HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
 

I'm trying to get the light quality of tungsten but with a daylight source. This is for an location interview situations where each subject will be in front of camera for about an hour so the heat from tungsten makes it a non-option. My key will be a large 6' softbox with eggcrate.

Can you guys school me as to what makes the best quality of daylight. I know gelling will get me there but I'm also looking to upgrade my gear to daylight balanced. LED's are nice, but I like the look of the others better.

I appreciate the vast experience of you folks and your willingness to share.

* after a bit more research, my question might need to say, " what 6' softbox will fit daylight source?" seems like the very large ones are only made for strobe kits photographers use.

Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
 

Difficult to do. The problem is all the "conventional" attempts to approximate continuous spectrum all have at least some discontinuities, because they are all done with discharge style lights. That is, HMI, fluorescent, and LED. They can all work for you just fine. But none of them qualify as "daylight tungsten".

Probably the best quality of light for daylight level sources is fluorescent. Tubes with six and seven phosphors can reach a CRI in the mid-high 90s. Look at the Kino Flo True Match bulbs. When driven by the Kino Flo ballasts they deliver a very high quality of light.

One thing to note though is that for a lot of uses, a manual white balance under the lights you are using will make up for all kinds of ills from the light's spectra. That's because modern cameras white balance over a number of different axes. All of them do the orange-blue axis, all of them I've ever seen also handle the magenta-green axis. Some of these cameras go as high as 12 different axes.

I'm just saying that my 86 CRI Cool Lights CDM lights give me excellent skin tones after a manual white balance. I never use gels, and skin tones are so good that I seldom find any reason to color correct any of my interview footage.

Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
 

Best bet might be a big diffusion frame like a http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/90984-REG/Westcott_1895_Scrim_Jim_Large_Reflector.html, lit from behind by an HMI-ish source, or several depending on how much light you need on the subject.

Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
 

They're big, but I really love using the Kino 4-banks. With a 4' tube that is pretty even out to the ends, I never have thought that I needed to add a 6' softbox. I typically use them horizontally, and carefully set the stand height to achieve the density I want under the subject's eyebrows.

Then there's the available tungsten, daylight, and *greenscreen* bulbs.

But they're not going to fit in your car, the case is almost 5' long.

Re: HMI vs. Kino vs. Compact Flourscent for quality of light
 

Thanks guys. The reason for the large box is they want full length with a lot of background into tight crop. I'm leaning toward trying Cool Lights HMI through a large shoot through flat. Ditched the curly cue florescent. May play with the Kino panels and mix in a little hard light.