LED-washing?

[GageStryker]

No, I'm not talking LED wash fixtures. I'm talking LED-washing. Kind of like green-washing. Focusing on something to make it appear environmentally friendly, when in fact it isn't.

Here's a snippet from Martin's official press release on the Mac 350 Entour (soon to be released):

The new MAC 350 Entour™ from Martin Professional is the most powerful and energy-efficient LED-based profile moving head fixture on the market to date. It marks a radical advancement in light output and quality compared to other LED profiles on the market.

The direct result of a technology grant for the development of new LED technologies, the MAC 350 Entour surpasses what has previously been possible in terms of brightness, efficiency and compactness in a hard edge LED fixture.

Bright!
Light output is exceptional for an LED profile yet the MAC 350 Entour is highly energy efficient. It delivers 8,000 lumens of output from extremely efficient 50 W white LEDs, an output greater than many larger and more expensive 250/300 watt fixtures and four times more than comparable fixtures.

(Emphasis mine)

http://www.martin.com/productnews/productnews.asp?id=464

Sounds cool and revolutionary - and the product videos do the same. 8000 lumens - an output that's greater then many 250/300 watt fixtures! What an energy savings!

What the article DOESN'T tell you is that this amazing 8000 lumens output is from an array of 7 50W LED sources. Which would be 350 watts, hence the product name: The Mac 350 Entour. In other words, they're pushing a "green" solution that is only marginally more efficient than a 250W discharge source.

Let's check the math:

Martin 350 Entour: 8000 lumens @ 350W = 22.857 lumens/Watt
Martin 250 Entour: 5000 lumens @ 250W = 20.0 lumens/Watt

Output of the 350 vs the 250: 1.6:1 doesn't look like 4 times the output of comparable fixtures. Unless there's a more comparable fixture then the same line by the same manufacturer in a non-LED source...

Now, I will give them the fact that bulb replacement on an LED is greener then for discharge lamps, both for the lack of mercury and the longer lifespan of an LED source.

And the interesting thing is that this development came about, as in the article, from a technology grant for new LED technologies. If Martin hadn't snapped up funding and made a product, someone would have. LEDs are the savour of the universe, when in reality, although they are useful for a number of applications, when you scale them up to these areas, they suffer from the same problems as traditional sources.

Having said that, I'm happy that Martin is taking a step forward and introducing an LED profile fixture (that is worth a GIANT hurrah!). The applications for it will be different then a discharge lamp, and I'm excited about it just for that alone. And maybe, in a few years, the LED technology will become more efficient and prove old sticks in the mud like me wrong for good. I hope one day that will come.

 

[soundman]

I imagine a large percentage of the cost saving comes from when the shutter is closed the LEDs will draw no power. An arc source, even in power save mode, will still draw a fair amount of juice. Depending on the application and programing this could be a significant savings on power.

Enough to stop drilling for oil and burning coal? Probably not.

 

[GageStryker]

I never thought of that, soundman. Instant-ON would save power (and lamp life) in a show application. In my experience using the Mac 301, you don't need a shutter module for LED sources, just a framing device if you want one (since it's a dimmable source)

 

[bishopthomas]

Please look past the specs for a moment. Besides the point that soundman brought up, there are tons of savings for LED's. I just had a conversation with the manager of Bandit Lites in Nashville yesterday about this very topic. Some points he brought up (and I'll add my own for density): Less cabling, which leads to less space in the truck, which ultimately leads to less trucks on the road. Also no more dimmers if you're going all LED, giving the same benefits as above. There IS less power draw. I was told that on a recent tour they had moved to all LED's and MAC550's and were drawing a total of 68 amps, compared to the previous tour's 400 amps. LED's produce less heat, so for indoor gigs the AC is going to work much less than if there were 120k of pars. Finally, just the lamp life alone justifies the energy savings. Less junk to go in our land fills, less need to make the trip to swap out the lamp (unless you're riding a bike or walking your car is contributing to pollution).

Get past the numbers for a bit and look at the big picture. Sure, Martin may be playing up the "greenness" of their endeavor, but they're not completely full of crap.

 

[shiben]

Get past the numbers for a bit and look at the big picture. Sure, Martin may be playing up the "greenness" of their endeavor, but they're not completely full of crap.

They are, however, guilty of Green-washing. Yes, their product is more environmentally friendly, but from the article, it certainly SEEMS that the thing draws 50W. Obviously not, but to someone just reading the blurb, they might get that impression. Also, in their literature about being "green" they dont mention any of the things you mentioned, like landfill savings, etc. TO their credit though, they didnt give numbers for how much space in a landfill that using their product saves...

 

[bishopthomas]

They are, however, guilty of Green-washing. Yes, their product is more environmentally friendly, but from the article, it certainly SEEMS that the thing draws 50W. Obviously not, but to someone just reading the blurb, they might get that impression. Also, in their literature about being "green" they dont mention any of the things you mentioned, like landfill savings, etc. TO their credit though, they didnt give numbers for how much space in a landfill that using their product saves...

I am certainly not excusing their marketing ploy, but just to play devil's advocate here: It's much simpler for them to sell the "greenness" of it in power draw than it is to explain everything that I outlined in my post. I can see them being bullet points on the website under the "Why LED's Save the Planet" tab, but not necessarily in a press release about a specific product. Again, I agree that they are being misleading, but if there was a way to do the actual math then you might be surprised to see that they are actually not playing up the LED's "greenness" ENOUGH.

 

[soundman]

When I said shutter I wasn't talking about framing shutters but rather the shutters that are used for strobing and black out.

 

[shiben]

I am certainly not excusing their marketing ploy, but just to play devil's advocate here: It's much simpler for them to sell the "greenness" of it in power draw than it is to explain everything that I outlined in my post. I can see them being bullet points on the website under the "Why LED's Save the Planet" tab, but not necessarily in a press release about a specific product. Again, I agree that they are being misleading, but if there was a way to do the actual math then you might be surprised to see that they are actually not playing up the LED's "greenness" ENOUGH.

Not so sure. Take into account the manufacturing process for LEDs, and I dont know where it changes. However, those in the "Green Movement" would take issue by pointing out power savings because its not only misleading, but also encourages people to use products that are actually not very green at all when things other than power draw are factored in. Fluorescent lamps, for example, are terrible to dispose of, so might have a negligible effect on the overall environmental impact, especially considering that most HAZMAT facilities that you need to bring them to to dispose of them require a drive in a car. I think it would be fine if they advertised the same product, with the same stats, but emphasized the truly green bits of it, not just the so called "power savings", when in reality, you are saving -100W for a marginal increase in brightness.

 

[derekleffew]

Once a month I drive my Prius to the Recycling Center to dispose of my failed (prematurely) CFLs. On the way back, I stop at Whole Foods for some organically-grown vegetables, imported from South America. I'm saving the planet!

/remove tongue from cheek

 

[shiben]

Once a month I drive my Prius to the Recycling Center to dispose of my failed (prematurely) CFLs. On the way back, I stop at Whole Foods for some organically-grown vegetables, imported from South America. I'm saving the planet!

/remove tongue from cheek

You drive a prius? That is unexpected. Did you pay a lot extra for those organic veggies at whole foods? Also, where do you keep them for the rest of the month? Lettuce goes bad after a few days! (never mind the social ramifications of eating lettuce thats grown by anyone other than someone you know)

 

[Cuelist]

Dear Adam,

I am happy that you're excited about our MAC 350 Entour, you're not alone in that respect. This fixture has created quite a stir in the market.

I don't quite understand your statement: "...they're pushing a "green" solution that is only marginally more efficient than a 250W discharge source. "

We think 60% is more than a 'marginal' improvement - in fact it is more than 60% when you factor in losses in optics, switched mode power supplies etc. But that's based on both fixtures running at 100%. In reality the energy saving are much much greater thanks to the source (LEDs) being dimmable. A discharge lamp typically burns at 100% all the time. The exact savings depends on how the fixtures are used but savings at an average of 75% are easily possible in typical show situations. Add to that the 60% higher efficiency and I'd say we have grounds for our "green" claims.

Our groundbreaking and patented InLED technology is indeed a joint effort between our own R&D, a university and some external funding from the European Union. The MAC350 Entour is just the first step, we have even more impressive things in the pipeline.

We are certainly the first to deliver an LED sourced hard edged fixture with 8000+ lumens output, there are other contenders but they don't even come close.


Kind regards

 

[xander]

I don't quite understand your statement: "...they're pushing a "green" solution that is only marginally more efficient than a 250W discharge source. "

We think 60% is more than a 'marginal' improvement - in fact it is more than 60% when you factor in losses in optics, switched mode power supplies etc.

I have not looked up your product or seen any spec sheet or press release. Assume all that I know about this product is what I have read in this thread. Would you mind explaining, i.e. showing the math, that gives you this 60% improvement? From the numbers I have seen in this thread, I don't know where you get this sixty percent.

Thanks,
-Tim

 

[Cuelist]

"Would you mind explaining, i.e. showing the math, that gives you this 60% improvement? From the numbers I have seen in this thread, I don't know where you get this sixty percent."

The figure of 60% came from the original poster, I guess he simply took the 8000 lumens of the MAC 350 Entour compared to the 5000 lumens for our MAC 250 Entour - assuming approximateky the same power draw.

In reality the MAC350 pulls between 70 and 430W depending on the intensity setting. The MAC250 Entour pulls 320W regardless of intensity setting.

So, the lumens per watt figures are not THAT much different BUT in terms of average power consumption, the Entour 350 will provides substantial savings due to the source only emitting as much as needed, not running at full blast all the time.

 

[xander]

"Would you mind explaining, i.e. showing the math, that gives you this 60% improvement? From the numbers I have seen in this thread, I don't know where you get this sixty percent."

The figure of 60% came from the original poster, I guess he simply took the 8000 lumens of the MAC 350 Entour compared to the 5000 lumens for our MAC 250 Entour - assuming approximateky the same power draw.

In reality the MAC350 pulls between 70 and 430W depending on the intensity setting. The MAC250 Entour pulls 320W regardless of intensity setting.

So, the lumens per watt figures are not THAT much different BUT in terms of average power consumption, the Entour 350 will provides substantial savings due to the source only emitting as much as needed, not running at full blast all the time.

First of all, thank you for explaining. But going strictly off of the information you have provided, I would have to say that "60% improvement" is tricky at best, outright lying at worst. One could say that it is 60% brighter, or has 60% more lumen output, but the word improvement implies something to me. I would argue that it implies an improved efficiency. Otherwise it would be the same thing as me saying something like, "this 575w discharge fixture is a 100% improvement on this 250w discharge fixture." Yes is going to be brighter, but at a higher energy cost. It's not really an improvement, it is just a different (brighter) fixture.
So, if we are to look at the efficiency of the products, that is where I would say the improvement is. Let's look at the both fixtures on at full.

MAC350:
8000 lumens / 430W = ~18.6lm/w
MAC250:
5000 lumens / 320W = 15.625lm/w

So, I would say that is approximately a 3lm/w increase, or 3/15.625 = 19.2%. A roughly 20% increase in efficiency when on at full. I am not trying to say that that number does not increase because of the other advantages of LEDs. Dimming alone could save you tons of power (money) because discharge lamps will always draw the same amount of power (disregarding some units utilize a power save mode when dimmed). However, how can you put numbers on this kind of data? It is going to vary drastically for every user and every show.
Like others in the thread have said, there are many great things about LEDs, but they can't all be summarized in one statistic. I'm sure this is a great product! Hell, it's a hard-edged LED profile from Martin! I'd probably buy one if I were in the market. I just think one must be careful with the words we use, both in advertising and informally, because no one wants to mislead anyone.

My $.02 (USD, so not worth that much )
-Tim

 

[Cuelist]

I just think one must be careful with the words we use, both in advertising and informally, because no one wants to mislead anyone.

No argument there. I will check on our rationale for the claims and if necessary request to have them amended. It serves no one to have misleading claims.

The "60%" figure was from your original post and I should not have picked up on it, my apologies.

That said - achieving 8000 lumens (actually 8400) from a hard edged LED fixture is pretty darn amazing and I guess we got a bit carried away with excitement there.

 

[xander]

I did say in my first post that I hadn't seen any of the official Martin releases and that I was going off of only what was in this thread. Now, after my little discussion with Cuelist, I did take a look at what Martin had to say about their new product.

Output of the 350 vs the 250: 1.6:1 doesn't look like 4 times the output of comparable fixtures. Unless there's a more comparable fixture then the same line by the same manufacturer in a non-LED source...

As I understood this paragraph, is as follows:

The MAC350

delivers 8,000 lumens of output from extremely efficient 50 W white LEDs, an output greater than many larger and more expensive 250/300 watt fixtures

This is their comparison to the MAC250 (and other manufacturers' equivalents). In this, you cannot deny that the "output is greater."

They go on to say,

[...]and four times more than comparable fixtures.

This, I believe would be a comparison to another LED Profile, such as the Elation Design Spot or something.

The statement about the 50w LEDs can be misread, but I don't think that it is wrong. It says that it uses "extremely efficient 50 W white LEDs." You could read this as the fixtures (plural) are manufactured with 50w LEDs (plural because they are manufacturing many fixtures, each with one LED), OR that each fixture (singular) is manufactured with 50w LEDs (plural).

After looking over the website, I don't think there is anything wrong/misleading about how Martin is advertising the MAC350. That said, it doesn't mean there isn't something to be said about the point the OP was making.

-Tim

 

[GageStryker]

To say I'm surprised by the emotion this post has generated would be a lie. When you talk about doing something as tricky as trying to measure the environmental footprint of a lighting fixture, you end up with at best a range of values, and at worst misleading figures that no one outside of the people that prepared them understand. Add to that the marketing challenge of presenting a fixture with a feature set that everyone wants and comes across on first impression as "too good to be true."

I'd like to congratulate Martin on making a hard edged LED profile fixture. That in itself is such a huge leap forward. Would I buy one? No. Not because of anything in this thread, but because of the fact that I'm looking at a fixture that has seamless color mixing. I understand why they made the decision to reduce the cost, and in a few years once we start to see the 700s replaced by LED sources, I'll be lining up to get my hands on them. I'll rent these to replace my Entour spec for sure, and I'm excited about the possibilities for some very exciting new effects.

There are also environmental impact factors I didn't take into account in my original post, but which were also ultimately not taken into account in the Martin press release or brochures. I took a look through the promotional materials, and it's a brilliant portrayal of the real innovation - making a practical LED profile. However, there's a "green" sidecar that seems to take over the main point.

The only thing I really have a problem with is the misleading claim that it operates on "50w LEDs." If that was replaced by "an array of seven 50W LEDs" I wouldn't have written this original post.

Additionally, we're faced with a dilemma here. Efficiency numbers are typically only useful when comparing apples with apples. Compare two dicharge sources by the same company or two of the same type of fixtures by other manufacturers. To my knowledge, no one has a fixture in the comparable class as the 350 Entour. When you break new ground you're going to have to take a few hits for it. And you might just have to say "we're way better then the competition. Try it, and you'll see."

What I'd personally LOVE to see and would be, IMHO a great marketing tool, is to run a show stack of a typical concert touring production, with a realistic mixed mover hang, for five minutes or so, with 250 Entours once and with 350 Entours once. Take a video with the same exposure settings and meter the power. Play the videos side by side and display live readouts of the power consumption. You could then use both the videos and the data from them for further marketing. That way you've made an attempt to try and get a figure that represents actual use.

 

[xander]

What I'd personally LOVE to see and would be, IMHO a great marketing tool, is to run a show stack of a typical concert touring production, with a realistic mixed mover hang, for five minutes or so, with 250 Entours once and with 350 Entours once. Take a video with the same exposure settings and meter the power. Play the videos side by side and display live readouts of the power consumption. You could then use both the videos and the data from them for further marketing. That way you've made an attempt to try and get a figure that represents actual use.

I think that is a fantastic idea. I'm sure the costs of doing such a thing are going to make Martin (or any company) think twice about it, but I think that the real world results would be priceless. The PR and marketing one could do with such a data set, I would think, would be worth it.

-Tim

 

[Dover]

Another option would be to graph the lumens per watt over the dimming range of both fixtures. Then we would have some hard data to work with.

Dover

 

[kendal69]

This whole "green thing" as it relates to theatrical lighting is simply a joke.

The mere fact that we are using ANY type of augmented lighting goes against the "green" argument, so saving a watt here and there while putting up 300 lights is a tad bit counter productive to the "green" movement.

Furthermore since most of us either use generators or power supplied by the venue, saving electricity is a non issue in my opinion.