# Barn Burner beam shot



## David M (Sep 21, 2006)

'probably should have waited until cold weather chased off the bugs. 

It's 800 feet to the tree with the hot spot according to a WAAS GPS device.

The picture is a PhotoShop HDR composite that more closely duplicates the way you would perceive the beam due to the way your pupils work IMHO.

This version looks like what I see (using my computer monitor at work).








This version looks like what I see (using my computer monitor at home which seems to have a serious brightness and contrast problem).






I used a Surefire U2 set to its lowest setting to help with the camera stuff, that's why there's some light behind the mighty XeRay.

David M


----------



## marxs (Sep 21, 2006)

i want one

mark


----------



## tdurand (Sep 21, 2006)

Fouuuuur! I'd grab the Big Bertha 

Nice shot David. I wish I had the skills. Those moths look like party streamers.

T


----------



## FrogsInWinter (Sep 21, 2006)

Wow! Sweet pic!









. So how many thousands of dollars are we talking when the production version is widely available? Actually scratch that. When is the 100 hour runtime keychain version going to be ready?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Sep 21, 2006)

I haven't a freaking clue what that thing is....

But HOLY COW that's a LOT OF LIGHT!

I have a rechageable spot light that I thought was pretty bright. It would be like a 2AA Incandescent Minim*g against a M*g85!!!


----------



## WAVE_PARTICLE (Sep 21, 2006)

HOLY CRAP!!!! THAT'S A LOT OF BUGS!!!


----------



## hogo (Sep 22, 2006)

that is the coolest picture I have seen on this site, ever!


----------



## jtice (Sep 22, 2006)

Is that actually clost to the way you see it with your naked eyes?
You can make a stock mag do that if you do a long enough exposure.
Still really cool looking though 

Love the design of the Barn Burner, was tempted when there was a GB,
but its way out of my price range.

~John


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 22, 2006)

I think that is a daytime shot, and he just photoshopped those light beams into it. LOL!:candle:


----------



## marxs (Sep 22, 2006)

dont tell me you have a spare tank light around would you? :laughing: id like to see a comparison beamshot between those two please LOL

mark


----------



## Wrangler (Sep 22, 2006)

Impressive, really impressive!!!

Impatiently awaiting the day when they make this kind of light output available from a 2D or 3D-flashlight size!


----------



## lasercrazy (Sep 22, 2006)

:thumbsup: Nice. I tried to do a shot like that with my thor awhile back but there was so many bugs it looked like crap.


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 22, 2006)

Dear David,

One question: is that a BB 75 watt unit?

I am waiting for one to arrive from another Forum member, and if that is how the BB 75 puts out, it will be most interesting on the local streets where I walk at night in the suburbs. As I have posted before, in this type of area, 800 feet is a long distance, and I hope to be able to keep the side spill down to avoid annoying the neighbors, without blinding the drivers on the road from the narrow beam.

Enjoy,

Harvey K.


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 22, 2006)

*Re: Barn Burner beam shot ==Slightly Off Topic*

Dear David,

That looks like a heavy duty Gitzo tripod in the picture. Are you into audiovisual work, pro photographer, or just a VERY serious personal photographer?

I have been doing both amateur and commercial photo work for nearly fifty years, and the details you provided about image manipulation made me curious.

-Peace and Love,

Harvey K


----------



## GhostReaction (Sep 23, 2006)

*Re: Barn Burner beam shot ==Slightly Off Topic*

After quite sometime owning the BB75w i have not even lay my hands on it yet:ironic:. But this picture makes me wanna fly home now and try out the BB75

BTW nice set of Gitzo and 3way


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 23, 2006)

WOW...you seriously darkened that same photo since it was here yesterday. Now I can't figure out what's up with the light vs. Photoshop falsely adjusting it. Too bad. :huh:

We need those shootout images back to see it objectively again.


----------



## scaredofthedark (Sep 23, 2006)

PUT BACK THE ORGINAL PICTURE!!!!
please??


----------



## David M (Sep 23, 2006)

frogs3 said:


> Dear David,
> 
> One question: is that a BB 75 watt unit?
> 
> ...


 
Yes, it is the 75 watt version.

Best regards, David M


----------



## David M (Sep 23, 2006)

*Re: Barn Burner beam shot ==Slightly Off Topic*



frogs3 said:


> Dear David,
> 
> That looks like a heavy duty Gitzo tripod in the picture. Are you into audiovisual work, pro photographer, or just a VERY serious personal photographer?
> 
> ...


 

That's my baby Gitzo. I have a Studio model with a gimbal head, too. I am an amateur just doing it as a hobby.




David


----------



## David M (Sep 23, 2006)

LuxLuthor said:


> WOW...you seriously darkened that same photo since it was here yesterday. Now I can't figure out what's up with the light vs. Photoshop falsely adjusting it. Too bad.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 




scaredofthedark said:


> PUT BACK THE ORGINAL PICTURE!!!!
> please??


 

When I looked at what I posted on my work monitor I was shocked to see just how bright it came out. I decided to tone it down in an effort to make it look correct according to that monitor. I want it to look as realistic as I can make it. Maybe some other owners can comment and/or post their beam shots. I did add the original back to that first post.

--David M


----------



## David M (Sep 23, 2006)

jtice said:


> Is that actually clost to the way you see it with your naked eyes?
> You can make a stock mag do that if you do a long enough exposure.
> Still really cool looking though
> 
> ...


 
I'm getting a new LCD monitor today. I'll add an updated image (if needed) in an effort to get it as right as possible. Maybe an a-b comparison with a Surefire M6 would be helpful. I'll do that when the bugs disappear.

I like the design too. They did an excellent job.

--David M


----------



## mtbkndad (Sep 23, 2006)

I have seen the Barn Burner on a couple of occasions and the top photo is much more realistic on my monitors. At roughly 260 yards I need to turn my one of my monitors down to make it look right. The bottom photo looks way too either, over exposed, artificially brightened, or washed out.
No photos will ever look great on all monitors.
What settings did you use in your camera?

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 23, 2006)

I think you are right that you really need a "known" light along side both at the same F-Stop, shutter speed, time of night, angle, etc. etc.

We all know the BB is a honkin' bright HID, and I'm sure we do appreciate your efforts. It is an excellent frame of reference scene you used to highlight it. :rock:


----------



## scaredofthedark (Sep 23, 2006)

waaahh!!
i like how that second picture look  
even if it's overstating the light a bit


----------



## leprechaun414 (Sep 23, 2006)

:kewlpics: I want one. :naughty:


----------



## lotsalumens (Sep 23, 2006)

marxs said:


> dont tell me you have a spare tank light around would you? :laughing: id like to see a comparison beamshot between those two please LOL
> 
> mark



I posted a comparison between a tank light, an 35w X990 and a 50w HID modified Thor a few months ago. The Thor should be in the same rough ballpark.

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=128729

Cool beamshot by the way!

Charles


----------



## marxs (Sep 24, 2006)

wow that was a great comparison, why did i miss this one? 

love all the lights, but i still cant get over the tanklight pointing skywards, i tell you, aliens will be landing soon...

mark


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 24, 2006)

Dear David,

First, I am now beyond excited about the BB which is in transit, as the chaos in the neighborhood when I first started using the X990 outside was interesting ("Who is the old fart in his pajamas with that light outside his house?"), and this one I expect will be more so. Maybe this time I won't wear the pajamas, then no one will notice the brightness of the BB!! Just kidding.

Second, your considerable photo skills are obvious, for which all of us are appreciative. My personal interests run to a Phillips 8 x 10 camera mounted on a Ries tripod. Not ideal for beamshots, but with a good flatbed scanner, it can be done. Stay tuned for the cold weather when I give it a try.

-Harvey K.


----------



## David M (Sep 26, 2006)

frogs3 said:


> <snipped> My personal interests run to a Phillips 8 x 10 camera mounted on a Ries tripod. <snipped>
> -Harvey K.


 
Those master craftsmen really complement the beauty and strength found in wood.

David M


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 28, 2006)

Dear David,

My BB 75 finally arrived this afternoon and is all charged up. There is a decent location to compare the X990 35 w and BB 75 nearby, if the local police car is not parked in the firehouse driveway, next door to the park, where I can get about 300 feet of open space to the trees. I may even borrow my wife's digital camera to make a comparison beamshot, then try to figure out how to post it. She will be making the next post if I get arrested, as this township has an ordinance against nearly everything.

-Harvey K.


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 28, 2006)

*Barn Burner beam shot-foiled by the rain*

Damn! It started to rain just as I set up the lights and camera. Then a guy came over and asked if I was looking for a lost cat in the neighborhood. It is hard to explain to a non-flashaholic what I would be doing with two high power lamps taking pictures of trees across a field. Some of you have no doubt been in this situation.

I will try again tomorrow night. Initial impressions are that the X990 beam is a lot bluer but better defined by the reflector. The BB 75 is much brighter, but the edge of the reflector certainly needs some work. It is definitely lighter to carry than the X990, and the handle is comfortable. I wonder about what my run-time will be, as a 30 minute walk after a charge up caused the red lights on the battery charge level to indicate 60 (?%). When the weather is clear, I will check the runtime carefully with a stopwatch.

With both lights on, it is really neat going down the sidewalk -- cars flash their headlamps, thinking that you are either driving on the pavement possibly with one high-beam, or otherwise nuts. Probably the second applies, as I am certain that I left the car at home.

If someone already has a 35 watt light like the X990, and certainly with a 50 watt in hand, the step up to the 75 is not going to be overwhelming -- noticeable yes, but dramatic, no. If realistic 100 and 150 watt units can dissipate heat and run for reasonable times, it might be interesting to start saving up now.

Tomorrow night will be dark again.

-Harvey K.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 28, 2006)

*Re: Barn Burner beam shot-foiled by the rain*



frogs3 said:


> The BB 75 is much brighter, but the edge of the reflector certainly needs some work.



:lolsign: Thats funny.. it would be even funnier to give one light to your friend and walk away from each other with the lights going in the same direction so the onlooker thinks he's seeing things as the car headlights "he thinks he see's" goes wider and then comes back together as you guys walk back close to each other and cross over to really trip them out!

But on the other hand, you may cause an accident as he thinks he see's a UFO!

Anyway.. whats up with the refector? Is the extra wattage presenting a problem not noticed at the lower wattages, or is there a problem I haven't heard about with the edges.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 28, 2006)

LuxLuthor said:


> I think you are right that you really need a "known" light along side both at the same F-Stop, shutter speed, time of night, angle, etc. etc.
> . :rock:



Exactly... without fixing those parameters to compare, the camera will tone down the brightness with the brigher light to try and make a balanced picture.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 28, 2006)

So... these new BB's have been out for a while now.. there is always caution with heat going up in wattage.... circuit boards etc that did do fine before can cross thresholds and create new problems never encountered at the lower wattages.

I don't know what allowances or modifications have been made "other than heat fins" to compensate for the extra heat, 

But is anybody encountering problems with these higher wattage units?

Or did we open a can of worms?

If all is ok, then why are they not being offered again?


----------



## lasercrazy (Sep 28, 2006)

I have over 30 hours of use on my BB already and it's running great. The bottom does indeed get hot after an hour run, but not uncomfortably hot. They will be offered again eventually. I don't have the reflector problem frogs3 has, I'd love to have a turbo head though.  Also I wouldn't rely too much on the battery tester, it doesn't always give an accurate reading.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: Barn Burner beam shot-foiled by the rain*



frogs3 said:


> If someone already has a 35 watt light like the X990, and certainly with a 50 watt in hand, the step up to the 75 is not going to be overwhelming -- noticeable yes, but dramatic, no.
> -Harvey K.



So if you had it to do over again.. would you get the 50 watter and have another 30 mins of runtime or are you glad you got the 75 watter with only 60 mins of runtime?


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 30, 2006)

Dear Windstrings and Flashaholics Anonymous,

When I first used the X990, I thought it was the most amazing outdoor light I had ever seen. If I never had that one, and just turned on the BB75, I would probably have felt the same way. It was a little hazy out tonight from the recent rain, and the difference was striking. Towards the clouds, which I did not photograph, the 75w looks like an aircraft search light, but the 35w simply fades away a few hundred feet up.

I used a fixed exposure on an Optio 555 digital camera (my first attempt at digital photography, and my first beamshot), which has no tripod socket, so the 0.5 sec. exposure is a bit blurred as I held the camera against a convenient fence, with the f stop at 2.8 for both pictures.

The single tree is about 350 feet away and the tall ones in the background about 400 feet, with the playground equipment to the right about 325 feet. As I mentioned, it is a bit misty tonight, and with people going by, my wife and I had only enough time for one set of picture, both taken at the narrowest beam possible for each light. I hope the images appear as they did, with the 75 really outperforming the 35 by a huge visual margin.

If someone is going to be working or seriously using these lights around the home or farm, and not looking to scan a huge field, the lower power will be fine, and with the LiIon technology that earns a lot more run time. The 75w will easily go 60 to 70 minutes, which is fine for my purposes; if you value having 90 to 120 minutes, the 50w will work for you, and if you want over 120 minutes, the 35 is the way to go. 

I favor the extra brightness and am very pleased with an hour of runtime. I love the handle and lower weight of this unit, and have not found any heat related issues so far that did not exist with my X990. So, to answer the question, I would definitely buy this unit again in an instant.

As for the beam irregularities on the edge, these disappear at distances more than about 20 feet, and the reflector seems to throw a sharp edge from there out to where you cannot see any longer.


----------



## frogs3 (Sep 30, 2006)

Looks like I can't post attachments, including pictures. Oh well, I will try again later, but the tree with the 75 is REALLY bright.

Sorry about being unable to post beamshots. I will find out why and give it another try.

-Harvey


----------



## cue003 (Sep 30, 2006)

Frogs3, use photobucket.com

Should be no problem to upload the photos there then use the IMG tages in your post here.

Curtis


----------



## windstrings (Sep 30, 2006)

Thanks alot Frogs3.. that reply was above and beyond the call of duty.. if you get the pics out.. that would be cool too.


----------



## frogs3 (Oct 1, 2006)

*Barn Burner vs. X990 Beam Shots -Finally*

Well, I have the two pictures uploaded to Photobucket, so I'll give this another try:

First the 75 watt:








Then the 35 watt:







Hopefully you can see for yourselves what the difference was. The 75 w picture is blurry because the camera has no tripod socket and it was resting on the top of a fence and moved a bit, even so, you can see the shadow of that tree on the taller trees behind it, but not with the 35 watt unit. I think the difference is striking, and that is how it looked. I used a bit of zoom on the lens to make the single tree visible from where I was standing.

Thanks to cue3 for the tip.

Enjoy.

Harvey K.


----------



## windstrings (Oct 1, 2006)

I do see the striking difference... I can't see any trees in the background or a shadow per se... you have an advantage because you were there.

What I think I see is a small tree directly in front of a larger tree behind it.

Unless what looks like very small bushes in front are really the trees far in the background you are talking about.


----------



## frogs3 (Oct 1, 2006)

Dear Windstrings,

The only things in front of the brightly lit tree are playground items such as swings. The larger trees behind the well lit tree are in the dark, because I could not effectively hold the camera still for the necessary 2 or 3 seconds that would have shown them in some detail. There is only grass directly in front of the lighted and regrettably blurry tree. The shadow I mentioned is to the right of the tree, very faintly reproduced on the screen, but much clearer in the orginal digital image on my computer. It would have been neat to use a BB50watt for comparison as well, in order to eliminate color variations and reflector differences. As you well know, this concept can expand forever; if we toss in a Helios and some others, the testing could take hours, and, in my neighborhood, arouse some of the local gendarmes and neighbors. I will wait until I can do a good beamshot before even trying to compete with the real photo experts.

I wanted to illustrate the significant difference -- the 35 w unit makes you want to turn up the lights to see better, but the 75 w unit allows good visibility at a distance which, in the suburbs, is really a LONG way off. In the country, there are ample opportunities to stretch the legs of all the higher power lights, which I do not have here.

The light color is also hard to capture, but the 75 was more comfortable for these aging eyes to use for walking and picking out details in the distance, as it was warmer in tone, and closer to that of the lights inside my house. The 35 was cooler, and may have appeared less intense because my retinas just did not respond as well to that color temperature. Either way, the bottom line is that the 75 BB is a more useful light for me.

Each user will have to decide what features and price are right on a very personal basis. Ideally, a hands-on comparison would be best if it could be arranged, as reading this Forum is certainly helpful, and (well done) beamshots offer some idea of the performance, but there is no substitute for the touch-and-feel. It seems to me that any of the XeVision wattages would have the same ergonomics, which are suitable in my hands, however we are all built differently, and your eyes may perceive things that I do not.

Just my $0.02 to aid anyone interested in a high power light.

Many thanks to all those on this Forum who have educated me this far on modern lighting. I started collecting flashlights when I was about 7 years old, so my addiction stretches over more than 50 years. It is good to know I am not alone.

-Harvey K.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 1, 2006)

Thanks for those photos, Harvey. The difference is very striking, and I'm looking forward to getting the parts to upgrade my 50W XeVision from the Group Buy even more now.


----------



## windstrings (Oct 1, 2006)

yes, thanks indeed.... since the 75 watt is not exactly available yet and the 50 is... it would indeed to see comparisons between the two also..

but like you said, the combinations are endless....

thanks again for your efforts.


----------



## windstrings (Oct 6, 2006)

This seems to be the best comparison shot Ive found for the BB
here


----------

