Yeah, I get your point.
As I don't get to see video clips at work (even IF there was bandwidth available) I could only
remind everyone that what was seen will have little to do with what is being sold.
For those considering the possibility of purchasing the item shown they would be getting something that has no real bearing on the discussions here.
That was the purpose of my post.
(Then I don't feel so left out as I don't get to watch the video, you see ?)
I would think that due to the associated costs and the liability insurance(s) required for trying to use a product of a higher calibre that using a 450nm for the video would be cost prohibitive.
The tools to enhance or even simulate a beam in post production would be far easier, cheaper, and timely which all translate to big $$$$ in savings.
It doesn't make sense to use a more powerful and dangerous replacement.
Without seeing the video I can't comment on whether a focused LED or a laser was used. But knowing that the beam could be enhanced or simulated in post production the only thing to need on the video of the item being used is to see the reflected light or effect they want to show.(GITD material brightly fluorescing from exposure, a blueish glow from the spot, etc.) A fairly low power 405nm laser would provide the necessary effects for the camera to pick up. Again some post production processing might be used to enhance the effects but the video tools are commonly available to even the pro-sumer level videophile.
-I had a video processing suite of tools a while ago that could do most of this and I didn't even spend much time with it. A professional company should be able to do the needed processing without any effort or expense.
So my logic would lean towards the 405nm version that might have been a little higher power than the pieces included in the item for sale.