internal silver coating, regarding to directionality. A softbox is by definition multi-directional, the light is supposed to be correctly diffused in order to produce a certain quality of light. Recessed front softbox channels the spread of light, but the light itself remains multi-directionnal. Fresnel lens or (true) parabolic umbrella produce directionnal lighting.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

I think its important to know how these modifiers behave so viewers can have the information and form their own tests of their modifiers if they are interested. The tests in these videos showed that there is a difference in directionality between the modifiers when using the diffusion that comes with them. A consumer is not going to source their own diffusion fabric that conforms to their desired transmission factor. They are going to use the included material. The follow-up, which I am posting tomorrow will cover the quality differences between the modifiers.

@yanncabello5432

3 жыл бұрын

​@@JohnGress I understand your approach, can't wait to see this video.

If you are in the market, which one would you choose ?

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

For convenience a 100cm DeepOcta for quality a 120cm Litemotiv. This video will explain more kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

Could the removal of the outer diffuser have a greater effect on the directionality of the light on these 2 softboxes?

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

It’s likely. But then it wouldn’t produce the same light quality

*watches the video *proceeds to sell everything except one octabox

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Which one? 😁

@kwkarol

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress a hexadecagon deep parabolic softbox actually, as per your other video :) Love your content John!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Oh! Well wait for the next video because I still need to test light quality!

@kwkarol

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress it can't come soon enough!

Perfeito! A luz reflete no mesmo ângulo que incide ! Se o ponto focal da parábola for mais aberto ou fechado, isso altera o modo como a luz se distribui ! O farol da motocicleta ,é um bom exemplo!

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Obrigado. Acho que o que eu queria mesmo aprender com esse vídeo era como funcionava a parábola quando havia difusão.

The main reason, that the deep parabolic softboxes are existing, is the ability to focus the lightsource (flash/Led) with the additional focus system (without the 2 diffuser attached). This lightshaper is basically a mixture from a shape from a traditional reflector, but made out of fabric and much bigger, and - with the 2 diffuser attached - a softbox. A two in one lightshaper, so to speak. As a softbox, its no surprise, that this lightshaper will give you similar results like a softbox...because then, it IS a softbox. You also would be able to do the same (focus the lightsource) with a deep umbrella, but the lightsource would be a little bit out off center...except you would use a ringflash. And with a shallow softbox, you dont have very much space to move your lightsource in and out. Its just a little bit more comfort with a focus system in a deep parabolic softbox. But overall, similar shapes and sizes of lightshapers will give you similar results. Its just the difference, how complex the lightshapers are built (cheap/expensive), and how reflective (output) the materials are. We all have a different budget, so it is also a desicion with our wallet, if we could buy a Broncolor Para or a Elinchrome Litemotiv or a JINBEI deep parabolic softbox, as an example.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

I agree it's probably a 2-in-1 proposition but not all brands sell an additional focusing rod system. Some, like Elinchrom, allow you to use a deflector disc, and no fabric, which I will demonstrate in a follow up video.

@bp-blackshark

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress There is also an focus system for the Elinchrome Litemotiv...atleast, i have access, if i want it (Bounce Focus Adapter...about 480€: www.pro-digital.at/shop/index.php?controller=attachment&id_attachment=82 ). The Elinchrome Litemotiv is the same like the Westcott Zeppelin´s and the HENSEL Grand Softboxes...all of them are from AURORA Lite Banks with the Brands on it.

greeting from slovakia and thx

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

technical i like it

@JohnGress

Жыл бұрын

Thanks! It’s definitely a lot of math!

welcome to india too

If you close your eyes, it's like you're listening to Kevin Sorbo.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

I'll have to go have a listen.

@jakedunbar4063

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress haha please do. I mean it certainly as a compliment. You have a great voice.

Its too much for me to process 😅

There's a flaw in your experiment. By putting the diffusion fabric on, it mostly negates any effects of the shape.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

The point was to see if parabolic soft boxes make a difference. If you remove the diffusion, then it will just become a parabolic reflector.

Parabolic's look cooler.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

True! I have a video coming out comparing the quality of the modifiers within two weeks.

That’s too technical

Softbox is a softbox. Biggest difference will be the diffusion material used and the light source inside.

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Did you watch the video before you left a comment?

Tehnical details...so what?!

As soon as you put diffusion on the front the shape of the back end means nothing. You were both right and wrong in this video. Parabolics DO make a difference without diffusion, just like the bell shape of any flashlight definitely makes a difference, that's just physics. But once you add diffusion then both lights now come from the front of the softbox so they are exactly the same

@JohnGress

Жыл бұрын

The test in this video showed there was a difference in the spread of the light of the different modifiers with diffusion so you might want to watch it again. For a video showing the light quality differences you might want to check out this one. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

In my experience the only difference is in the catchlights, otherwise all the soft boxes are 95%+ all the same when it comes to directionality, a proper parabolic diffuser, i.e. with a telescopic fitting, is the only way to have true directional light from a non rigid reflector; I never choose a soft box shape and size for its directionality, I choose it in relation of the size of the subject and how soft/hard I want the lighting to be. If you want directionality avoid soft boxes use instead parabolic reflectors, fresnel lenses, diffusers and beauty dishes with honeycomb grids . Parabolic soft boxes are just a cleaver way for manufacturers to up-sale, a solution for a dream, soft directional light... and amazingly just about everyone knows that clear sky sunshine gives you hard directional light and an overcast one gives you soft light...

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Well I thought that might have been the case until I tested the quality of light from each modifier. kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

@nilofido411

3 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress so basically you just confirmed what I said...... I watched the video you suggested, and except for the modifier with the grid the rest was in my 95% ish statement...( witch by the way goes beyond the scope of the test, i.e. adding a modifier after the diffusion ) Also if instead of keeping the exact same placement of the modifiers in relation to the subject you would have moved them accordingly to their physical differences you would have had much closer results. If I look at the plotted data on this video it confirms my point.. there isn’t much difference, once the light comes out of the scream diffuser it doesn’t matter the shape behind it, except for its physical size.. although your approach sounds scientifically sound, it isn’t... it’s ok in this video, but not on the suggested one. What I am trying to say is that obviously different modifiers will have small differences if placed in the exact same spot, different shape, size and materials, however if you move them a little this differences will be minimal....

@JohnGress

3 жыл бұрын

Three of the modifiers had a diameter within 15cm of one another and the results were quite different. And the larger the modifier, the worse it did at the same distance. So if I moved them so they were the same size in the subjects field of view the results would have been more pronounced and the Litemotiv 120 would have done even better.

If you put diffusor on any kind of modifier then you kill it puropose and the all become standard octa. Parabolic with diffusor = octa. You wasted time on those test, please do same without diffusors :)

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

But they weren’t the same with diffusers.

@piotr.czechowski

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress I know but it does’t matter that much in my opinion - perhaps you can do similiar test but without diffusion where differences would be significant.

So let's face it, the differences are basically imperceptible to human eyes! Parabolic are a waste of space/money

@JohnGress

2 жыл бұрын

No, that isn't the case kzread.info/dash/bejne/pZZ7s9V6n9i6dsY.html

@thebrunoserge

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnGress Yeah, for extremely edge case applications. 99% of the time an octabox will do the job and take up less space in the bag/studio. I just "downgraded" my parabolic to an octabox in my streaming key light for this reason