Strand SL burn through weakness?

Does a Strand SL burn through gel faster than a Source 4

  • No, the Source 4 is worse

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    48

gafftaper

Senior Team
Senior Team
Fight Leukemia
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Location
Seattle, WA
Hello,
I've read a lot of messages in the forums and it seems that most people agree that the S4 is generally the better product to buy for a fixed focus ellipsoidal. However I'm in a situation that I'm not sure how much of a final word I'm going to have on which get's purchased. I'm concerned about a comment I read that said the SL is likely to burn through gel quickly. Has anyone else found this to be true?

Thanks for the help, this is my first post here. It seems like a great community and I hope I can contribute something to the discussion in the future.
 

moojoe

Active Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Location
merion, PA
While ive never personally used the Strand SL, ive heard of that many times over. A lot of people say, "the strand is fine if you dont mind using a gel extender, but otherwise, it kills gel so freeking fast". also, Strand isnt really used as much in the US compaired to the S4, the S4 is the standard here in the states, making repairs quite easier, not to mention ETC's amazing customer support.
 

dwt1

Member
Joined
May 9, 2004
Location
Evansville, IN
Hello:

We have used Strand SL's for several years and I have not noted a problem with gel burnout. Periodically, we do have problems with the lamp pins encountering carbon buildup. The result is a non-functioning fixture. (we thought the lamp had burned out) However, an IA guy I work with suggested cleaning the pins with a cloth and voila, functioning fixture.

Be it S4, SL or Shakespeare, you are in essence buying very similar fixtures, each with their quirks. For us, price and the ability to use the same 2 pin lamps throughout the rig (be they SL's or 360Q...yeah, got some older stuff) made more sense.

We do own two older S4 36's and have not noted any appreciable differences between them and the SL's.

Thanks,

dwt1
 

koncept

Active Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Location
.
i have worked with both sl & s4 and cannot say i notice a difference in the "burn through" rate. I personaly like the sl's more than the s4's but that is probaly just because it's what i started with. I think the sl's are easier to focus at times but that may just be that i am used to them and can do it just about blind folded. I am not saying the s4's are bad, they have worked great when i've use them, having only 4 of them and 36 of the sl's probaly just makes me biased
 

fosstech

Active Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Location
Tacoma, WA USA
I've never used an SL but all the S4's we have don't have any problems with burning gel at all...unless the lamp is off center in the reflector. I learned this the hard way. A while back we slapped some R59 on a couple of 36 degree S4's that were brand new, and the gels got holes in them in less than a minute. I thought something must have been wrong, so I pulled out the lens tube and had a look. The lamp was all the way over to one side of the reflector. I centered the lamp, did a flat field focus, and then put a fresh sheet of R59 on there, and it worked great. It only had a little discoloration after a few hours, but something that saturated (2% transmission ;)) would in any fixture. Not sure if the SL has fully universal lens tubes, but the S4 does. It's really a plus when you need to swith the beam angle, just swap out the tubes, and not the entire fixture. And the S4 is really easy to take apart and work on with only a screwdriver.