beamshots of Arc-AAA P old and new

As requested in the "getting caught up" thread, here's a beam shot of the Arc-AAA Premium with the Nichia CS UB2 LED used up until about October of last year and the Nichia CS UB1 LED now used. The difference is fairly close and the camera (Canon SD550) has a hard time showing all the detail in the beams. To the eye, all of the CS LEDs have a bluish center, slight rings in the beam and a greenish corona.





For those who own one of these lights personally, I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Do my pictures do a poor job of showing how these beams look to the human eye?

Peter

Its about dead on for my Ikariya camo and the newer Arc AAA-P.

It's ironic that you decided to post this thread now Peter. Later tonight, I was preparing to start a new thread where I show various runtime differences comparing older-style Arc-AAA LE lights and the newest Arc4-AAA Premium lights. I will post that either tonight or tomorrow and I'll post it this thread.

That's a remarkable difference between the original and the new ones. Nice!

Yes yes, very nice but you are not going to distract us with beamshots Peter. Where is the new product???? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh???

Wow, thank you!

I have one of the newer Arcs bought in Dec. I think the tint of the light is great. Slightly yellowish with very little blue.

So the B1 is less blue than the B2? I figured it would be the other way around. C0 is even warmer, with a white center, but more yellow sidespill.

I found the rings/sploltches just vary from LED to LED. The CS B(?) I put into my early rev3 std I hand picked and it has no rings at all. Smooth beam. I had some that had some "warmer" spotches in the middle of the blue center and helped with color rendering, but went for the smoothest beamed LED.

EDIT: I also had an led in the batch that was a lot dimmer than the others, and SUPER BLUE. I mean it was like a blue led!!! I guess it was a dud. I'm going to use it forsomething as it's like blue paint with a little white mixed in!! Heheh.

Here's a 10-hour plot using Duracell alkaline cells. It's great to see the difference between the old-style LE (Limited Edition) lights and the very latest Arc4-AAA lights. Note the increase in brightness and runtime.

Great info, tin! Thanks for the work!

Peter,

I haven't posted @ CPF in quite a while, though I've been using my lights heavily. FWIW, three lights have surfaced as the ones I reach for most often: Fraen LSHP for general use, Arc4+ when I will need variable output, and Pak-Lite white/green hybrid w/ glow cap on the nightstand. 2 out of 3 being Arcs speaks well for your efforts. Great lights!

On to my posting reason. During my absence I made the transition from film SLR photography to digital SLR. Along the way I have learned a fair amount about digital imaging. Your beamshots, and in fact most beamshots posted at CPF have a fatal flaw. The hotspot of all three beams was recorded 256/256/256 (Red/Green/Blue). These are called "blown highlights", and the fact that all three are blown keeps you from accurately comparing them. A good beamshot would be exposed so that none of the hotspots, or maybe just the brightest hotspot, are blown. Can you reshoot the beamshot that compares an original AAA with the current ones?

I have, and still use sometimes, a 2003 CPF Edition AAA and a LSH-S, and wonder where the new AAA Premium would fall between those two lights. It would be great to see a non-blown beamshot that included those three lights.

Take Care,

Dave

luigi said:

Yes yes, very nice but you are not going to distract us with beamshots Peter. Where is the new product???? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh???

Click to expand...

:lolsign:

LOL!

Thank you for bring u- this to-ic, -eter. Mine, since you asked, falls right into the middle one of both -hotos. I don't really mind the blueish hue, it doesn't really bother me. What I do care about is that I'm really glad to have an affordable, durable, tough, com-act, relatively bright, little light. I use it more and more, in fact I used it just today to hel- flush out old brake fluid.

I do have one regret, however, that there is no detent to kee- the cli- in -osition. So it slides around, which doesn't really a--eal to me.

Still, it would be nice to able to kee- that thing in my -ouch and have a sixty lumen or so single C flashlight that has a similar run time. That'll fit nearly all my needs. Then we can kee- the 2D Mag in the car where it belongs.

Go-herwhatanicelittlelightGo-her

Something wrong with your P key?

Dave Wright,

Good to have you back. We need the original cpf'ers.

The pictures were not meant to be high detail beam shots. That is why I said the camera did not catch everything. User "Prof" asked for a tint comparison and I provided a simple image.

I am in the middle of R&D on a project and I am trying to avoid lengthy tangents.

As you probably also know, the SD-550 has a histogram display. Yes, the depth of the image is outside of the dynamic range of the camera. Not only are the hot spots clipped but the dark areas are noisy. The top picture shows more detail because it fit the histogram better. I didn't experiement with every combination but it is my opinion that although the Canon has an decent sensor envelope, I would probably have to take bracketed shutter shots on a tripod and use an image stacker to catch more of the dynamic range of the beams. Especially when comparing a larger number of lights like you asked.

I hope that I am not ignoring the needs of the customer, but I would like to do such a task at a later time if I could.

Peter

Many thanks to Peter for posting the beamshots--they were exactly what I requested (oh, now I just have to order the AAAP...wonder what my wife will say?).

I am also an amateur photographer (ok, been paid a few times for it). I prefer film for a number of reasons--PM me if you want to discuss. However, these shots were exactly what I wanted. Many thanks to Peter (who is NOT ignoring customer needs, in my opinion).

Btw, TIN's runtime graphs reminds me.

Purpose: The Arc-AAA is designed to meet the qualifications of the "Every Day Carry - most convenient" class. To meet these goals, the light must:

• Be small enough to be carried with minimum effort and thought. Ideally, it would attach to something else you already are in the habit of carrying. That way, it is more likely to be with you during an emergency
• Have sufficient runtime to last the length of typical emergencies with an additional amount added because we can assume the battery is not always fresh when you leave the house
• Use a common battery that can be found throughout the world and can also be scavenged from other equipment
• Be durable enough that it can be depended on over a wide type of emergencies. It should be at least as durable as the person carrying it

I added this to the new FAQ.

Peter

Peter
Being the fortunate owner of the most recent and best AAA Arc-P, you can rest assured that you have met and surpassed all the above criteria. For the purpose intended your latest efforts are unparalled. I smile every time I use it.

Yes, the - key is busted. I better get a keyboard. An industructible one, thinking about it.

-eter, have you considered a slot to hel- contain the cli-[insert question mark]

If the cli- slides u- and down, it makes it more difficult to retain on a shirt -ocket or cli--ed to a belt. Humm..

Go-heri-utinthe-ant-ocketGo-her

this_is_nascar said:

Here's a 10-hour plot using Duracell alkaline cells. It's great to see the difference between the old-style LE (Limited Edition) lights and the very latest Arc4-AAA lights. Note the increase in brightness and runtime.

Click to expand...

Here's the same data plotted at 5-hours. It doesn't get much better than this, having this much light for this long of a period.

If you have some old Arc AAA ( like me ) AND you see one of these Tin's graphs you have to buy also the new Arc AAA .
BTW, i was fully happy with my beloved AAA and AA ...... till now !!!!