Godox V1 - worth the extra or just gimmick?

[sk66]

Broncolor claims their parabolics behave as a true parabolic should.. I'm searching my mind for another true parabolic source and coming up short...

Kinda makes the point... if it's not truly a parabolic, what are you paying for? It's all marketing/hype and there's other ways to do the same thing better or cheaper. The big Broncolor's are about the only ones that make sense to me; particularly with the adjustable focus... adjusted close to the back spreads the light, adjusted at the focus it's parallel/hard (and distance doesn't matter to character), adjusted farther away it's a converging light source (darker center short of focus, BD).

I thought we were referring to "forward facing parabolic", ala:

I was referring to a forward facing/directed light source inside the para (not bare bulb)... as used in the video.

 

[Tulipone]

The plain old rectangular flash ordered. Sometimes best to stick to reasonably priced, non controversial, and that I am somewhat familiar with.

 

[jlafferty]

Kinda makes the point... if it's not truly a parabolic, what are you paying for? It's all marketing/hype and there's other ways to do the same thing better or cheaper.

If you're happier with something else, I'm not telling you otherwise. The Glow EZ and the Godox "deep parabolics" are hardly premium items. I personally prefer the QR-P90 - if you find a more useful mod for under $120 that does the same things, I'd like to see it.

 

[Richard King]

a small speedlight, is a small hard light source, no matter what shape it is.

its probably truer and a more useful observation to say if you have 4 speedlights in your bag, the rectangle ones pack nicer and tighter

Or, that on a long shoot, you will be thankful that a pocket full of AA rechargeables fits all your gear, triggers, etc.

the parabolic thing in terms of most of the softbox style modifiers is a red herring... at face value, a parabolic flash modifier ought to be harder and more directional than a "soft" flash modifier occupying the same space, you can't market a modifier as both and not expect anyone that understands optics or light to raise an eyebrow. You could say, it has less spill or throws more light in one direction than in all directions.

the bottom line is that speedlights all have similar powered very short flash tubes, with the potential to deliver approximately the same amount of power. If you want softer, bounce it off something big from a distance. Of course the ISL law doesn't change from flash to flash or modifier to modifier.

 

[jlafferty]

Of course the ISL law doesn't change from flash to flash or modifier to modifier.

It does though If you can collimate light, the ISL ceases to apply. You can get the effect from an optical spot, a fresnel, even a snoot... and a parabolic source.

 

[Richard King]

Actually it does apply. In optics calculations, focused light just shifts the apparent light source point of origin.

 

[Dryce]

If it helps, I have one of these Godox TT6850 ones cost about £99(as do others on the forum) and I've had no issues with it. Not sure if it meets your needs but it's working for me.

Godox TT685O Flashgun for Olympus / Panasonic | Wex Photo Video

www.wexphotovideo.com

I don't use flash much. I have a couple of stands and reflectors that I occasionally get setup for family shots.

I looked at the V1 - back when it could be had for a bit less money and it competed with the V860 - and could be had as a kit with the modifiers.

.The one tangible advantage (to me) was that the V1 looked easier to control with better user interface.than the TT685 or V860.

But at the end of the day it was more attractive *for me* to go with the TT685 - I acquired a pair on discount for less than the V1 and I'm happy to use AA 'eneloop' type NIMH cells with them. If I was a more serious user then I'd use the V860 to get the Li-ion battery compatibility.

 

[Tulipone]

The TT685o seem to be sold out everywhere so went for the TT685ii-o. A little more but very similar I think.

 

[Faldrax]

...

Again, to put it another way, the V1 has some benefits that are inarguably features, and not gimmicks. Faster recycle time. Cross compatibility with other round head products in their line up. The diffusion dome fills a modifier better than any speedlight fresnel can. There’s also factors that are subjectively beneficial, like using li-ion vs. AA batteries. At the end of the day it’s down to a personal choice if those things matter.

Godox also have a 'traditional' shaped flash, the V860iii.
Look through the specs, and there are only 2 noticeable differences.
The obvious one is the shape of the head - rectangle vs round, and the magnetic mod attachments on the V1.
The less obvious (and mildly surprising to me, I do wonder if it's actually just a typo), is the colour temperature of the modelling light; 5300k for the V860iii, but 3300k on the V1.

The other difference is the price; £150 for a V860iii, £175-£200 for a V1

I guess it's in part down to individual preference on the rectangular vs round + magnets head, but given that the quickest, simplest way to get a 'soft' light from a flash is to bounce it off a wall or ceiling, making the original head shape fairly irrelevant, my preference woudl be for the cheaper V860iii.

 

[juggler]

at the same time, some products associated with the parabolic descriptor accomplish something that no other modifier can, and they’re sought out for those effects - the effects are obvious, well known and tangible. Whether they behave like a true parabola in every strict fashion is beside the point (for me anyway).

Obvious, well known and tangible - but not to me. What are they, please? And do you have examples which contrast them with non 'parabolic' modifiers?
(I'm not talking about true parabolas, I knew very well what those do.)

fwiw I did some research into the exact dimensions of a few so-called parabolic modifiers a while ago. At the time only Broncolor and Elinchrom made anything approaching an parabola which put the bulb at the correct point.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Godox TT 685 II is available at a few places for only £105 in the UK at the moment. I have a new one on the way tomorrow.

It would not surprise me if they are being remaindered before a new model comes out.

 

[Tulipone]

I couldn’t find stock of the TT685 and got an ii due for delivery today. Seems I over paid £9 also!

 

[jlafferty]

Obvious, well known and tangible - but not to me. What are they, please? And do you have examples which contrast them with non 'parabolic' modifiers?
(I'm not talking about true parabolas, I knew very well what those do.)

If you’re not seeing it, I won’t be able to talk you into doing so no matter my outsized charm and writing skills. I don’t have any of the major parabolics in my studio to do a before/after. And simply analyzing photos of modifiers on the internet is insufficient to make a judgement, relative to being in studio and observing how it works.

If you look at, for example, the work of Jenn Collins, who is a well regarded and often hired commercial beauty photographer, you might, over time, glean a sense of a consistent style. Then look at the BTS stories on her IG and see she often, if not mostly, shoots with a parabolic umbrella from either Briese or Broncolor.

Now, having seen that, understand that:

1) Photographers who value that look reach for the Briese or Broncolor not because they’re fooled into doing so, but because it expedites the creative process for them, and lowers a reliance on post production to get there

2) Can you get “close” or maybe “close enough” to the same look using other modifiers? In theory, yes. But as someone who has tried, and who has mixed and matched a variety of mods in doing so, I am confident when I say it takes more time, effort, and at the end of the day “close” is not “the same”, and especially if the difference matters to your work. It might be an increasingly subtle difference over time, but then aren’t degrees of subtlety what separates great work from good? And ultimately isn’t such an exercise kind of pointless if you discover that a modifier has an inherent look, why chase it using other modifiers? It’s energy expended on just an academic proof.

fwiw I did some research into the exact dimensions of a few so-called parabolic modifiers a while ago. At the time only Broncolor and Elinchrom made anything approaching an parabola which put the bulb at the correct point.

You need to look at Briese. Briese, Broncolor and AFAIK Parabolix are the leads in this regard, and perhaps in that order. I think Parabolix is the least accurate of the three, but more accurate than any other “lower end” manufacturer that claims they make a true para.

But for real, you’re not going to get a clear sense on any of this just analyzing umbrella profile photos/diagrams on the internet. It takes a hands on experience.

I will look and see if I can find it but maybe 2 years ago I came across a video of someone demonstrating a Broncolor para showing very little fall off - i.e. it cheated the inverse square law and slowed fall off dramatically - they moved the light from the model and background by near double but the exposure on the background stayed nearly the same.

 

[jlafferty]

Ben Watts is another photographer who regularly shoots with large parabolics and you can see it in his work. It’s a sort of built in mid tone S curve, with a brassy highlight pop. Jenn’s work takes a bit if the high key edge off with a diffusion panel/frame between the para and the model. I highly recommend trying for a look similar to their work with anything but a parabolic and see for yourself what’s missing.

 

[GreenNinja67]

You sure she doesn't have a clever Lightroom preset brush she bought off a website?

 

[Phil V]

You sure she doesn't have a clever Lightroom preset brush she bought off a website?

It’s simpler than that.

Everyone else ‘that cheap parabolic is a waste of space and is doing nothing as the only way to get close to s parabolic look is to use a Broncolor (almost perfect parabolic) or 1 other with the light focussed correctly.

Jlafferty ‘that’s nonsense, here’s a load of obfuscation to prove I know what I’m talking about’

Everyone else ‘that’s still nonsense’.

Jlafferty ‘here’s an example of a photographer that proves my point using a brocolor parabolic properly focussed’

 

[GreenNinja67]

My response was rather tongue in cheek.

But I like your ripost better Phil.

 

[jlafferty]

It’s simpler than that.

Everyone else ‘that cheap parabolic is a waste of space and is doing nothing as the only way to get close to s parabolic look is to use a Broncolor (almost perfect parabolic) or 1 other with the light focussed correctly.

Jlafferty ‘that’s nonsense, here’s a load of obfuscation to prove I know what I’m talking about’

Everyone else ‘that’s still nonsense’.

I know it can be a challenge to hold more than a single thought at a time but I'll help you out Phil:

1) Cheap "deep parabolics", some of them anyway, offer something other mods don't. You might find what they offer to be of benefit. I do, and that's all I can speak to. I'd rather work with a (specific) cheap deep para over a generic octa or silver umbrella of the same size any day, especially if I'm going without diffusion.
2) Don't expect a sub-$200 parabolic to behave exactly the same as a $5,000+ parabolic umbrella.
3) If you want to observe the most overt effects of a parabolic, the effects are more obvious with better constructed (& often more expensive) models. But I offered a pretty cheap DIY example video as an exception just to make the point more obvious.

I made each of these points separately in replies to different people and I was under the impression that's pretty standard for a forum.

 

[juggler]

If you’re not seeing it, I won’t be able to talk you into doing so no matter my outsized charm and writing skills. I don’t have any of the major parabolics in my studio to do a before/after. And simply analyzing photos of modifiers on the internet is insufficient to make a judgement, relative to being in studio and observing how it works.

Claiming you can't see a difference by analysing photos is.. um.. spurious to say the least. Admittedly there's no point comparing the specular highlights of retouched beauty images but if you can't see or measure the difference by comparing unretouched images then there is no meaningful difference. Claiming that only experience will give you the understanding to appreciate that is gear snobbery at its finest.

If you look at, for example, the work of Jenn Collins, who is a well regarded and often hired commercial beauty photographer, you might, over time, glean a sense of a consistent style. Then look at the BTS stories on her IG and see she often, if not mostly, shoots with a parabolic umbrella from either Briese or Broncolor.

Jenn Collins - and any other photographer - will get a consistent style if they light, pose and retouch the same way - regardless of the modifier they use.

Now, having seen that, understand that:

1) Photographers who value that look reach for the Briese or Broncolor not because they’re fooled into doing so, but because it expedites the creative process for them, and lowers a reliance on post production to get there

2) Can you get “close” or maybe “close enough” to the same look using other modifiers? In theory, yes. But as someone who has tried, and who has mixed and matched a variety of mods in doing so, I am confident when I say it takes more time, effort, and at the end of the day “close” is not “the same”, and especially if the difference matters to your work. It might be an increasingly subtle difference over time, but then aren’t degrees of subtlety what separates great work from good? And ultimately isn’t such an exercise kind of pointless if you discover that a modifier has an inherent look, why chase it using other modifiers? It’s energy expended on just an academic proof.

I admit, I haven't come across Briese or Parabolix. And I'm not a beauty photographer. But I know some damn good beauty photographers who don't use any gear anything like so rarefied.

You need to look at Briese. Briese, Broncolor and AFAIK Parabolix are the leads in this regard, and perhaps in that order. I think Parabolix is the least accurate of the three, but more accurate than any other “lower end” manufacturer that claims they make a true para.

But for real, you’re not going to get a clear sense on any of this just analyzing umbrella profile photos/diagrams on the internet. It takes a hands on experience.

I will look and see if I can find it but maybe 2 years ago I came across a video of someone demonstrating a Broncolor para showing very little fall off - i.e. it cheated the inverse square law and slowed fall off dramatically - they moved the light from the model and background by near double but the exposure on the background stayed nearly the same.

That's not cheating the inverse square law, that's integrating it over a parabolic surface with the light source at the point of focus.

You don't have a 'major parabolic' in your studio, you can't describe or show what the difference is and you claim that only experience will tell me. I do get tired of people telling me that their superior artistry trumps my understanding of theoretical physics. At that point it's neither an interesting nor a useful discussion, so I'm out.

 

[jlafferty]

Claiming you can't see a difference by analysing photos is.. um.. spurious to say the least.

This was in reply to:

fwiw I did some research into the exact dimensions of a few so-called parabolic modifiers a while ago. At the time only Broncolor and Elinchrom made anything approaching an parabola which put the bulb at the correct point.

I assumed you got dimensions from photos/diagrams on the web?

Which is what I mean in writing "you can't really evaluate these modifiers by just looking at photos of them"

you can't describe or show what the difference is and you claim that only experience will tell me.

I thought I did a reasonably good job describing it above:

It’s a sort of built in mid tone S curve, with a brassy highlight pop. Jenn’s work takes a bit if the high key edge off with a diffusion panel/frame between the para and the model. I highly recommend trying for a look similar to their work with anything but a parabolic and see for yourself what’s missing.

Jenn Collins - and any other photographer - will get a consistent style if they light, pose and retouch the same way - regardless of the modifier they use.

I admit, I haven't come across Briese or Parabolix. And I'm not a beauty photographer. But I know some damn good beauty photographers who don't use any gear anything like so rarefied.

Both of these miss my point about her work - a lot of it has a unique look in no small part due to consistently deploying a parabolic, a look you can't get using a different modifier.

And if you know amazing beauty photographers who use other modifiers, good for them. But that's oblique to the conversation where you asked me to provide insights into what makes parabolics unique. I offered Jenn's work as an example.

That's not cheating the inverse square law, that's integrating it over a parabolic surface with the light source at the point of focus.

I think this is more semantics than anything, but for the record I'll say the inverse square applies to a point source in a more apparent fashion than it does a diffuse source or a parabolic. I'd call the effect of a parabolic cheating, sidestepping ISL, or simply say it's not applicable to those sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "integrated" when the behavior all but disappears, but I'm fine chalking that up to semantics.

 

[sk66]

This was in reply to:

It is pretty presumptuous to assume none of us have any first hand experience w/, or knowledge of, parabolic modifiers (true or otherwise)... or any other aspect of lighting for that matter. I have been doing photography for over 40yrs and have a fair bit of experience with advanced/critical lighting; others here have even more experience and knowledge than I do.

It’s a sort of built in mid tone S curve, with a brassy highlight pop. Jenn’s work takes a bit if the high key edge off with a diffusion panel/frame between the para and the model. I highly recommend trying for a look similar to their work with anything but a parabolic and see for yourself what’s missing.

You cannot diffuse a light source and retain its' original qualities... particularly if you use double diffusion. At best, if you have a very uneven source, and resulting uneven illumination of the diffusion material, it will retain some of that unevenness. But it is in no way parabolic/collimated.

View: https://youtu.be/lM5ME4o79bE

 

[Phil V]

---

U

I know it can be a challenge to hold more than a single thought at a time but I'll help you out Phil:

1) Cheap "deep parabolics", some of them anyway, offer something other mods don't. You might find what they offer to be of benefit. I do, and that's all I can speak to. I'd rather work with a (specific) cheap deep para over a generic octa or silver umbrella of the same size any day, especially if I'm going without diffusion.
2) Don't expect a sub-$200 parabolic to behave exactly the same as a $5,000+ parabolic umbrella.
3) If you want to observe the most overt effects of a parabolic, the effects are more obvious with better constructed (& often more expensive) models. But I offered a pretty cheap DIY example video as an exception just to make the point more obvious.

I made each of these points separately in replies to different people and I was under the impression that's pretty standard for a forum.

if only your knowledge was equal to your ego.

I’ll leave it there.

 

[jlafferty]

It is pretty presumptuous to assume none of us have any first hand experience w/, or knowledge of, parabolic modifiers (true or otherwise)...

Strange, I was replying to a specific person saying - as I read it - they didn't have experience using parabolics, and instead did research & measurements online. How you'd take my statements directed at a specific person as a point about everyone is beyond me.

You cannot diffuse a light source and retain its' original qualities... particularly if you use double diffusion. At best, if you have a very uneven source, and resulting uneven illumination of the diffusion material, it will retain some of that unevenness. But it is in no way parabolic/collimated.

So who's being presumptuous here. I didn't say heavy diffusion, let alone double diffused. I didn't claim doing so would allow the modifier to behave the same. What I said was... a forward facing, innexpensive "deep octa" is flexible in that it provides a unique look without diffusion, and works as a soft source as well - i.e. for my uses, not pointless.

Separately, I certainly didn't claim diffusing a parabolic is the same as leaving it bare. What I would say is that running a para behind a diffusion panel is certainly different than shooting with an octa & its diffusion panel attached.

 

[jlafferty]

---

U

if only your knowledge was equal to your ego.

I’ll leave it there.

Love you Phil

 

[GreenNinja67]

What a load of parabolics.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Actually it does apply. In optics calculations, focused light just shifts the apparent light source point of origin.

@Richard King doesn't post on here very often, and I don't always agree with him when he does - but the fact of the matter is that he is highly qualified in this field and is stating fact, not opinion

I think this is more semantics than anything, but for the record I'll say the inverse square applies to a point source in a more apparent fashion than it does a diffuse source or a parabolic. I'd call the effect of a parabolic cheating, sidestepping ISL, or simply say it's not applicable to those sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "integrated" when the behavior all but disappears, but I'm fine chalking that up to semantics.

You're right, in the sense that when Newton published his ISL, long before photography existed, he made it clear that it applies to a point source of energy (which is both unfocussed and tiny) in a vacuum and in infinite space, where there could be no reflected energy. Therefore, it can only apply in strict linear terms under the theoretical and non-existent parameters set out in his paper. But, for practical purposes, it's near enough.

Shifting the apparent point of origin does make a difference, but not a massive one. I'm intrigued by your arguments about the ISL because what you say indicates that you think that it's important (and it most certainly is) but your own statement that you always set your own lights at very long distances from your subjects seems to contradict this . . .

I know it can be a challenge to hold more than a single thought at a time but I'll help you out Phil:

1) Cheap "deep parabolics", some of them anyway, offer something other mods don't. You might find what they offer to be of benefit. I do, and that's all I can speak to. I'd rather work with a (specific) cheap deep para over a generic octa or silver umbrella of the same size any day, especially if I'm going without diffusion.
2) Don't expect a sub-$200 parabolic to behave exactly the same as a $5,000+ parabolic umbrella.
3) If you want to observe the most overt effects of a parabolic, the effects are more obvious with better constructed (& often more expensive) models. But I offered a pretty cheap DIY example video as an exception just to make the point more obvious.

I made each of these points separately in replies to different people and I was under the impression that's pretty standard for a forum.

Yes, and all credit to you for expressing your opinions in a well-constructed and creative way, and creating a conversation about lighting on a lighting forum, but your arguments are wrong.

 

[TimHughes]

I'm losing the plot on this thread, here is what I have so far:

1. For a basic flash Godox TT685 is a great option.
2. Round head of the V1 and dome don't have any significant practical effect on the light vs regular speedlight (V1 one has other benefits that may or may not be valuable depending on use)
3. Inverse square law (ISL) is physics and applies in all circumstances. Depending on your modifier the intensity of light exiting the modifier will vary, but the intensity always falls off rapidly with distance, becoming much weaker as the distance increases.
4. Parabolic reflectors have some use for controlling and directing light, more even and focused than other reflectors. How much of a benefit this is for you depends a lot on what you are trying to achieve.
5. Adding diffusion to a parabolic reflector creates a diffused light source much the same as many others with no real benefits. But if you have a parabolic reflector and want a softer light for a different purpose, why not use it for double-duty?

Did I get that right?

 

[jlafferty]

A perfectly reasonable write up except for point 3:

I'm losing the plot on this thread, here is what I have so far...

3. Inverse square law (ISL) is physics and applies in all circumstances... the intensity always falls off rapidly with distance, becoming much weaker as the distance increases.

Did you watch the video I posted, specifically at 1:40 to 2:08? It pretty firmly demonstrates an exception.

How would you describe the effect of very little - in colloquial phrasing "near zero" - change in exposure, despite increased or decreased distance shown there?

Of course allowing that the light doesn't exist in a vacuum and no modifier is made from magically perfect material. This is the effect that I've called cheating, or sidestepping inverse square, at least as I know it relating to photo, which is to say for every move of double or half distance of a light source, expect a relative ¼ or quadruple exposure (2 stops, roughly). Parabolics allow this. Other sources do, too, to different degrees. Light falling on your subject and background appear more consistently the same than with other light sources, despite the distance between them.

I have no idea what language Garry, Richard or juggler would use to describe the effect, but for me it's good enough to say "inverse square doesn't apply to every modifier equally, and some render it meaningless."

 

[Tulipone]

Not too sure if we are still talking specifically about Godox v1 anymore so thought I’d ask all you wise sages here a more general Godox question. So now my TT685 has arrived - I’ll be keen to get at least one or two flashes and a trigger. I am under the impression that similar Godox flashes can be used off camera with a suitable trigger what ever hot shoe type they have eg TT685-n or TY685-c. Nikon and Canon seem far more prevalent than Olympus/Panasonic secondhand.

 

[DemiLion]

Did I get that right?

Tbh, who cares.

I'm just enjoying watching the Septic get all flustered and imploding!

 

[TimHughes]

A perfectly reasonable write up except for point 3:



Did you watch the video I posted, specifically at 1:40 to 2:08? It pretty firmly demonstrates an exception.

How would you describe the effect of very little - in colloquial phrasing "near zero" - change in exposure, despite increased or decreased distance shown there?

Of course allowing that the light doesn't exist in a vacuum and no modifier is made from magically perfect material. This is the effect that I've called cheating, or sidestepping inverse square, at least as I know it relating to photo, which is to say for every move of double or half distance of a light source, expect a relative ¼ or quadruple exposure (2 stops, roughly). Parabolics allow this. Other sources do, too, to different degrees. Light falling on your subject and background appear more consistently the same than with other light sources, despite the distance between them.

I have no idea what language Garry, Richard or juggler would use to describe the effect, but for me it's good enough to say "inverse square doesn't apply to every modifier equally, and some render it meaningless."

Thanks, I didn't watch the video, but I have now. In my experience, different modifiers change the intensity at the modifier, but the fall off with distance always happens. Something focused at the modifier will be much more intense and the light on the subject brighter, doesn't mean there hasn't been fall off due to distance. I'll test it out with a light meter when I can.

 

[TimHughes]

Tbh, who cares.

I'm just enjoying watching the Septic get all flustered and imploding!

Mark, I was thinking for the benefit of someone searching these topics at a later date. They may care.

 

[TimHughes]

Not too sure if we are still talking specifically about Godox v1 anymore so thought I’d ask all you wise sages here a more general Godox question. So now my TT685 has arrived - I’ll be keen to get at least one or two flashes and a trigger. I am under the impression that similar Godox flashes can be used off camera with a suitable trigger what ever hot shoe type they have eg TT685-n or TY685-c. Nikon and Canon seem far more prevalent than Olympus/Panasonic secondhand.

I have godox speedlights for fuji and canon and they work together off the same triggers with no problem. I can't comment for sure on other combinations, but I would think chances are high they will work.

 

[jlafferty]

I have godox speedlights for fuji and canon and they work together off the same triggers with no problem. I can't comment for sure on other combinations, but I would think chances are high they will work.

Do they work in HSS when crossing trigger/speedlight brand?

 

[TimHughes]

Do they work in HSS when crossing trigger/speedlight brand?

Just tested with X-Pro trigger on the cannon controlling fuji and canon speedlights and yes, it works.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Not too sure if we are still talking specifically about Godox v1 anymore so thought I’d ask all you wise sages here a more general Godox question. So now my TT685 has arrived - I’ll be keen to get at least one or two flashes and a trigger. I am under the impression that similar Godox flashes can be used off camera with a suitable trigger what ever hot shoe type they have eg TT685-n or TY685-c. Nikon and Canon seem far more prevalent than Olympus/Panasonic secondhand.

@Tulipone

I have a Sony TT865 in the classifieds if you're interested?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

@Tulipone

I have a Sony TT865 in the classifieds if you're interested?

you do not necessarily need a trigger, any godox flash can be set as the master and control the others. though a trigger can handle more groups, and makes life easier.

 

[Phil V]

A perfectly reasonable write up except for point 3:



Did you watch the video I posted, specifically at 1:40 to 2:08? It pretty firmly demonstrates an exception.

How would you describe the effect of very little - in colloquial phrasing "near zero" - change in exposure, despite increased or decreased distance shown there?

If we accept his statement that collimated light doesn’t decrease in intensity over distance. Then our heads should fall off when he states ‘just like the sun’.

The sun? A literal sphere apparently is just shining light focussed on the earth? So all those other objects we can see in our solar system are being lit from elsewhere?

There’s some interesting stuff in that video, but there’s also (just like in the first video you posted) some absolute boll ox as well.

 

[GreenNinja67]

If we accept his statement that collimated light doesn’t decrease in intensity over distance. Then our heads should fall off when he states ‘just like the sun’.

The sun? A literal sphere apparently is just shining light focussed on the earth? So all those other objects we can see in our solar system are being lit from elsewhere?

There’s some interesting stuff in that video, but there’s also (just like in the first video you posted) some absolute boll ox as well.

The sun's round like the V1?

Maybe Godox got it right?

 

[jlafferty]

Then our heads should fall off when he states ‘just like the sun’.

The sun? A literal sphere apparently is just shining light focussed on the earth? So all those other objects we can see in our solar system are being lit from elsewhere?

Yeah Phil, he said "just like the sun" and then it didn't incinerate him instantly, either. Your determined pedantry is impressive.