Mike31154
New member
Received two 250 watt, SE 14,000 K Plusrite lamps today and have fired one up along with an existing XM 10,000 K that I have from a previous owner. I have no idea of the age of the XM, but the one in there now is the better of the two XMs I have been running. It was putting out a whiter, brighter light than the XM which I've now replaced with the Plusrite.
After running for about 5 minutes, I can see a significant color difference between the new Plusrite 14 and the used XM 10. Plusrite is more blue, which seems to validate the color temperature rating. I think once I replace the other XM with the Plusrite, I won't require any Actinic supplementation for my particular preference in overall color. I don't have a PAR meter, but using an old Gossen Sixtino 2 photographic light meter, I've found that the XM is producing a greater deflection on the meter with the diffuser covering the meter sensor. Again, this is likely normal with the difference in color temperature of the two lamps. Without the diffuser covering the light meter sensor, the readings are very close to the same. Not sure of the significance there but the meter instructions say to retract the diffuser when measuring reflected light (measure from the camera to the 'object') and to use the diffuser for measuring the 'scene' (measure from the object to be photographed to the camera). At any rate, if there's a way to convert the light meter reading to PAR or some other useful information, here are the light meter numbers for the XM lamp using the diffuser on the light meter:
ASA/DIN = 400/27
f/ vs time = 22 @ just under 60, or 16 @ just under 125, or 11 @ just under 250 and so on up to 5.6 @ just under 1000
Other info.... using a UPM Marketing EM100 Energy Monitor (similar to a Kill A Watt), I see that the two lamps are using around 450 watts with my M58 magnetic ballasts. This is similar to the readings I've seen using both XM lamps, so no significant difference there. The Plusrite lamp is physically shorter than the XM, both the screw in base and the the outer glass envelope. The base of the Plusrite has a number of slots punched into into it around the circumference but has no solder blob between the base and the glass like the XM lamp has. This may explain the absence of the discoloration on the inside lower part of the outer glass envelope. I think this happens on inital burn in to eliminate all air inside the lamp, not sure, perhaps Plusrite has a cleaner method of doing this without the solder blob. Plusrite logo and data are marked on the outer glass envelope. The inner assembly looks to be of comparable quality compared to the XM, but is a little shorter overall due to the shorter length of the Plusrite.
Seems like a good deal so far, time will tell. Later dudes & dudettes.
After running for about 5 minutes, I can see a significant color difference between the new Plusrite 14 and the used XM 10. Plusrite is more blue, which seems to validate the color temperature rating. I think once I replace the other XM with the Plusrite, I won't require any Actinic supplementation for my particular preference in overall color. I don't have a PAR meter, but using an old Gossen Sixtino 2 photographic light meter, I've found that the XM is producing a greater deflection on the meter with the diffuser covering the meter sensor. Again, this is likely normal with the difference in color temperature of the two lamps. Without the diffuser covering the light meter sensor, the readings are very close to the same. Not sure of the significance there but the meter instructions say to retract the diffuser when measuring reflected light (measure from the camera to the 'object') and to use the diffuser for measuring the 'scene' (measure from the object to be photographed to the camera). At any rate, if there's a way to convert the light meter reading to PAR or some other useful information, here are the light meter numbers for the XM lamp using the diffuser on the light meter:
ASA/DIN = 400/27
f/ vs time = 22 @ just under 60, or 16 @ just under 125, or 11 @ just under 250 and so on up to 5.6 @ just under 1000
Other info.... using a UPM Marketing EM100 Energy Monitor (similar to a Kill A Watt), I see that the two lamps are using around 450 watts with my M58 magnetic ballasts. This is similar to the readings I've seen using both XM lamps, so no significant difference there. The Plusrite lamp is physically shorter than the XM, both the screw in base and the the outer glass envelope. The base of the Plusrite has a number of slots punched into into it around the circumference but has no solder blob between the base and the glass like the XM lamp has. This may explain the absence of the discoloration on the inside lower part of the outer glass envelope. I think this happens on inital burn in to eliminate all air inside the lamp, not sure, perhaps Plusrite has a cleaner method of doing this without the solder blob. Plusrite logo and data are marked on the outer glass envelope. The inner assembly looks to be of comparable quality compared to the XM, but is a little shorter overall due to the shorter length of the Plusrite.
Seems like a good deal so far, time will tell. Later dudes & dudettes.
