YouTube flashlight reviews: What makes them so interesting?

Beam-shots and comparison with similar lights.

Intros and outros and the mandatory: ‘’don’t forget to like and subscribe’’

I really don’t like them. I would rather read and look at static photos as it is a pain to navigate back and forth on video. If one must do video, beamshots should not be done with auto exposure and I think auto white balance should not be used either. One should pick a WB and stay with it for all of their videos.

Honestly my favorite review formats is from the late Marshall from Going Gear.

Top bird eye presentation to show the light and demonstrate how to use (as well as brief unboxing)
Also a demo at the end with consistent locations.

What do you like to see in YouTube reviews?
Short, less than 3-5 minute videos that covers everything with clean video edits.
Well planned presentation like a salesman but with honest review if it has bad traits.
Text supers on video is great when you are watching video in an unconvenient environment
You know the presenter is good if the presenter posted a negative review and you still want to buy the light to see how bad the light is from gentle comments.

What don’t you particularly like about some of the YouTube reviews?
Music is great but if planned words and presentation is to be made, music is not even necessary.
Videos that requires me to click another video with “stay tuned and check out this video for topic xxx related” (you can’t avoid like n subscribe if you are making youtube vids but keep it short)
Presenters that spew hate for over 2-8 minutes over a mere flashlight video makes me skip

It’s unavoidable when people in 2019 have an attention span of less than 5 seconds compared to the old television days of 15 seconds.
It’s tough making videos. So quick and presentable speech is the key. Add text supers for people who couldn’t watch with audio.
Bonus if your voice is good so invest on a mic to prevent echoey roomy noises.

ChibiM, you probably know these two channels, but this is just a suggestion of how to do FL reviews without “speaking”!

These channels provide simple and direct information not only about the specs, but also about the real use of the flashlights (with beamshots, indication and twiks of the UIs, and the other specs we already know).

Some BLF members such as “vestureolfblood aka Matt aka AdventureSportFlashlights” and “mhanlen aka Advanced Knife Bro” provide entertaining and detailed reviews (specs and use), but one may get somehow lost if english is not our first language.

So the technique of KISS is probably the best. Specs are good, but if we want a flashlight for more than looking to a shelf and see it there, the usability (UI), the light emitted (comparison of amount of light, range and tint), the size (comparison of length and width), and of course the cells/recharging, may be some important things to approach in videos.

I have subscribed dozens of flashlight reviews channels, and some still get my attention because they provide good info, they do not exaggerate the specs and the “WOWs” just to please the manufacturers, and they go straight to the point of what one needs in a flashlight (what I mentioned above).

BTW, of course, opinions are good but we all have different FL needs, so…unless something is really good, or really awfull, the viewers will have to do their own mind :wink:

Wish you luck in this new phase :wink:

PORN !

Flashlight Porn if course.
Ha Ha!

Here

I don’t normally watch YouTube reviews, of anything anymore. When I did happen upon a few they were 90% info that was on the box or otherwise stated on a website. Seems it’s hardly ever useful information. I prefer a written review but, they are for the most part stuff already on the box.

I am a car guy. Car reviews are pretty much the same. Nice car and here is all the info on the window sticker. Useless. I do enjoy Motortrends reviews of their long term test cars. It tells me useful information. Maintenance cost, weak areas of workmanship, real world gas mileage etc…

If a review starts off with a unboxing followed by a copy of whats in the manual and on the box, I just move on.

I also take with a grain of salt, any review where the reviewer has went out asking a manufacturer for lights to review. I have done a few reviews and I was guilty of all of the above. I lacked the time and patience to do a proper review so I don’t do them. Too many reviews are done before the cell gets to 50%. I would take a review more seriously if the reviewer actually purchased the light and used it for a while before telling me the ins and outs of it. Professional flashlight reviewer should not be on a resume. :slight_smile:

Any other opinions or ideas?

Yeah make then for the general audience, not flashaholics

As you noticed above flashaholics tend to care more about the numbers they can read, not vids

Its the average joe who will watch your vids … or wont

I notice a lack of long-term reviews. Even for short-term/new release reviews most seem to have just pulled it out of the box and picked up a camera.
Spend a little time with it, use it, get to know it - then you will have something worthwhile to say. As others have said, we can read detailed specs. If you don’t have something to say beyond a spec sheet, don’t bother. Instead share from your experience, share what is helpful or enjoyable or not. And it is a visual medium of course. Nicely produced shots of the light itself, beam shots, and comparisons are appreciated.

You mention Advanced Knife Bro reviews. Aside from his humor, which you shouldn’t try to replicate, his videos also reflect this more thoughtful approach. Experiment, find your own way of doing this.

I was thinking about videos too, but this english is a problem for me. And I like textual reviews more too.

But if you want to make videos, you can start with background music (silent) and text, it would be easier for beginning :wink:
Unboxing, general specifications, UI (but please don’t make that part when you sit by your desk and change modes with camera at auto exposure and say WOW for higher mode that looks exactly the same for me :expressionless: “Wow, it is bright…WOW, now even brighter…WOOOW, look at this turbo… :expressionless: ), and focus on the tint and beam profile, and tell what you think about flashlight, packaging, tint, beam…

Also make this videos non flashaholics friendly, so avoid saying: Anduril FET + 7 + 1 and bypassed spring, so the flat top high drain 18650 would be a good choice (of course we have LVP)…

What is “please the manufacturers”? I have a special part in my reviews where I only talk about all shortcomings and flaws once again :smiley: :smiley: Is…is it not ok? :innocent:

I think we have that covered :wink:

As many hard facts as possible (like CRI value, run times etc.).
Comparison with similar lights from other manufacturers.
Subtitles, so the sound can stay off.
Keep it short.

Here are my thoughts.
Advanced Knife Bro – by far my favorite. I wish I could write-speak-think with his sense of dry humor. His reviews may or may not give me the info I want – But I’m always entertained. The time lapse rundown tests are often informative.
Wish he did more flashlights reviews.

Flashalolics has good music and he almost always compares the light in review to 3 other lights – one of which I might know something about. Consistent lumen measurements across reviews are good to see. Frequently there is a set of close white wall beam shots. Hard to tell much, but it gives some sense of what the color and beam pattern might be.
And you never know when you might catch a quick peak of the mighty Ludo.
I don’t often watch the Dangerous Place walk, but I do like to guess where the sound track came from.
He did one a while ago using a clip from ZULU when Shaka and his buddies first show. Now there was a movie! Still makes the hair on my neck stand up.

I admit it. I do watch Charles – Another flashlight review! - WOW! Look at that output! - everything is Amazing! - and – I got it for free (or I won’t review it).
I can get a look at the UI, how the batteries fit, and what the light looks like in the hand.
His consistent outdoor shots are a good way to take a look at beam patterns and throw.
Not much else there. No measurements – just opinion.
And the opinion is always - the light is awesome!
Sometimes there are good discount codes.

Matt’s (adventure sports) videos are usually fun. They are not real consistent, but he is often showing different mods or DYI stuff. His measurements look to be consistent.

What should be in the video.
The other posters have good points. Mine include…
A very short intro. I hate having to wait through 20 seconds of cutesy crap before the actual video starts.

Quality Audio.
You don’t need a great voice – though it helps. But the audio should be clear and correctly modulated.
Keep the intro audio music or noises sound level lower that any voice audio.
I hate having to turn down the audio for the intro and then jump it way up to hear the commentary.
Never make the music louder than the vocals.
Make sure the audio level is constant across the whole video. Don’t blast us out the table talk and then have an outdoor section 20db lower.
Re-shoot or overdub if you get tongue tied or start (em, err, ah, eeerrr, annnd (you get the idea)).

Camera work.
Get a tripod. Use the tripod.
Keep the object of interest centered and in focus.
If needed get a second person to run the camera while you do action with the light.
Make them use a tripod (or a steady mount) too!

Nothing will drive people away faster than out of focus, camera in one hand – light in the other, action taking place out of frame, - videos.
Youtube is full of them.
Don’t be one of them

Be up front about how you got the light. If it’s a freebee or if you spent your own $$ or a loaner (if such a thing exists in the flashlight world).

A quick look at the battery compartment, head, switch, reflector, and any other areas of note. If something is out of the ordinary, tell us about it.

Opinions about the ergonomics of the light are, I think, a requirement.
Will it work with gloves on?
Can you find the switch in the dark?

A quick look at size and weight. Set it up next to the soda pop can and some well known lights.

Don’t beat us to death with the UI. A quick overview should do. Once again if something is new or unusual, point it out.

Output vs run time graphs should be included. It’s so useful to know just how fast a light steps down and what output it can hold long term.

Really accurate lumen measurements are awful tough. Just be consistent across all the reviews.
Also link to a video about how you make measurements. No need to go through the whole process on each review.

Consistent beam shots across all reviews is important. Show it close, middle, and far.
Always use the same targets and outdoor location.

Be aware of color settings and exposure in the camera
And for gosh sake, don’t use auto anything on beam shots when comparing lights.

Color Temp and CRI is not something easily measured – or so I think.
Show us a beam shot against a consistent background comparing the review light to known standard lights.

Show us the Throw.
The calculated value for throw often doesn’t (at least to me) tell me how useful the throw will be.
A comparison with a few known lights gives a better understanding of how useful the throw is.
Keep the test the same across all the reviews unless you have something out of the ordinary to show us.

Show us the spill.
Compare it to other known lights.

Mention and show, if possible, any beam artifacts.
Always a bummer to get something that rings like a bell or has a huge doughnut dropout area or ugly colors off the hot spot.

I always like to look at the PWM. It’s cheap enough to do these days.
A crappy PWM is a deal killer for me.

What batteries fit or what is needed to run a flattop (or whatever).
For example, many WOWTAC lights have tubes that are extra long to fit their batteries with the charging built into the battery.
Without spacers the light won’t work with normal length cells or will flicker if bumped.

If there is a built in charger, what does it pull from a quality power source.?
What voltage does the charge terminate at?
Can it revive a protected cell? (it that is what the light uses).

Does the light have low voltage protection?
AT what voltage?
How is that accomplished?
What happens as the battery nears the cutoff?

Measure current draw - if possible.
Measure parasitic drain – if possible

If batteries are included, test them to see if they meet the specs.

If the light claims to be waterproof or an IPX rating – it should be tested for that rating - if possible.

Destructive testing? – I’ve got mixed feelings on that. A sample of one is not a good measuring point.
Not many are willing to drop test or run a multi-hundred $$ light through the washer.
If a light is advertised as being super tough – then perhaps…?

Better to point out any possible weaknesses like poor construction or ??
Case in point. All those nifty, ultralight, and too expensive big name AAA camping headlamps.
They will pass a drop test – till the end of time.
Every darn one of them I’ve owned has failed at the battery door or striped out the tilt mechanism.

Lengthy unboxing and tabletop rambling are a real turn off (TNP anyone?).

Last thoughts
Edit – Edit – Edit. And if needed re-shoot. Cut out whatever is not needed.
Try to develop a style that’s unique to you. Keep refining it over time.
Consistency is key.

As you can see – rambling on is my style…
All the Best,
Jeff

Jeff, love your thorough response.

To be honest, I just bought a wireless microphone that I will be using. Now looking for a camera with proper auto focus.

My current camera has no AF while filming. It's an oldy, Canon 5d mkII.

Love your ideas. And I also like to keep it short. Not sure how easy that will be though....

Time is drawing nearer to my next video...maybe next month? Who knows.

When testing out throwers, I would like to see an accurate depiction of distance. When a reviewer says the light is hitting a clump of trees "200 feet away," or whatever, I always doubt the accuracy of the numbers. And, hitting some dark trees doesn't usually show up well on camera, so it is difficult to see what is being described.

My idea: before testing your lights at some filming location, set up a bunch of easily visible markers (ex: decent sized white signs, with the distance clearly written on it).

Yes, this would be a little bit of a pain in the ass to set up, initially. But if you used the same distance markers for every new review, it would be something I (and perhaps others) would appreciate it.

Just offering my two lumens. Excuse me, my two *cents*.

Chibim,
I think a 5D mkII would be a good camera to start with.
It’s an SLR if I remember correctly.
I assume everything can be set manually.
The trick would be to have plenty of light for a good depth of field. Stop that sucker down to f22.
Then pre-focus on what you are going to do.
Having some sort of live monitor would be really nice, but I’m not sure how to do that with an older SLR.
A second person behind the camera would be helpful here.

As andyMac says, a distant view of a clump of trees and saying the light throws that far is not really useful.
Better to have those markers he mentioned.
Or zoom in on a distant object and let us see what the review light does and compare that to some known common lights.

Looking forward to your reviews.
All the Best,
Jeff

Would it be better to add an image with google maps distance measurement?

Not everyone has a marked runway in their garden

Yokiamy,
That’s just what the Flashaholics guy does in his reviews.
Shows the google maps view and the distance. He then cuts to the lights being tested.
He has all sorts of interesting stuff to light up.
I’ve got miles and miles of dead flat West Texas. I just can’t get the tumbleweeds and snakes to stand still long enough for testing.
All the Best,
Jeff

  • Finding good testing grounds of short, medium and long range and sticking to them (if possible) for future videos to allow comparisons between different videos.
  • Comparing with other similar torches/flashlights in the same video
  • Video with resolution and bit rate suitable for watching on a HDTV or a 4K TV.
  • If the style is music with no commentary, some brief concluding thoughts/remarks (even written on screen) would still be good, I think it’s of interest to know what the reviewer’s unabashed opinion is.
  • Edits to keep the commentary as brief as possible
  • Video quality that looks bad on a TV.
  • Using only a single testing location (or none).
  • Reviews that are a single unedited take.
  • Long commentaries.

Now that you mention it this does make a big difference in the quality of the presentation.