Gaffer & Gear 270 - APARO Radi 09 ProAir

Gaffer & Gear 270 - APARO Radi-09 ProAir
In this episode I look at the APARO Radi-09 ProAir A 180W inflatable LED light at an affordable price
00:00 Intro
01:52 Pros / Positives
05:53 Cos and What You Get
13:32 Brightness V-Mount Powered
14:21 Negatives / Cons
21:01 DMX Profile
23:07 DMX Testing
27:46 AC Power Draw
28:00 Dimming
29:47 CCT Accuracy
30:02 Color Render TM-30 RF
30:24 2500K
30:49 3200K
31:27 4400K
32:02 5600K
32:40 10,000K
33:13 Color Vectors
34:06 Closing Thoughts

[@suckersklub82]

it seems to basically be one of the older generation FalconEyes flexible engines - just a sub-brand, but same LEDs, control system and app. it's on sale at FE even.

[@Car_Fanatic]

I am no gaffer, cant afford some of ur pro products but i come to support u anyway Good luck man❤

[@Ehetyz]

I would also be extremely wary of Aparo's products reliablity wise. Had one of their COB:s and the power supply failed spectacularly, smoke and all, after very light use.

[@joewebb5138]

Form factor great. LED engine is actually pretty good. But yeah you hit it on the money. Really outdated electronics. It’s like they just used an old design for the ballast that was probably cheap cheap cheap, and no investment is software development. I was looking at some of there other size inflatables on their website. I mean the ballast look much better on some of their bigger lights. But they have higher prices too. I wonder if this was just a throw away design to bring in some extra cash to R&D for their bigger stuff.🤔

[@KosNone]

What about Godox Knowled AT200Bi? This could be an interesting comparison.

[@leoquesto9183]

Hi Andrew, as always, so thorough and thoughtful. Your reviews are a joy to watch. Just curious - if soft bicolor 4-ft tube form factor was the point of concern, with benefits such as lightweight operation, capable of easy Hollywooding, and slipped in an airtube, how would you weigh Aparo config vs Godox TPR4 paired w/the Godox Air Soft tube?

[@gaffergear]

It wouldn't be as easy to handle as this, but you would also have the tube to use separately, it's a good tube, full RGBWW, built in CRMX, weather protected. It ticks a lot of boxes for the price. But you might need more than one tube to get the light levels up

[@leoquesto9183]

@@gaffergear Thanks, Andrew. Very helpful. The IP65 factor has been useful lately on other fixtures… standalone tube, and RGBWW, also nice. Time to watch your TP4R review again, as well! Great to see these new companies making strides with the fixtures.

[@nelsonsmith6702]

Interesting how the ballast is the exact same as the intellytechs 2.0 models

[@nelsonsmith6702]

@@gaffergear I'd love to get your thoughts on intellytechs 3.0 line, really frustrated with their crmx at the moment and wondering if it's just me

[@JoATTech]

As always, great review ... but this light seems to be a real rubbish :D.

[@adamasx5303]

i just cant get behind paying 800+ us for something with this big of cons.... Very special use case, but I am still new and those use cases arent worth it for me personally. I think it's great that anyone who needs this light specifically will be able to get it for under 1000$ US! Im just a poor like most people xD

[@robertgeary]

The good news is this is the worst, and most expensive that this product will ever be. Give it a few years and we’ll have a great portable, packable light that has minimal cons at a decent price. Shame we’re not there now, but as someone who travels very often for shoots, I enjoy the idea of a ultrapackable lightweight soft light I can use for interviews and table top stuff, when I can’t fly with a roller full of c-stands, soft boxes and 600Ds.

[@lauddp1150]

All the parts from ballast to cabling look identical to the older models of Intellytech light mats. I love Intellytech but their parts are cheap, especially their older models. Perhaps this company took very old tech and repackaged it with an inflatable feature to sell it. This seems like a company that bought old parts from previously failed prototypes and made it gimmicky to sell it. Or perhaps it’s sister company of a bigger manufacturer trying to get rid of its old parts. I find it hard to believe that a legitimate lighting manufacturer would miss all these problems in QC and charge $800.

[@tortenhebu]

Ohh sad , it’s cheap but asssss