# SHOOT OUT IV



## Mr Ted Bear (May 25, 2008)




----------



## Mr Ted Bear (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

reserved2


----------



## Patriot (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

Great location!!! I can ID the K3500, the Blitz and the Locator.

I can hardly wait to get the full story! 

Hopefully you guys had a great time at dinner and during the shoot.


----------



## Flashanator (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*




So any 400w + HID Monsters? 



Cant wait to see what lights are in this shot out IV


----------



## BVH (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

I think a good time was had by all. Even had an LAPD'r show up who turned out to be a CPF lurker. 300 Watt was the max on the HID front. Would have been fun to have had the 400 Watt HID modded Thor.


----------



## adamlau (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

*Initial Impressions*

1. I was impressed with both the LarryK and the Costco 80W.
2. I was most impressed with the Li-poly powered HyperBlitz.
3. The PH50 output whiter, more abundant spill than the HB2 50W.
4. The HB2 50W had a smaller, more intense hotspot than the PH50.
5. I am not a fan of high Kelvin HID bulbs casting blue light.
6. The Power On Board was not as impressive as I would have hoped.
7. Did I mention that I was most impressed with the HyperBlitz?
8. The L35 beam pattern will be clean and floody with good throw.
9. The Locator would be nice to have on my rooftop.

Canon SD1000
ISO Setting: 100
Lens Aperture: F2.8
Exposure: 1 Second
White Balance: Tungsten
Moon Illumination: 89 Percent
Distance: ~255 Yards

*Quick & Dirty Incandescent Shots*

High Quality PNG Of Image Available (1 MB).​





*Image Processing Notes*

1. Minimal unsharp masking (T=75) applied to offset downsizing image blur.
2. Brightness levels increased in order to reveal over and underexposed details.
3. JPEG quality (Q=80) and file sizes reduced for improved accessibility.


----------



## adamlau (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

*Quick & Dirty HID Shots*

High Quality PNG Of Image Available (4 MB).​





*Image Processing Notes*

1. Minimal unsharp masking (T=75) applied to offset downsizing image blur.
2. Brightness levels increased in order to reveal over and underexposed details.
3. JPEG quality (Q=80) and file sizes reduced for improved accessibility.

*Additional Image Notes*

1. Yellowjacket should be referenced to Yellow Jacket.


----------



## karlthev (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

Great!



Karl


----------



## seery (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*



Mr. Ted Bear and adamlau,

Any way possible to keep the thread useable for us dial-up users? Thumb-nails with
descriptions and an option to view larger image?

The PH-50 thread is a dial-up nightmare and now literally impossible for me to follow
because it locks my system up for so long. Even if I leave and do something else, it
will time out before it finishes loading the page 100%.

Curious as to the purpose of the +25% images?

Thanks and looking forward to a great thread.


----------



## Flashanator (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

hey adam, what was the last pic of? It looks too white for Hyperblitz. :thinking:

So when can we see some names to the pics?


----------



## Patriot (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

I'm guessing that the last pic is the 300W Locator Blackhawk.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/167229


----------



## JetskiMark (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

I had an excellent time and it was nice to get together with my fellow flashaholic friends once again. I met Adam for the first time and it seemed as if we were old friends. We could talk about lights and cars endlessly (and almost did).

I agree with all of Adam's observations in post #7. Except about being impressed with the HyperBlitz. It seems normal to me now and I need something significantly brighter. Yet it must still be lightweight, portable, well balanced and comfortable to walk with.

I can relate to what seery has mentioned. I was stuck with dial-up access only in my area until about eight years ago. I have bad memories of some pages taking half an hour to load and still not displaying every image. However, my 6mbs connection seems normal now and some pages can take several seconds to load if the server is slow. It should be as fast as turning pages in a book.

This could be a solution for those unfortunate enough to not have broadband available to them:
Everybody post massive quantities of embedded images (which I prefer) and forget about all those stuck in the 90's with dial-up.
I kid.
Embed all your images but also include a link to each full size image. Place the link right after the caption if there is one. If the images them self are captioned, just place all the links together in the post. When a dial-up user loads the page, just hit escape after the text loads. This will usually only take a few seconds. All the text and links will be there. The embedded images will still be there for broadband users. I do not like having to click on numerous thumbnails just to view all of the images. I much prefer to scroll through full size images on one page. I think that this could be a solution.

I am looking forward to the next get-together. We just need to find a suitable location which allows us to stay there until at least midnight.


----------



## Patriot (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*



JetskiMark said:


> I am looking forward to the next get-together. We just need to find a suitable location which allows us to stay there until at least midnight.




Mark, were you guys forced to leave your location early for some reason?


----------



## JetskiMark (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*



Patriot36 said:


> Mark, were you guys forced to leave your location early for some reason?



I should have differentiated between a shoot out and a get-together. No problem here but at the two previous get-togethers at Griffith Park, we had to leave at ten.

The shootout just got me thinking about how fun the get-togethers are. And how enjoyable it is to speak with your flashaholic friends as opposed to typing. And of course, actually using a light that you have only seen pictures of previously.


----------



## Patriot (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

What was the range to the Powerline tower guys?


----------



## BVH (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*

257 from Mr. TB's cam and 260 from Mtbkndad's. Not sure about Adam's - probably about the same as Mtbkndad's. Looks like we're all hanging around here like vultures, huh?


----------



## Patriot (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*



BVH said:


> Looks like we're all hanging around here like vultures, huh?




Can you see me on my webcam or something? 

I'm forcing myself to turn my computer off now for several hours. :sigh:


----------



## Morepower! (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*



Mr Ted Bear said:


> Quick and dirty download


 
Hi, would it be at all possible to put a colour temp. to some of those shots ? Not all, but maybe just some of the ones that vary greatly. Thanks

Edited out pics, but it's the first lot of pics i'm interested in seeing some of the colour temps for.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*


I'll hang out with the vultures I guess. Can't wait to see some more beamshots of stuff I really should own but really shouldn't pay for. (most of them at least... huzzah for the N30)

One suggestion... let's try not to quote with pictures. Makes the thread much easier to view.


----------



## seery (May 25, 2008)

*Re: SHOT OUT IV*



PhantomPhoton said:


> One suggestion... let's try not to quote with pictures. Makes the thread much easier to view.


...and better for us dial-up users stuck in a time capsule! :mecry:


----------



## toby_pra (May 26, 2008)

Great beamshots!


----------



## larryk (May 26, 2008)

Excellent job with the beam shots as usual. Thanks to all that made it possible. I would sure like to attend one sometime.
I still want the Locator...


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 26, 2008)

Looks like a fabulous shootout. It will be great to see links to larger pix, and distance landmarks, and display of lights used. Thanks for posting intitial summary! This must have taken quite a while to do this many lights!


----------



## Patriot (May 26, 2008)

The little pics look good and it's great to see everything labeled. I noticed that there were three K3500 pictures and two P1 pictures. It this because of multiple unit samples or because of intentional duplication?

I really like the location that you guys picked and I'm enjoying studying the initial pictures.

Thanks Jeff and all the others who made this happen.


----------



## Flashanator (May 26, 2008)

That Locator just makes me want a HID monster more then ever. 

Looks like the blitz is getting weak. Need somthing more powerful:nana:

Nice 1000w.:naughty:


----------



## Border (May 26, 2008)

Great pics!

Third beamshot is labeled Enzlite - could this be the Eznite?


----------



## BVH (May 26, 2008)

If only the Locator were hand-carryable. 20 lbs of light with no handles and 2 each, Group 24 SLA's does not make it convenient.

For some reason, the term "Diamond-white" came to mind when describing the lamp color when I saw the thumbnails last night. That's what it reminds me of. It's interesting that the box the lamp comes in indicates a color temp of 3900K but it seems to me closer to a very bright 4800K to 5000K.

We didn't do a group light shot. Too many lights, not enough table space and we needed to get the show on the road and get shooting.


Need to link to this thread from within the existing sticky.


----------



## Flashanator (May 26, 2008)

So what is the Xeray80?

Looks pretty tough. Mod? overdriven ballast?


----------



## DM51 (May 26, 2008)

Superb! I'm adding this to the "Threads of Interest".


----------



## mtbkndad (May 26, 2008)

The first Polarion PH 40 shot in Mr Ted Bears contact sheet has light coming from a secondary source. If you look at the wide angle shot you will notice that the entire left side of the photo is brighter. It is more noticeable in my shots so I tossed it.
When I post I will only have the one PH 40 shot.
I will post in another thread like I did with the Christmas shootout.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## BlueBeam22 (May 26, 2008)

Amazing beamshots!

The 300 watt BlackHawk Locator's HID is my favorite, it looks like it is definitaly the most powerful light in the group.

And the N30 looked amazing, I have changed my mind about what light I'm going to get next year, I was going to get a Titanium Mega Illuminator, but now I'm going to get the Amondotech N30 for sure.

The PH50 looked like it was putting out more light than the 50 watt Xeray, but maybe it just has a wider beam.

The BarnBurner really shined, I like the Xeray spotlights very much.

EDIT:

I just found out the Volcano is a modded "BIG BEAM" spotlight, it is very impressive!


----------



## BVH (May 26, 2008)

Since we didn't do a group shot of the lights, here's some pics of my contribution to the shoot. Maybe the other participants would do the same? Especially, JetSkiMark with his many custom, old modded lights.






Clockwise from lower left: Amondotech illuminator (3152), LarryK14 600 Watt, Barn Burner 80 Watt, Yellow Jacket, (from Lips) N30, Super Light, (Form Lips) Locator, Black Widow, (from Lips) Microfire K3500, (from Patriot36) Mag 2d, (for reference) Eznite, Cyclops 15 MCD, Costco 80 Watt















Yellow Jacket, Superlight & N30

Adamlau's lights


----------



## windstrings (May 26, 2008)

BlueBeam22 said:


> Amazing beamshots!
> 
> 
> The PH50 looked like it was putting out more light than the 50 watt Xeray, but maybe it just has a wider beam.



I think the Polarions have their beam "chopped off" at the top so all the light is put down on the ground where you need it.... an engenius engineering feat with the lens..... unless you look at something in the distance that shows objects up high to see, its hard to tell... like a cliff mountainside or such or looking down into a canyon onto the adjacent side.

They make maximum use of their lumens on the playing field rather than up in the air.....a good compromise as long as your on flat ground of sorts.
I suppose that could work against you for some applications like coon hunting etc, but for most applications, its probably a good tradeoff.

These lights are so strong now I suppose it would be a real challenge getting the beam in the exact same spot for all of them.. almost like sharp shooting, except each beam characteristic is different making it even harder.

I think polarion does a good job of balance between spill and distance for a fixed lens.


----------



## Patriot (May 26, 2008)

windstrings said:


> I think the Polarions have their beam "chopped off" at the top so all the light is put down on the ground where you need it.... an engenius engineering feat with the lens..... unless you look at something in the distance that shows objects up high to see, its hard to tell... like a cliff mountainside or such or looking down into a canyon onto the adjacent side.
> They make maximum use of their lumens on the playing field rather than up in the air.....a good compromise as long as your on flat ground of sorts.
> I suppose that could work against you for some applications like coon hunting etc, but for most applications, its probably a good tradeoff.




*Windy*, it's just an optical illusion cause by the large corona. The bulb and reflector throws an evenly spread beam. The Polarion's corona appears large on the ground in front of you so the user/observer expects to see it above also. If the next closest thing above the main plane of the ground is over 100 yards away, it's not illuminated brightly because the corona doesn't throw well (compared to the collimated portion of the beam).


Here is a generic, underexposed image of the PH50 beam at 15 feet next to the 15mcp Cyclops. 






As you can see, the beam is fairly uniform and actually the top of the beam is a little brighter than the bottom. I do like the beam shape and appreciate that although it can throw fairly well, it's also a useful working beam. I definitely don't get tunnel vision when using this light. It fills the peripheral vision very well.


----------



## Patriot (May 26, 2008)

> *mtbkndad*
> The first Polarion PH 40 shot in Mr Ted Bears contact sheet has light coming from a secondary source. If you look at the wide angle shot you will notice that the entire left side of the photo is brighter. It is more noticeable in my shots so I tossed it.
> When I post I will only have the one PH 40 shot.
> I will post in another thread like I did with the Christmas shootout.





I'm been staring, on and off, at the PH40 wide angle shots for several minutes and I still can't relate to or see the second light source that you've mentioned. Maybe as you said, it would be more obvious in your own shots. If so, I'd love to study them. 

Thanks


----------



## windstrings (May 26, 2008)

Patriot36 said:


> *Windy*, it's just an optical illusion cause by the large corona. The bulb and reflector throws an evenly spread beam. The Polarion's corona appears large on the ground in front of you so the user/observer expects to see it above also. If the next closest thing above the main plane of the ground is over 100 yards away, it's not illuminated brightly because the corona doesn't throw well (compared to the collimated portion of the beam).
> vision very well.



ok.. I can buy that... I just remember on some shootout someplace back who knows where now, that it almost looked like my HID lights on my prius how they are chopped off at the top when on low beam... its actually a reflector that moves inside the lamp to give it that effect.
But I think your right, its the corona is what I'm talking about mostly... I think that spreads on the ground a little more than normal because they took it from the top.... at any rate.. I'm not a polarion expert, nor do I have one although its a very classy light.... I'll stick with my BB.


----------



## adamlau (May 26, 2008)

*PH50 vs. Xe75*

Canon SD1000
ISO Setting: 100
Lens Aperture: F2.8
Exposure: 1 Second
Moon Illumination: 89 Percent
White Balance: Tungsten

Polarion PH50





XeVision XeRay 75W





*Image Processing Notes*

1. Minimal unsharp masking (T=75) applied to offset downsizing image blur.
2. Brightness levels increased in order to reveal over and underexposed details.
4. Lossless PNG was used as a compromise between maximum artifact and file size reduction.


----------



## Patriot (May 26, 2008)

Nice Adam. It's always interesting to see how differently those two lights throw their beams.

Is there any chance you'd feel like gif-ing these and putting them in the PH50 thread? They would be a nice addition to the photo library over there.


----------



## skalomax (May 27, 2008)

Cool shoot out.

Where was I?


----------



## BVH (May 27, 2008)

Well, certainly not in the right place! :nana:


----------



## Lips (May 27, 2008)

BVH


Thanks for those pics of the lights, that helps with putting the lights in perspective... 


How-about a rematch in a month or so, some new lights want to play!



Thanks for all the work (hard work!) on putting the shots together... I know from experience, NOT near as much fun as taking the pics!



.


----------



## BVH (May 27, 2008)

I'm certainly in for it. Maybe a shoot and pics of the new lights and beams in the same location & conditions added to this thread? Mr. TB, Daniel, Mark, Adam, what say you?


----------



## adamlau (May 27, 2008)

Count me in, I am always game for a shootout  .


----------



## seery (May 27, 2008)

Lips said:


> How-about a rematch in a month or so, some new lights want to play!



If it weren't such a drive, I'd bring along the new Beast II. With the II,
SF upped the output a bit and redesigned the reflector, at least this way
SF would be represented by their latest design of the Beast. :thumbsup:


----------



## BVH (May 27, 2008)

Seery, some members shipped lights to us for the shoot. This is an option.


----------



## JetskiMark (May 27, 2008)

I think that when the new lights (Maximus 80 & 100 plus others) and a Beast II are available that a new shoot out would be in order. A direct comparison between the Beast I & II would be outstanding. It would be nice to have an HID LiteBox represented too.

It's ashamed that the baseball diamond lights were on at Chatsworth Park that night and we could not do the shoot out there. I did not like all of the ambient light at the location we used. I have a couple of locations where I have to try taking some test beam shots.


----------



## adamlau (May 27, 2008)

Remind me to take side-by-side, auto-shot comparisons the next time around. Also, shots of the the lights right after ignition so as the show just how much luminous flux is immediately available. I am tired of LED-centric types suggesting that HIDs do not output instantaneous, useable light.


----------



## Patriot (May 28, 2008)

adamlau said:


> Remind me to take side-by-side, auto-shot comparisons the next time around. Also, shots of the the lights right after ignition so as the show just how much luminous flux is immediately available. I am tired of LED-centric types suggesting that HIDs do not output instantaneous, useable light.




LOL! That funny! 

And yes, A very good idea too.


----------



## souptree (May 28, 2008)

Gosh, sorry I missed this. Those shootouts look pretty cool from up above.


----------



## lasercrazy (May 28, 2008)

Great pics guys.


----------



## mtbkndad (May 31, 2008)

My shots turned out real nice, cropping is finished finally for close ups.
I have been very busy, but hope to have them up next week some time.
It will be worth the wait. 

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## karlthev (May 31, 2008)

Can't wait!!!


Karl


----------



## LuxLuthor (May 31, 2008)

Really great to see all the lights lined up and labeled. Also interesting to see the shots in "daylight" and Adamlau's "tungsten" camera settings. They are all welcome, but Mr. Bear's represent closer to actual use.

It wouldn't seem right if another of these great shootouts were done without one of us questioning the XeRay images! LOL! Seriously, I'm just not seeing that 75W in Post #2 is copasthetic, especially compared to the 80W tweak next to it. Also wondering what two images of 75W are about in Post #1.

Do you have distances for that tower? Out of curiosity, how long did it take to do the shoot? Thanks again!


----------



## mtbkndad (Jun 1, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Really great to see all the lights lined up and labeled. Also interesting to see the shots in "daylight" and Adamlau's "tungsten" camera settings. They are all welcome, but Mr. Bear's represent closer to actual use.
> 
> It wouldn't seem right if another of these great shootouts were done without one of us questioning the XeRay images! LOL! Seriously, I'm just not seeing that 75W in Post #2 is copasthetic, especially compared to the 80W tweak next to it. Also wondering what two images of 75W are about in Post #1.
> 
> Do you have distances for that tower? Out of curiosity, how long did it take to do the shoot? Thanks again!



I believe Mr Ted Bear said the tower was 250 yards away.
I also know a XeRay was used for some of the focusing shots.
I made sure each XeRay was as tightly focused as possible.


Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Patriot (Jun 1, 2008)

I think the this particular location favors the lights with a lot of spill but the effect it amplified in the wide shots. Compared to say....the PH50, the Xe75 and Xe80 are really putting a lot of lumens on the bottom 3/4ths of that powerline tower. The problem is that the pixels that make up the structure of the tower are very small in comparison to the overall frame of the whole picture in the wide images. Between the tower structure and to the sides of the structure is nothing but black void and dark tree line at great distance so the light that's missing the tower is just being absorbed. When I look as the telephoto images it answers my question as to where all of the light is going which seems to be missing in the wide images of the Xe75 & Xe80. Likewise the telephoto images by themselves would give a poor representation also as they would favor the best throwing lights tested. For example, the Illuminator 4200 would appear to be producing as much light a the PH50. That's one of the reasons that I like these shoot out images so much because these guys take wide and telephoto images. I think the answers to our performance questions are split somewhere in the middle of the two photos.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 1, 2008)

Oh so this is a case of tower pixelpenia, and black void absorption. The "Boys from Ogden Utah" will surely be relieved to hear that.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 1, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> I'm just not seeing that 75W in Post #2 is copasthetic





LuxLuthor said:


> a case of tower pixelpenia





LuxLuthor said:


> black void absorption.


Aaaarghh! This is all getting very technical for a simpleton like me. :green: I think Mr. Luthor is trying to confuse me, lol.


----------



## BVH (Jun 1, 2008)

NAW......Lux would never do that. He prefers to "stay in the background", "blend in like a wallflower", "not instigate lively discussion", you know what I mean! :nana:


----------



## Patriot (Jun 1, 2008)

Yeah, that's Lux.....he "blends." :nana::wave:

That reminds me of scene from the movie, My Cousin Vinny...


----------



## climberkid (Jun 1, 2008)

..................thats a great move..............


----------



## mtbkndad (Jun 4, 2008)

Patriot36 said:


> I think the this particular location favors the lights with a lot of spill but the effect it amplified in the wide shots. Compared to say....the PH50, the Xe75 and Xe80 are really putting a lot of lumens on the bottom 3/4ths of that powerline tower. The problem is that the pixels that make up the structure of the tower are very small in comparison to the overall frame of the whole picture in the wide images. Between the tower structure and to the sides of the structure is nothing but black void and dark tree line at great distance so the light that's missing the tower is just being absorbed. When I look as the telephoto images it answers my question as to where all of the light is going which seems to be missing in the wide images of the Xe75 & Xe80. Likewise the telephoto images by themselves would give a poor representation also as they would favor the best throwing lights tested. For example, the Illuminator 4200 would appear to be producing as much light a the PH50. That's one of the reasons that I like these shoot out images so much because these guys take wide and telephoto images. I think the answers to our performance questions are split somewhere in the middle of the two photos.



This was a nice location because the ground was so flat it did a great job of being a canvas for the beam patterns. Wait till you see my shots and you will know what I am talking about  . What would have improved the location was if we had something solid to focus the lights on as opposed to the tower. I did the focusing the best I could but the target was the lower horizontal cross bar and that is an awkward target for a spotlight from 250 yards away. We could not use trees because homes were behind the trees.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Patriot (Jun 4, 2008)

I thought the location was great too...going from the pictures but like you said, the skeletonized structure make the serious throwers appear a little weak. The "canvas" (good description) really showed off the wider beams and made lights like the Polarion look great. 

I am very eager to see your shots mtbkndad.


----------



## windstrings (Jun 5, 2008)

I'm trying to think of the "perfect" location.... what would it be?

It would be fun to find access to one of those windfarms that had them planted like a garden as far as the eye could see and get right in the middle of them.

You would be able to see foreground for spill as well as distance objects that were big enough to actually reflect some light back without blocking vision for even farther images behind. The towers are so immense in size that they should also catch the corona's above the normal ground plane too.... 

Unless someone knew someone, I suppose that could be hard to access... unless someone knows a road that passes nearby..... that would be an excellent location for the heavy hitter lights.


----------



## karlthev (Jun 5, 2008)

There are two such windfarms within 1/2 hour driving time from my home, one requiring a fairly vigorous 45-60 minute hike from the parking location, the other a mere 15 minutes. That's the good news. The negative is the questionable legality of visiting/walking--trespassing (?) on these "farms", particularly at night and with powerful lights in use. 

I have been to both during the day and have been warned once about the possible "trespassing" aspect but did not heed the warning/advice. Appearing as an Appalacian Trail hiker in my garb (hiking boots, hat, camera, possibilities bag, canteen, etc) I believe helps to assure me some degree of immunity from suspicion of being a terrorist. Somehow creating thousands of lumens in the after-dark hours adorned with strange-looking metal tubes and taking pictures of lighted electrical energy producing machinery (Windmills) might place me in the category of suspicious however and, I don't relish the thought of having to get hauled off to the "pokey" and making that one permitted phone call to my legal support or family! 

While making contact with the appropriate authorities who may have responsibility for these generators MIGHT be the key unfortunately, the mere contact frequently results in additional scrutiny. Simply, I don't have the time to finesse the management to the point of giving me the OK to conduct such tests--liabilty being a key element here as well.

In "short" (about time!), great idea but a tough one to orchestrate. As an aside, I USED to be able to "visit"---view, take pictures of, walk about--the local nuclear power plant. I guess you can imagine how frequently I may visit that location now.....:shakehead


Karl


----------



## windstrings (Jun 5, 2008)

Since those towers are very big bucks.. I'm sure they would be sensitive to sabotage and or vandalism... so you would have to shoot from a distance "the road" or get permission from someone or a friend on the inside.

Some of the " off the cliff" shots are the easiest, but this just seems like a unique site that would be fun to see.


----------



## karlthev (Jun 5, 2008)

They would be great light "targets" (forgive the use of the term!) but, again, we now live in a world of suspicion unfortunately. If you have ever been next to one of these wind-powered electircal generators though, you'd sure agree that there would be a need for a heckuva lot more than a few thousand lumens to do any kind of damage.


Karl


----------



## Patriot (Jun 5, 2008)

I figure this one would make a good target:
http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html


----------

