Estimating flash duration

JonathanRyan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,765
Name
Jonathan
Edit My Images
Yes
Anybody know any clever tests to estimate flash duration without investing in the proper kit?

Advanced Photographer use a desk fan (was that running at top speed?) but don't explain how they convert that to a guestimated duration.

I also heard of a method involving observing the histogram as you increase shutter speed on an electronic shutter.

Any other good techniques?
 
I think that the 'desk fan' method is a good visual guide to what the shutter speed would need to be to match a given flash duration. It isn't very scientific and has the big limitation that shutter speeds change in big lumps, e.g. 1/125, 1/500. 1/1000 - so it's fairly difficult I expect to estimate that a flash produces an equivalent shutter speed of say 1/800th.

Another method, which suffers the same limitation, is the 'gate' method. Set the shutter speed on your meter to something safe, say 1/125th, fire the flash and note the reading. Keep increasing the shutter speed setting until the reading starts to change - this indicates that the shutter 'gate' wasn't open long enough to accommodate the entire length of the flash.

Other than that, it's our old friend the oscilloscope, which not only gives an accurate reading but also shows the flash degradation process.
 
Thanks Garry.

Um, how do I figure out how fast the fan is spinning....? :)

Unfortunately my Minolta meter tops out at 1/1000s but I'm getting some estimates via your gate method using a compact.
 
You don't need to know how fast the fan is spinning - and anyway, knowing the rpm would leave you with the problem of calculating the speed of the blade at any given point of its length - so it's a good thing that you don't need to know.

Basically you just photograph it using continuous light at various shutter speeds and compare the results to the results produced by the flash.
 
You don't need to know how fast the fan is spinning - and anyway, knowing the rpm would leave you with the problem of calculating the speed of the blade at any given point of its length - so it's a good thing that you don't need to know.

Basically you just photograph it using continuous light at various shutter speeds and compare the results to the results produced by the flash.

Ah yes of course - thank you.

But I'm pretty sure I could convert RPM into angular velocity. That's just sums, right? :)
 
Ah yes of course - thank you.

But I'm pretty sure I could convert RPM into angular velocity. That's just sums, right? :)
Maybe you could, I couldn't - and anyway what's someone with a degree in classic languages doing understanding sums?

But you don't need to, so don't worry about it:lol:
 
You always forget about the robotic engineering I did.....

It's bound to be something to do with pi. Always is.
 
Well, robotic engineering is a waste of energy... trying to design a perfect woman is an oxymoron.
 
I did this years ago shooting a record turntable going at 45 rpm with some markings on it, you could work out the duration by the movement of the markings via the arc of a circle. dont suppose anybody has records anymore. the fan blade way is good for showing slow and fast stuido flashes against each other but not easy to give durations.
 
I did this years ago shooting a record turntable going at 45 rpm with some markings on it, you could work out the duration by the movement of the markings via the arc of a circle. dont suppose anybody has records anymore. the fan blade way is good for showing slow and fast stuido flashes against each other but not easy to give durations.
Are you sure about this? A turntable at 45rpm would be rotating about 1/8 th of a degree within the duration of an average studio flash. I think you'd need something spinning many times faster (20-40x) to get a measureable movement within the duration of the flash pulse.

Bob
 
Anybody know any clever tests to estimate flash duration without investing in the proper kit?

Advanced Photographer use a desk fan (was that running at top speed?) but don't explain how they convert that to a guestimated duration.

I also heard of a method involving observing the histogram as you increase shutter speed on an electronic shutter.

Any other good techniques?

If you dig out your copy of the magazine, you'll be able to see and read how it was done. Basically as Garry said, photograph the fan at various shutter speeds with continuous light, then use those as a comparison for the images taken with flash.

It's actually a very accurate method, given that actual shutter speeds are extremely accurate these days and so give a very precise and relevant comparison. You have to be careful with the action of the focal plane shutter which skews the shape of the blades moving with and against the direction of travel, therefore only use one blade for comparison, exactly at the top or bottom. You'll need to shoot a dozen or more images to get that in the right position.

The dificultly comes in estimating equivalents of flash duration, because they're not the same thing at all, hence the reason for the t.5 measurement that is supposed to translate to a conversion. The problem is, it doesn't, and t.5 flatters the performance of studio heads enormously. From all these tests I've done, I think t.5 x 2 is not a bad rule of thumb but it doesn't hold good for everything.

For example, with a hot-shoe guns at lower power settings, because of the way the IGBT circuit cuts the tail of the flash off sharply. With those, the total duration, the effective duration and the t.5 duration are almost exactly the same.

The problem with studio heads is the total duration is always very long, let's say 1/200sec for sake of argument. But within that, there is a high peak that only lasts for a much shorter time, and it's that peak which provides the visual action stopping. You could work out a formula for it, including something like the t.5 time x the height of the peak above the threshold level.

If you look carefully at the images in the magazine, and the Profoto shot in the current edition shows it quite well, check the shading of the black bar at the very top. It actually shows something similar to an oscilloscope trace. On the right, you can see the flash lighting up and building quickly to a peak, shown as the darkest area. Then it fades away more gradually down the tail.

If you enlarged that a lot, or shot that at much closer distance, you could measure at a lot things very accurately, but I'm not sure what it would tell you. T.5 is a very accurate and scientific measure, but what does it mean in terms of visual action-stopping potential, compared to shutter speeds that we can all understand and relate to? That's what the magazine tests were intended to reveal, and they revealed things that some manufacturers would prefer they didn't ;)
 
From all these tests I've done, I think t.5 x 2 is not a bad rule of thumb but it doesn't hold good for everything.
That's the problem in a nutshell. How well it translates to a particular make/brand depends on the design, circuitry and components. With some designs, t.5 x 3 might be more accurate.

Actually I think that your fan blade illustrations are a pretty good method of illustrating equivalent shutter speed/flash duration figures, because the average shopper probably doesn't understand the niceties of t.5 v t.1 v equivalent shutter speed, and even assuming that the manufacturer/seller figures are accurate (which can be a big assumption) they can be pretty meaningless to a lot of people. In fact I like so much that I'm planning to adopt a similar testing method for Lencarta flash heads, even though they are also tested using an oscilloscope, which is an accurate, objective measurement.

The big limitation of the 'fan blade method' seems to me to be the 100% incremental steps of the camera shutter. If we could set the camera shutter speed to something like 1/500th, 1/600th, 1/700th etc instead of 1/500th, 1/1000th, 1/2000th etc it would be more meaningful to most people.
The problem is, it doesn't, and t.5 flatters the performance of studio heads enormously.
Yes, that figure can be both flattering and misleading - but what can manufacturers do? That's the accepted benchmark figure, and any manufacturer who expresses their flash duration using another method, such as t.1, will make their equipment appear to be less good than their competition...
 
That's the problem in a nutshell. How well it translates to a particular make/brand depends on the design, circuitry and components. With some designs, t.5 x 3 might be more accurate.

Actually I think that your fan blade illustrations are a pretty good method of illustrating equivalent shutter speed/flash duration figures, because the average shopper probably doesn't understand the niceties of t.5 v t.1 v equivalent shutter speed, and even assuming that the manufacturer/seller figures are accurate (which can be a big assumption) they can be pretty meaningless to a lot of people. In fact I like so much that I'm planning to adopt a similar testing method for Lencarta flash heads, even though they are also tested using an oscilloscope, which is an accurate, objective measurement.

The big limitation of the 'fan blade method' seems to me to be the 100% incremental steps of the camera shutter. If we could set the camera shutter speed to something like 1/500th, 1/600th, 1/700th etc instead of 1/500th, 1/1000th, 1/2000th etc it would be more meaningful to most people.
Yes, that figure can be both flattering and misleading - but what can manufacturers do? That's the accepted benchmark figure, and any manufacturer who expresses their flash duration using another method, such as t.1, will make their equipment appear to be less good than their competition...

Cheers for that Garry, but of course you can set incremental shutter speeds if you want, in third stops like 1/500sec, 1/640sec, 1/800sec, 1/1000sec etc. I have all those increments that I used for comparison, though they were not all published in the magazine. And for practical purposes I think that's plenty good enough, because those are the actual shutter speed settings we use.

And you could indeed get some very accurate and more scientific measurements and apply them (just shoot at a closer distance to reveal the finer details) but ultimately whatever measures you apply will be subjectively based, because of the nature of the beast. The 'effective' duration has to be simulated and can only be measured in a subjective way (until someone comes up with a new industry standard formula which everyone agrees with - good luck with that!).

A bit off topic now, but the particular fan I used (a big floor-standing jobbie) was pretty fast as these things go, on max. The speed is just right for studio flash, and at that setting is good for anything from about 1/250sec up to 1/2000sec or so (say t.5 1/4000sec).

If I was doing it again, I would cut the black tape to leave some white spaces inbetween. It would just help to see show the tail shadowing better, though that is revealed quite well if you look around the edges of the blades and the white pattern of the guard underneath.
 
So first I have to run a fan with the guard off.....now I have to run it with the guard off outside in the snow to get the baselines.... :)
 
So first I have to run a fan with the guard off.....now I have to run it with the guard off outside in the snow to get the baselines.... :)

Yes, you have to run a fan to get the shutter speed actuals for comparison. But you don't necessarily have to take the guard off to see what's what, and doing it outside is strictly your choice.

I did all my tests at 1/125sec, to reveal the whole flash pulse, but you might get slightly better results if you have a camera with x-sync at 1/250sec, which would chop off the very end of the tail. My experience is the difference is marginal, because the flash is at a very low level by that time, but it's there.

Then if you want to see what really fast durations look like, try a hot-shoe gun turned down a bit. That's impressive :)

PS If you can get hold of a Nikon V1, it runs super slo-mo video at 1200fps. That's interesting. Film your camera shutter/mirror, then try a hot-shoe gun in commander/master mode and count all the flashes that go out. These long winter evenings will fly by :D
 
Last edited:
Yes, you have to run a fan to get the shutter speed actuals for comparison. But you don't necessarily have to take the guard off to see what's what, and doing it outside is strictly your choice.

Ah but if I want a 1/4,000 natural light exposure in the UK then outdoors is going to be a lot easier than indoors. I'm assuming I want a decent depth of field to make sure the blur is clearly movement blur not focus roll off.

Nice idea with the V1. I have a Casio trick camera that could probably do that.
 
Back
Top