very comprehensive explanation, but i must say this: the reason you're not getting exactly half between 10m and 20m (at 04:43 min) is not because you're shooting some light past the reflector. that portion of the light wouldn't be hitting your meter if you were measuring an actually straight path either. the reason is that the reflector is not a perfect mirror, and diverts some of the light away from its straight path to the meter (as we can see from the fact that the reflection in it is slightly blurry). you would get the same reading at 20m with a much larger or a much smaller mirror, too.🤓
"Square Law" works ONLY for POINT light sources! It's a why it does't works for a laser sources, because in that all quantum of ligths moving parallel!
Actually the inverse square law is a law of physics that applies to any light, but the rule of 1/4 of the intensity at twice the distance begins to be achieved, once the distance is larger than five times the diagonal or radius of the light source, but beyond that distance, no matter if the light source is a 12x12 diffusion frame, the law is met.
@@dishoanimaciones1308 I don't observe this intensity drop off in the slightest when using something like a LEP flashlight. Most of these lights have incredibly tiny emitters, and even if we measure the visible beam-width (visible due to atmospheric particulate), there is virtually zero perceptible drop off even off into the horizon, let alone "5x" the radius of the light source as you said. Granted I don't have equipment to measure lumens and candella of a laser to verify this, visually speaking - I'm certainly not seeing any light fall off at five, or even ten times the radius of the light source.
You've avoided explaining so many core concepts that the video ends being more confusing than informative. Please write down, revise and edit your scripts before going on camera (you know, like they would on a movie set). The internet doesn't need more confusion. (Or straight up misinformation regarding the reflector loss of light intensity)
The inverse square law is a "law" to describe the spread of photons, not that individual photons get weaker over time. You're not escaping physics or making a light source further away, you're just focusing the light well 🤦
![Learn Photography [Full Course] by Australian Geographic Photographer Chris Bray](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LxO-6rlihSg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Learn Photography [Full Course] by Australian Geographic Photographer Chris Bray](/img/tr.png)
It's basically a collimated light source
Thank you for explaining it in 3 simple words.
WOW U R SOOOOOO SMART
they try to make it sound like a scientific breakthrough but its just a simple collimated light.
very comprehensive explanation, but i must say this: the reason you're not getting exactly half between 10m and 20m (at 04:43 min) is not because you're shooting some light past the reflector. that portion of the light wouldn't be hitting your meter if you were measuring an actually straight path either. the reason is that the reflector is not a perfect mirror, and diverts some of the light away from its straight path to the meter (as we can see from the fact that the reflection in it is slightly blurry). you would get the same reading at 20m with a much larger or a much smaller mirror, too.🤓
"Square Law" works ONLY for POINT light sources! It's a why it does't works for a laser sources, because in that all quantum of ligths moving parallel!
Actually the inverse square law is a law of physics that applies to any light, but the rule of 1/4 of the intensity at twice the distance begins to be achieved, once the distance is larger than five times the diagonal or radius of the light source, but beyond that distance, no matter if the light source is a 12x12 diffusion frame, the law is met.
@@dishoanimaciones1308 I don't observe this intensity drop off in the slightest when using something like a LEP flashlight. Most of these lights have incredibly tiny emitters, and even if we measure the visible beam-width (visible due to atmospheric particulate), there is virtually zero perceptible drop off even off into the horizon, let alone "5x" the radius of the light source as you said. Granted I don't have equipment to measure lumens and candella of a laser to verify this, visually speaking - I'm certainly not seeing any light fall off at five, or even ten times the radius of the light source.
I have never used your lights, but I can say after watching this I am a fan.
when a gentlemen in a fedora hat and a cool speaking voice is giving a lecture, you grab your popcorn and tea!
i love this video... you know what, i'm gonna try this idea using blender 3D =)
I was thinking the same thing. Let us know your results and how you achieved it. Assuming it’s possible
super video - i loved every second of it
Thank you very much. ❤🙏
So the lamp lens causes the light source to be effectively far away behind it.
A lot of bullshit verbiage to just say "Collimated"
I'm enjoying this man speaking
Nice concept. And PB70 is just about 20k EUR. Just ordered 4 😅😅😅
You've avoided explaining so many core concepts that the video ends being more confusing than informative. Please write down, revise and edit your scripts before going on camera (you know, like they would on a movie set). The internet doesn't need more confusion. (Or straight up misinformation regarding the reflector loss of light intensity)
Great video Dedo team!
I love how natural it look with this mirrors!
So, its a beam of light right? Doesnt godox also has a thing like this?
Dedolight has had these available for years… Godox copied the concept
@@cagf2013 aight.
@@cagf2013 collimated lights existed long before dedolight. used in stage production for like 100 years.
Brilliant. Thank you!
Always insightful!
The inverse square law is a "law" to describe the spread of photons, not that individual photons get weaker over time. You're not escaping physics or making a light source further away, you're just focusing the light well 🤦
Stunned by this new innovation! Great job dedlolight
Isn't this the same thing as a Mole Richardson Molebeam?
YEIIIII
These guys are the flat earthers of lighting.
🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂🤦♂
He got a techincal achievement Oscar in 1991
@@tomspiers2087 he should give it back
@@MrNoipe....... says a guy on UA-cam
@@tomspiers2087 science is real, these optics have been around for 200+ years. sorry bud.
Genius technology
Its also kinda lame as a lighting compagny uses terrible lighting in their video.😅
They are a manufacturer ... not a lighting company ...