Do you dare ? 14 000 Lumen Photo Video Light.

[TecDiveGear]

I'm introducing to all passionate with underwater videos and photos - RED STAR 14k LED Photo Video Light !

As every piece of tech these days, gets smaller and more powerful. RED STAR will amaze with amount of quality light produced vs. size and compactness ! Color Rendering Index (CRI) of 80-90 makes the footage and photos appear in true amazing colors. Real treat for every underwater photo-videographer !

Few photos of the product.



We have also few pretty cool video clips made using Red Star, links below. Enjoy.

[video=vimeo;86682662]http://vimeo.com/86682662[/video]

[video=vimeo;86296376]http://vimeo.com/86296376[/video]

For more detailed info on new RED STAR Underwater Photo Video Light visit TecDiveGear.com

 

[lucca brassi]

But does that really you believe yourself ?

 

[TecDiveGear]

Dear lucca brassi "mr.good stuff hater" yes we rely on manufacturer given specs which so far are the closest true among manufacturers we had pleasure to work with. If you need some "to the bone" specs and other very tech'y info that probably wouldn't say a lot to most of users like me, please contact Light For Me manufacturer directly. Meanwhile we can offer you an introductory discount for this product because like some say - seeing is believing

Best regards and thank you for your input.

 

[TheTrickster]

Seen these recently - there seems to be a massive push to getting bigger and brighter lights out there - which can only be a good thing, however they are doing so, but increasing the beam angle.

I've also seen the brighter OrcaLight 22,000lms Seawolf torches.

Both of these push out an amazing amount of light - its quite unbelievable!!

I think 170' is okay for GoPro or other fisheye video (if that is the coverage you need) but as a general diving light or for light video lighting - personally I feel you need two of a lower beam angle, so you don't get massive shadows.

14k at 170' is only 2440 Candela - which is dimmer than a 5k lamp at 90' (2716) and if we were to measure it at 10m, we would be getting lux ratings of 24 (14k@170) vs 27 (5k@90)

Personally - they need a 90' version - that would be epic.

Good to see a nice kelvin rating and as to CRI Rating this is very important also, good to see finally manufactures taking notice, however - they need to really nail the numbers, like Keldan and provide a definite number. 80-90 is too broad - to me that suggests they aren't being super selective over their LED binning.

I had previously used the LFM GoPro 1800 Lights and a Primary - good lights! But for now sticking with Keldan.

 

[TecDiveGear]

Seen these recently - there seems to be a massive push to getting bigger and brighter lights out there - which can only be a good thing, however they are doing so, but increasing the beam angle.

I've also seen the brighter OrcaLight 22,000lms Seawolf torches.

Both of these push out an amazing amount of light - its quite unbelievable!!

I think 170' is okay for GoPro or other fisheye video (if that is the coverage you need) but as a general diving light or for light video lighting - personally I feel you need two of a lower beam angle, so you don't get massive shadows.

14k at 170' is only 2440 Candela - which is dimmer than a 5k lamp at 90' (2716) and if we were to measure it at 10m, we would be getting lux ratings of 24 (14k@170) vs 27 (5k@90)

Personally - they need a 90' version - that would be epic.

Good to see a nice kelvin rating and as to CRI Rating this is very important also, good to see finally manufactures taking notice, however - they need to really nail the numbers, like Keldan and provide a definite number. 80-90 is too broad - to me that suggests they aren't being super selective over their LED binning.

I had previously used the LFM GoPro 1800 Lights and a Primary - good lights! But for now sticking with Keldan.

First, thank you for your professional input.
What I find interesting is that based on the hints from some "around" known full time photographers and polls that were made almost everybody wanted bigger / wider than 110-120 degree (which is what we already had) beam angle to avoid dark corners etc, based on personal experience I can't really notice the "shadow production" in this case, opposite I think that with this broader angle the area is nicely "filled with light" so no spot forward from camera is missing it. Sooner this "full light spectrum" effect could be achieved by additional lights pointing sideways especially with wide angle lens or go pro set on wide angle.

Also, I'm not crazy about the fact that strongest Keldan (which you try to compare) is only 6000 lumen, so its way more money for almost 1/3 of the light, another plus for RED STAR is that you get detachable canister battery so it leaves you few additional options like mounting, burn time that may be increased if needed.

 

[PsyWulf]

Looks like a cyclops what a beast

So where's my review unit?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

 

[TheTrickster]

Also, I'm not crazy about the fact that strongest Keldan (which you try to compare) is only 6000 lumen, so its way more money for almost 1/3 of the light

But that's not what I'm trying to say...

I'm trying to say that lumens isn't everything...

if they reduced the beam angle you would get a much more powerful light. But due to the fact they use a 170' beam - the Red Star is dimmer at greater distances than a 5000lm light with a 90' beam (obviously the same can be said for a 90' vs 45' etc)

That dual light setup is pretty mean!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nuribromanski]

Will this be released on the same type of schedule as the xdeep black bt? If so, I look forward to using this lighting system in 2021.

 

[tphelps]

I've never seen a more, well-illuminated cave video before. Will definitely have to keep this on the wish-list. Otherwise, I too would like a "review" unit
What is the depth rating?

 

[lucca brassi]

Dear lucca brassi "mr.good stuff hater" yes we rely on manufacturer given specs which so far are the closest true among manufacturers we had pleasure to work with. If you need some "to the bone" specs and other very tech'y info that probably wouldn't say a lot to most of users like me, please contact Light For Me manufacturer directly. Meanwhile we can offer you an introductory discount for this product because like some say - seeing is believing

Well , not at all , just history tells me you do not believe everything, and your site has already been a few such cases : true or not true ?

I also think i have find that led .... it is maybe ....if everything go very good , with proper cooling maybe could to be reached on the value of 14000 lm.

I'm a little surprised because this LED came out just at the end of 2013 and has not even been right on the market (point is the reach of 143lm / W) with a second series of

LEDs family.

I have seen that LFM don't have any spec on their site and even don't sell that light ...I conclude that there don't have CE certificate that's why is not publish more.

COB led (chips on board ) is not something special because it have much to large radiation zone ( it is maybe OK for video , but not for other aplications ( reflectors , optics ))

Point for good scuba light is high ''surface brightness '' of led . In that case - COB made lumens just with growing larger and larger die.

Voltage is also high on that led - cca 56V and step up driver have to be used .... and also product price is high ($1,675.00 tax incl. - led costs (1 generation (about 8500lm) -

cca 53$ so not actual 2'nd generation we talk with 14.000 lm about but sure it is not over 75$ ) . ..... So driver + led on that light costs arround 125 $ ....

Compare now that with KELDAN Luna led which cost cca 125$/pcs but that led have nedeed brightness and small die.

What is wit battery tank ? No info because it is small but consumption must be significant for approx 90W LED. For reference diving lamp ''HW80'' have 14,5 Ah with 365 Wh.

I have something more spotted I think that the bend radius of glass for that large led is too small (glass should be flatter) - maybe I'm wrong but that is just thought .

Now i see it is from polycarbonat .... a friend of mine made same thing with untreated polycarbonate lenses without diopters for eyeglasses, which it obtained in the optician

similar diameter ......but for underwater use that should be glass something from SCHOTT at least for that price.

Now we can wait from some tests ...

Best Regards