# Color Rendering Test - LED vs. Incandescent



## RichS (Apr 1, 2008)

This is a re-do of a previous color rendering post where I wanted to see if the LED or the incandescent light would do a better job of rendering Easter Eggs my daughter had just colored. As some of you pointed out, the test was flawed because I hadn't set the manual white balance separately for each light. 

*****UPDATE*****​
After gaining more insights from posts received on this thread, I've learned some important info about doing comparison shots. As it turns out, I did take the correct approach with my first comparison thread after all by using a common white balance setting (daylight) that won't allow the camera to adjust or "correct" the colors that are rendered from each light source.

So by re-doing my color rendering test using manual white balance for each light and having my camera "adjust" to each light source, I essentially forced my camera to "make it look right", by enhancing the blues, greens, reds, etc. as it saw the light source had deficiencies in specific areas of the color spectrum.

So that being said, I must re-post the original results. HERE are the ORIGINAL color comparison shots I took with each light, with the white balance set to "daylight" for both shots. In these shots it is very easy to see the characteristics of each type of light and how it affects the color, contrast, depth, dimension, and warmth of each image. When I look at the images, I can see that it will definitely be each person's personal preference as to which light source they prefer, as they are each so unique. As for me, I prefer the warmth and depth of the incandescent image, even though a lot of the reds, pinks and oranges are harder to separate. The LED image just looks a little cold and flat to me, but it make it easier to distinguish the colors in my opinion.


*WE Raider (Incandescent) / WE Sniper (Q5 LED)






**
****White Balance Set to Daylight for Both Lights*****
*
Wolf-Eyest Sniper Q5 (LED)*
*





** Wolf-Eyes Raider (incandescent)*
*






*Here are my "learning experience" shots (thank you CPF'rs) where I set the white balance manually for each light. It is very easy to see in the manual white balance shots how the camera corrected each image to the point that they look very close to each other, even though they are very different light sources.
*
****White Balance Set Separately for Each Light Using White Paper****

** Wolf-Eyest Sniper Q5 (LED)





Wolf-Eyes Raider (incandescent)





*Conclusions:

This time the results were very different. Although the pictures show both lights did very well, the incandescent light rendered the colors much truer to my eye. The LED colors seemed a little off, almost fluorescent for some of the colors like the pinks, while other colors look a little dull. Also as was noticed before, the incandescent light seemed to show the depth and dimension of the eggs more, as opposed to the LED light which caused the image to look slightly more flat.

So, in the previous test I had the LED light in the winner's circle, but as you correctly pointed out the test was flawed. In this test which I feel is a much more fair representation of each light's ability to render colors, the incandescent light wins in my book - hands down.

-Rich


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 1, 2008)

Hello Rich,

Would you happen to have a flash on your camera for a third perspective...?

Tom


----------



## Norm (Apr 1, 2008)

RichS said:


> the incandescent light seemed to show the depth and dimension of the eggs more, as opposed to the LED light which caused the image to look slightly more flat.
> -Rich


To me the second picture has more depth not because of the light source but but the different angle of the light, notice the deeper shadows on the incandescent picture. It would be interesting to see both pictures shot with the light source in identical positions. I'm sure it's the lack of shadows making the LED image look flat.
Norm


----------



## GreySave (Apr 1, 2008)

Nice job. Glad the experiment paid off. I tend to rely on the automatic white balance myself more than I should. Might have to try a few manual shots.


----------



## MikeSalt (Apr 1, 2008)

Any chance of a shot illuminated purely by sunlight? I agree, the incandescent is marginally better, but the Q5 is certainly doing a good job.

I have three lights with the Cree Q5 emitter, with three different tints. One is slightly blue, one is spot-on white and the other is slightly yellow. Of the three, the slightly yellow tint illuminates colour depth just as nicely as a well-driven incandescent. I'm just waiting for a Lumens Factory HO-E1R bulb to verify this test against something a little stronger.


----------



## RichS (Apr 1, 2008)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Rich,
> 
> Would you happen to have a flash on your camera for a third perspective...?
> 
> Tom


I do Tom, but unfortunately I don't have the eggs anymore. I pitched them after taking the pics last night since they were over a week old.



Norm said:


> To me the second picture has more depth not because of the light source but but the different angle of the light, notice the deeper shadows on the incandescent picture. It would be interesting to see both pictures shot with the light source in identical positions. I'm sure it's the lack of shadows making the LED image look flat.
> Norm


 
I see what you are saying about the slightly larger shadows in the incandescent picture, but I don't think this is making that big of a difference. To me, in the incandescent picture the eggs have more contrast between the edge of the egg and the shadow, making the eggs "pop" more and appear more 3D. The shadows in the LED image aren't much smaller, but they are a little more difficult to see because of the lack of contrast between the egg edge and the shadow. 

I did my best to hold the lights in the exact same place (upper left), but it I was holding it myself so they may be just slightly off. I think it was close enough to get a pretty good comparison though.


----------



## RichS (Apr 1, 2008)

GreySave said:


> Nice job. Glad the experiment paid off. I tend to rely on the automatic white balance myself more than I should. Might have to try a few manual shots.



Thanks GreySave. I appreciate the expert advise which helped me to get to a successful comparison here. This time the outcome was what I originally suspected with the incandescent coming out on top. No doubt the LED can't be beat for unreal runtime and brightness for size, but there's no denying the pure illumination of a good incandescent light outdoors, and this simple color rendering test sheds some light on why.


----------



## RichS (Apr 1, 2008)

MikeSalt said:


> Any chance of a shot illuminated purely by sunlight? I agree, the incandescent is marginally better, but the Q5 is certainly doing a good job.
> 
> I have three lights with the Cree Q5 emitter, with three different tints. One is slightly blue, one is spot-on white and the other is slightly yellow. Of the three, the slightly yellow tint illuminates colour depth just as nicely as a well-driven incandescent. I'm just waiting for a Lumens Factory HO-E1R bulb to verify this test against something a little stronger.



I agree Mike, the warmer LED tints do come close, but I've not seen one do quite as good as any incandescent outdoors. The best LED tint I have is a the P3D Rebel 100, and it is excellent. But it still doesn't quite match my nicer incandescents though. Of course, in the end it all comes down to each individual's personal preference and everyone sees things a little differently.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 1, 2008)

Hello Rich,

I totally understand... Oh well, there is always next year for a repeat test.  

Tom


----------



## Cheapskate (Apr 2, 2008)

I personally think incandescents have poorer colour rendition. I did a test for another thread using a maglite vs a couple LED torches. The camera is the one in my phone, A SE K750i. The white balance was set to daylight:





Adjusting the white balance manually between shots is surely a fudge, as it will make the output of an incandescent seem whiter than it actually is.


----------



## 270winchester (Apr 2, 2008)

are you seriously comparing 70 dollar LED lights to a 10 dollar light with 60 year old technology?



Cheapskate said:


> I personally think incandescents have poorer colour rendition. I did a test for another thread using a maglite vs a couple LED torches. The camera is the one in my phone, A SE K750i. The white balance was set to daylight:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## RichS (Apr 2, 2008)

Cheapskate said:


> I personally think incandescents have poorer colour rendition. I did a test for another thread using a maglite vs a couple LED torches. The camera is the one in my phone, A SE K750i. The white balance was set to daylight:
> 
> 
> Adjusting the white balance manually between shots is surely a fudge, as it will make the output of an incandescent seem whiter than it actually is.


 
Really?? Have you taken your lights outdoors? Ok, here are a couple of other shots I took with no manual light balance setting (before I knew how to do it). Still think the LEDs do better? Ignore the output differences of each light as this doesn't effect the color rendering.

*DBS 3SD Q5 SMO*





*Mag w/ WA 1185 bulb (incandescent)*





*CL1H 3SD Q5 OP*





*SL TL-3 Carly 1499*





Regarding setting the white balance manually (fudging it, as you call it), the real photographers on this forum are the ones who instructed me to manually set the white balance if I wanted to get the true representation of each light's color rendering. This gives the camera the information it needs so it knows what white looks like under each type of specific lighting. It can then more accurately reproduce the rest of the colors appropriately based upon what white looks like under that light. It only makes sense, as setting it to one specific white balance essentially forces the camera to guess at what the color balance should be, or to add a color "filter" to the shots based on the preset you use such as "daylight". 

BTW, if you want to see this same comparison done with the same white balance used, take a look at this one where I used the "daylight" white balance setting for both shots. Does the LED look better in these shots?? https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/192952

In my opinion, the negative effects were very obvious when I took my first shots, using the popular "daylight" balance to take them. Because when I got them loaded onto my PC, I didn't remember either of the shots looking that way to my eye.


----------



## BVH (Apr 2, 2008)

Speaking of color rendition, anyone tried video bias lighting behind their TV? Read this thread. 

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2420808#post2420808


----------



## L.E.D. (Apr 2, 2008)

The new extremely warm Inova lights will come very close to incans, if not exceed them in some cases due to the lottery.

When those new nano-tube non-phosphor emitters come out with nearly 100 in CRI, they will make incans look like a joke, maybe even HID's, regarding "color rendering". Hopefully.


----------



## RichS (Apr 2, 2008)

L.E.D. said:


> The new extremely warm Inova lights will come very close to incans, if not exceed them in some cases due to the lottery.
> 
> When those new nano-tube non-phosphor emitters come out with nearly 100 in CRI, they will make incans look like a joke, maybe even HID's, regarding "color rendering". Hopefully.


I agree it will be a fine day when those new 100 CRI emitters are released - I'll be the first in line! Until then though, I'll have a couple of good incandescents within arm's reach.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 2, 2008)

IIRC, setting the white balance using a white object is an exersize that allows the camera to alter it's settings to match the light source. If there is not enough blue, for instance, the camera boosts the blue till the whitest thing in the frame is "white".

Our brains do this automatically, which is why you can see a white newspaper as white using a 60 watt incandescent that is really pretty yellow. You only really notice the difference when you have two lighting conditions in close proximity where you can see both at once. For example, two LED lights against a white wall.

In short, re-balancing between pictures mimics what your brain does.

White LEDs are generally deficient in green wavelengths, but make up for that by having the proper mix of blue and yellow light. That's why the incandescent almost always looks better against bushes and leaves. The incan has more green in it's spectrum.

[ Note: SOmething seemed wrong about that, so I looked at the spectrum charts on LEDMUSEUM's web site (http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/ledleft.htm) and see that the typical white LED has lots of blue and some green with a bit of yellow but with fairly little red. ] 

That's my understanding...


Daniel
(BTW, Blue LIGHT and yellow LIGHT make white LIGHT. Blue PAINT and yellow PAINT makes green PAINT.)


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Apr 3, 2008)

Damn! Those incans are kicking some serious LED's butts.

Great topic! Thanks for sharing.

Cheers


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 3, 2008)

L.E.D. said:


> The new extremely warm Inova lights will come very close to incans, if not exceed them in some cases due to the lottery.



I really like my '08 T2-mp.
It is the warmest LED light I have. It looks yellow in comparison to the others.

But then compared to a 4D Mag, it still looks blue. and once again 4D with 3d bulb.

I estimate the color temperature to be 4000K. (to the nearest 500K)
Hopefully within six months, Inova will move to the warmest of Neutral-whites.


----------



## RichS (Apr 3, 2008)

gadget_lover said:


> IIRC, setting the white balance using a white object is an exersize that allows the camera to alter it's settings to match the light source. If there is not enough blue, for instance, the camera boosts the blue till the whitest thing in the frame is "white".
> 
> Our brains do this automatically, which is why you can see a white newspaper as white using a 60 watt incandescent that is really pretty yellow. You only really notice the difference when you have two lighting conditions in close proximity where you can see both at once. For example, two LED lights against a white wall.
> 
> ...



Daniel,

Thank you - the "light" went on after reading your post. Not immediately, it took me a while of mulling it over before it did, but it finally did...

So by re-doing my color rendering test using manual white balance for each light and having my camera "adjust" to each light source, I essentially forced my camera to "make it look right", by enhancing the blues, greens, reds, etc. as it saw the light source had deficiencies in specific areas of the color spectrum. Yeah, this is the right thing to do in normal photography, but not when the purpose is to capture each light's raw characteristics.

Now it makes sense to me why it is common practice here on the forum to set the white balance to one specific setting to do comparisons between different lights. And it only makes sense to use the "daylight" setting as sunlight is the gold standard to compare all other illumination sources against. Since sunlight renders colors so perfectly, the camera doesn't try to make adjustments by boosting colors to correct for the light source.

I must now also "eat crow" and apologize to Cheapskate for completely dismissing his point about "fudging" by taking this approach. You were right, ok...

So that being said, I must re-post the original results. HERE are the ORIGINAL color comparison shots I took with each light, with the white balance set to "daylight" for both shots. In these shots it is very easy to see the characteristics of each type of light and how it affects the color, contrast, depth, dimension, and warmth of each image. When I look at the images, I can see that it will definitely be each person's personal preference as to which light source they prefer, as they are each so unique. As for me, I prefer the warmth and depth of the incandescent image, even though a lot of the reds, pinks and oranges are harder to separate. The LED image just looks a little cold and flat to me, but it make it easier to distinguish the colors in my opinion.

Also with the reminder Daniel gave about how our brains adjust to this "white balance" automatically (I read this somewhere else before), I now understand why the results seen in these pictures didn't look this extreme to my eye as I was taking the picture.

I learn something new around here every day!

*Wolf-Eyes Sniper LED (Q5)





**WE Raider (Incandescent)*
*





*-Rich


----------



## RichS (Apr 3, 2008)

MichaelW said:


> I really like my '08 T2-mp.
> It is the warmest LED light I have. It looks yellow in comparison to the others.
> 
> But then compared to a 4D Mag, it still looks blue. and once again 4D with 3d bulb.
> ...


Just curious, how warm are they compared to a Rebel 100 - do you have one to compare it to? I have a P3D Rebel 100 and it is very warm, but I seriously doubt it is close to 4000K. I need to get me one of those new Inovas...I use to have the older X01, X03, and X5 but sold 'em all after discovering CPF and Fenixes...then Derees...Olights..Surefires..Wolf-Eyes..........


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 3, 2008)

RichS said:


> Just curious, how warm are they compared to a Rebel 100 - do you have one to compare it to? I have a P3D Rebel 100 and it is very warm, but I seriously doubt it is close to 4000K. I need to get me one of those new Inovas...I use to have the older X01, X03, and X5 but sold 'em all after discovering CPF and Fenixes...then Derees...Olights..Surefires..Wolf-Eyes..........



It just happens... Well the output of the '08 T2 is so bright (well compared with my '02 X5, '04 X03, '06 X02) that I decided I 'needed' something with variable brightness. So I picked up an P2D-rb100 (au natural) from Lighthound.

The X03 is ringy and blue (est 5000K)
The X02 looks weak, but has a warmish tint (est 4500)
The p2d is just a bit warmer than the X02 (est 4250)
The T2 is the warmest. There seems to be a hint of red (est 4000)

I compared the T2 against D2S headlights (I let them warm up. You can hear the noise the ballasts make when in overdrive mode diminish for the first minute or so) The T2 is definitely less blue.

I also grabbed the Cree TLE-5EX out of the car. The Rebel has a 'cleaner' output (and slightly warmer too)


I think I am going to re-gift the T2, and pickup the T5, just to have a low mode. (I still haven't received an answer from Inova as to how bright it is. I hope it is 50 lumen)


----------



## TorchBoy (Apr 4, 2008)

270winchester said:


> are you seriously comparing 70 dollar LED lights to a 10 dollar light with 60 year old technology?


IIRC the Sun is even older! You're not seriously going to compare anything to _that_, are you?


----------



## Haz (Apr 4, 2008)

If you use a led with the same colour temperature as incan, will you be able to see more colour differentiation in the trees and woods?. 

I find when using a led light shinning into the branches and leaves of a tree, makes it look very dull and flat. It's even difficult to spot the animals living in the trees. I then used an Eveready dolphin with a half run down battery with orangy beam. To my surprise i was able to see more despite being more dimly lit.


----------



## Jay T (Apr 4, 2008)

RichS said:


> Daniel,
> 
> Thank you - the "light" went on after reading your post. Not immediately, it took me a while of mulling it over before it did, but it finally did...
> 
> ...



Glad you saw the light and reposted the correct images, now please remove the phony white balance fudged images you opened the thread with.

Beam shots should "ONLY" be taken with the daylight white balance. This allows use of a "CALIBRATED" reference to true color. This is the only scientific way to do it.

What confused you into using manual WB was the fact that the human eye is flawed it "IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC CALIBRATED INSTRUMENT". Sure the shots you fudged looked exactly like what you saw with your eyes, but, in truth "WHO CARES" the eye is flawed so why use it as a benchmark?

Yea, sure some people will claim that when they go outside at night their 3000K incan lights provide great color rendition. Only problem is that they are using human eyes with it's built in white balance flaws (some would claim it's a feature ) I dare these people to gouge their eyes out and replace them with some CCD cameras and lock in a daylight white balance and then look at the truth. That is the only true way to judge a light's worth.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 4, 2008)

Haz said:


> If you use a led with the same colour temperature as incan, will you be able to see more colour differentiation in the trees and woods?.
> 
> I find when using a led light shinning into the branches and leaves of a tree, makes it look very dull and flat. It's even difficult to spot the animals living in the trees. I then used an Eveready dolphin with a half run down battery with orangy beam. To my surprise i was able to see more despite being more dimly lit.



It all depends on what colors you are targeting.

If you look at the spectral charts on Ledmuseum's site you will see that the better incan lights have a wider spectrum... Assuming fresh batteries and bulb. The newer LEDS (K2 TT, for instance) appear to have made up for some of the dips that were quite evident in earlier LEDs. BTW, I corrected my earlier post.... Some green and red are missing or depressed in the typical LED spectrum.

The link at http://ledmuseum.candlepower.us/tenth/galaxy3.htm shows the spectrum for both an incan and led side by side. Note how little blue is in the incan, and how little red is in the LED. If you are looking at green leaves with an older LED then about 1/2 of the green spectrum is badly depressed. If you are looking at brown branches, again the LED does not have a lot of red so the brown looks more yellow.

On the other hand, a blue or purple object will look mostly black with a typical incan, so if you are hunting blueberries the LED might be the better choice. 

Daniel


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 4, 2008)

I don't think you can make a valid comparison with a camera. 

An incandescent lamp would have just as good of a color rendition as sunlight as you can get your digital camera to readjust white balance. 

Using any particular white balance setting won't solve it either. Try taking a picture of blue-green LED beam on a wall, then compare the real projection against the photo on your monitor. They will never match. A lot is lost in translation and I don't think you can convey the color rendition quality as seen through our eyes when you use a camera + monitor.


----------



## RichS (Apr 4, 2008)

MichaelW said:


> It just happens... Well the output of the '08 T2 is so bright (well compared with my '02 X5, '04 X03, '06 X02) that I decided I 'needed' something with variable brightness. So I picked up an P2D-rb100 (au natural) from Lighthound.
> 
> The X03 is ringy and blue (est 5000K)
> The X02 looks weak, but has a warmish tint (est 4500)
> ...


Thanks for the info Michael. I'd be interest in picking up one of the new Inovas if the LED is that warm in color. I'd like to see how it did next to some of my incans.

So, instead of re-gifting your T2, how about working out a trade instead....


----------



## RichS (Apr 4, 2008)

Jay T said:


> Glad you saw the light and reposted the correct images, now please remove the phony white balance fudged images you opened the thread with.
> 
> Beam shots should "ONLY" be taken with the daylight white balance. This allows use of a "CALIBRATED" reference to true color. This is the only scientific way to do it.
> 
> ...



Opening post now updated Jay, try not to sweat it too much...

As for your other comments, ummmm, I'm not sure if you're kidding or....

So, the ability of our brain (not eye) to adapt to any light source to retain color recognition by adapting to most any light source, which allows us to maintain optimal clarity and vision in varying conditions, that's a flaw? Ooook, I guess...

And when I go outside with my incandescent and see something very, very close with my eye to the outdoor beamshots above and think the incan looks better, that's only because I am using my flawed human eye? Which outdoor shots do you think look better, the incans or LED?


----------



## RichS (Apr 4, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> I don't think you can make a valid comparison with a camera.
> 
> An incandescent lamp would have just as good of a color rendition as sunlight as you can get your digital camera to readjust white balance.
> 
> Using any particular white balance setting won't solve it either. Try taking a picture of blue-green LED beam on a wall, then compare the real projection against the photo on your monitor. They will never match. A lot is lost in translation and I don't think you can convey the color rendition quality as seen through our eyes when you use a camera + monitor.



I have to disagree with you on this. You can absolutely make valid comparisons with a camera, and people do it on CPF everyday. By valid, I'm not saying that the colors or exact light output captured in an image is going to reflect a perfect match of reality. However, it can certainly be close enough to give you a idea of the color rendering and output differences between two lights, especially two light sources as different as LED and incandescent. I've even seen plenty of LED to LED comparison shots that show you the differences in warmth or coolness of color, such as the Rebel and Cree. I have both and have seen with my own eyes that the images did show a very valid comparison between even these similar light sources.

In some cases if you want to see more subtle differences between two lights, you would almost have to use a camera, because your brain will adapt to the various light sources and perform it's own white balance correction where a camera will not.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 4, 2008)

RichS said:


> I have to disagree with you on this. You can absolutely make valid comparisons with a camera, and people do it on CPF everyday. By valid, I'm not saying that the colors or exact light output captured in an image is going to reflect a perfect match of reality. However, it can certainly be close enough to give you a idea of the color rendering and output differences between two lights, especially two light sources as different as LED and incandescent. I've even seen plenty of LED to LED comparison shots that show you the differences in warmth or coolness of color, such as the Rebel and Cree. I have both and have seen with my own eyes that the images did show a very valid comparison between even these similar light sources.



You can see the difference in color temp, but color rendition is really how our EYES see color. 

A 4100K CRI 62 old school fluorescent and a 4100K CRI 86 modern fluorescent sources would have the same "color". They however, render color differently. 

I'm not sure if camera would catch that.


----------



## RichS (Apr 4, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> You can see the difference in color temp, but color rendition is really how our EYES see color.
> 
> A 4100K CRI 62 old school fluorescent and a 4100K CRI 86 modern fluorescent sources would have the same "color". They however, render color differently.
> 
> I'm not sure if camera would catch that.



I understand what you are saying, but I would make the argument that a camera can come close to also demonstrating the color rendition our eyes see. The best example is an incan vs. LED outdoors because of the stark differences. When taking out an LED along with my first nice incan (a hotwired TL-3), I was amazed by how the TL-3 would make the brown leaves pop out, and show the various shades of green, where the LED would give a bluish tint, washing out the shades of green with the browns blending in. 

This difference in color rendering between the two lights is clearly demonstrated by the pictures I took with my camera in post #12 above. This is very close to what I saw with my own eyes, and easily demonstrates what I think most people would see with their own eyes if they took those same lights outdoors.


----------



## WildChild (Apr 5, 2008)

About red color rendition of LEDs. Tonight I was cooking ground meat on the BBQ and it was already dark outside. With a Cree LED, very bright, I was unable to tell if there was still red blood coming from it to know if it was cooked or not. I had to get my E2D to be able to see there was still red juice coming out of it! I'm happy I recently bought a few incandescent lights!


----------



## TorchBoy (Apr 5, 2008)

RichS said:


> So, the ability of our brain (not eye) to adapt to any light source to retain color recognition by adapting to most any light source...


Our eyes do as well - bleaching of rhodopsin, and all that.



Handlobraesing said:


> You can see the difference in color temp, but color rendition is really how our EYES see color.


Is this the same colour rendition assigned a number according to how closely the light approximates a black body? That is, "CRI"?


----------



## photonhoer (Apr 5, 2008)

WildChild said:


> About red color rendition of LEDs. Tonight I was cooking ground meat on the BBQ and it was already dark outside. With a Cree LED, very bright, I was unable to tell if there was still red blood coming from it to know if it was cooked or not. I had to get my E2D to be able to see there was still red juice coming out of it! I'm happy I recently bought a few incandescent lights!



Wildchild - we had the same realization several months ago. Getting ready for a medical trip to Guyana, we were very excited about our carefully chosen new LED lights. Then one evening, having seared some Ahi Tuna on the grill, using an (otherwise excellent) LED I could NOT tell if the interior was the same color as the outside. Incandescent illumination immediately revealed the differences in color.

So, we took an incandescent light to do vaginal exams and biopsies, and my (physician) wife reported that the incandescent light gave significantly better information regarding tissue color and made identifying biopsy sites much easier and more reliable.


----------



## UnknownVT (Apr 5, 2008)

There are simple too many variables to have a clear-cut/hard-and-fast simple answer - 
I attempted some kind of a summary in Post #*73* of the thread -

Puny LED flashlights (Not!) + COLOR RENDITION Comparison

which started simply to show how bright LED flashlights have gotten - 
but developed into the interesting area of "color rendition" - I attempted to illustrate a few points with comparison photos - even to the extent of showing shots of a famous Macbeth color rendition chart. But as pointed out cameras have their limitations and do not always "see" the same way as our eye/brain combination.

I'll reproduce that summary, in hopes that it may help, 



UnknownVT said:


> Let me try to put things into context -
> and maybe attempt to explain some of the confusion.
> 
> *Color Rendering* - this seems a pretty loose term -
> ...


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 5, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Our eyes do as well - bleaching of rhodopsin, and all that.
> 
> 
> Is this the same colour rendition assigned a number according to how closely the light approximates a black body? That is, "CRI"?



I don't know if there's an index that shows how close you resemble the black body. 

CRI is like a lumen and tries to indicate how good it renders colors to our eyes, not necessarily how exactly it adheres to blackbody SPD. So, trichromatic lamps with many spikes can actually have a better CRI than a smoother old cool white. 


There's CCT which is correlated color temp, which represent the best match blackbody radiator color temperature.

Then Chromaticity (expressed in x and y) shows the "tint" of the actual light, not the ability to render color.


----------



## TorchBoy (Apr 6, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> I don't know if there's an index that shows how close you resemble the black body.


Are you trying to get smart there or is that careless wording? Either way, :shakehead



Handlobraesing said:


> CRI is like a lumen and tries to indicate how good it renders colors to our eyes, not necessarily how exactly it adheres to blackbody SPD.


No. CRI _does_ indicate how closely it resembles the blackbody radiation of an object the same colour temperature, not how well it renders colours for our eyes. A dull brown incandescent bulb will still be around 100 CRI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index#Typical_values


> *A reference source, such as black body radiation, is defined as having a CRI of 100.* This is why incandescent lamps have that rating, as they are, in effect, almost black body radiators. The best possible faithfulness to a reference is specified by a CRI of one hundred, while the very poorest is specified by a CRI of zero. A high CRI by itself does not imply a good rendition of color, because the reference itself may have an imbalanced SPD if it has an extreme color temperature (see Criticism section).



Emphasis added. SPD = spectral power distribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_power_distribution

Thanks UnknownVT, I think you answered my question. When people talk about colour rendering they are probably not referring to CRI.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 6, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Are you trying to get smart there or is that careless wording? Either way, :shakehead


I honestly do not know. It depends on which trait of "resemble" you're looking for.

The CCT shows the corresponding best match color temperature and chromaticity the color of light. 

I have no idea as far as comparing the closeness of resemblance of SPD against a blackbody. 



> No. CRI _does_ indicate how closely it resembles the blackbody radiation of an object the same colour temperature, not how well it renders colours for our eyes. A dull brown incandescent bulb will still be around 100 CRI.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index#Typical_values


It says that the blackbody radiator is the reference, but where does say it has to do with how closely it resembles the blackbody radiation? (what is "it" , the SPD, or the way we see light?) 

I don't disagree that any given SPD precisely following the blackbody radiator has a CRI of 100, but the index isn't defined as how well the sample's SPD resembles the blackbody curve. It's how our eyes see relative to blackbody radiation.

The actual CRI calculation is quite complex.
http://www.kruschwitz.com/cri.htm

Go find the SPD for 841 phosphor fluoresent lamp. You'll see that it's full of spikes, yet the CRI is 80-85. 

Find the SPD for 4100K cool white fluorescent and it's a lot smoother, yet the CRI is only ~62


----------



## TorchBoy (Apr 6, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> It says that the blackbody radiator is the reference, but where does say it has to do with how closely it resembles the blackbody radiation? (what is "it" , the SPD, or the way we see light?)


"It" is CRI. I repeat quote:


> The best possible faithfulness to a reference is specified by a CRI of one hundred, while the very poorest is specified by a CRI of zero.


Do pay attention. :thumbsup:


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 6, 2008)

Actually, you're supposed to use sunlight, not daylight, white balance in order to make an unbiased comparison between light sources. I did a little test I did a while back. Unfortunately, I didn't test any LEDs here as I was interested in comparing several common general interior light sources.







Of all the sources the incandescent is easily the worst as far as being able to distinguish colors, and notice how daylight has a markedly blue tinge. For those who might say that color correcting will yield something closer to what our eyes will see, I say rubbish. The color correction of our brains has limits. No matter how long I stay under candlelight it still looks horribly yellow, and everything looks like shades of red and orange. Even typical 2700K household incandescent is well beyond my limits. You can't magically add what isn't there, and there are simply not enough of the shorter wavelengths for our eyes to send enough information to our brain. Once you get to perhaps 3500K or so my brain can autocorrect and provide some semblance of decent color rendering, but an incandescent at 3500K is on the verge of insta-flash. The same holds true on the opposite ends of the spectrum. I can stare all I want at a 10000K LED but it will still look blue, and it will be harder distinguish reds and oranges than under a 5000K LED.

Lack of depth of LEDs has been mentioned. I think this is more a function of the different optical proporties of the beam than anything else. I've noticed myself that LEDs with smoother beams seem more artificial or sterile. Perhaps we need some of the beam artifacts that many despise just to get some depth perception. However, if we get the CCT of of LED within a decent range (say 4500K to 6000K), then LED is a hands down winner, even in outdoor scenes. I've compared a huge million CP spotlight with some of my LED lights. The spotlight only renders scenes better by virtue of its humongous lumen output. The greenery actually looks washed out to me under incandescent, and flat. Maybe certain types of tissue heavy in the reds are an area where incandescents currently excel, but I would guess that a light with 1 red emitter to 3 or 4 whites will do as well, while retaining proper color rendering of cool colors. Indeed, that may be the way to go in the future as you gain the deep red color rendering of incandescents while avoiding all of incandescent's drawbacks (no white point, poor rendering of cool colors, inefficiency, short run time, heat, extremely short rated life).

Oh, and CRI does refer to how closely a spectrum reproduces that of a blackbody. A cherry red toaster oven heating element has a CRI of 100 by definition but it would make a horrible light source.


----------



## UnknownVT (Apr 6, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> Actually, you're supposed to use sunlight, not daylight, white balance in order to make an unbiased comparison between light sources. I did a little test I did a while back.
> notice how daylight has a markedly blue tinge.


 
On most cameras and film (remember those?) are Daylight balanced.

The typical scene is supposed to have mainly blue sky but _includes_ direct sunlight. Excluding direct sunlight means it's either cloudy or in the shade - and on most digicams there is a "Cloudy" balance setting so that the scene would not be too blue.

To quantify this and make it sound more scientific, since it's numbers....
that is a color temperature of 
" _5500–6000 K Typical daylight, electronic flash_ " 
according to Wikipedia on Color Temperature 

Your "natural daylight" photo of the color chart perhaps was taken out of direct sunlight? - eg: by a window or in a shaded area out of direct sunlight? That's why it's so blue. 

For example my "daylight" shots of a Macbeth color rendering chart show much better "daylight" balance -

from Sunlight pics of Macbeth chart Post #*105*


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 6, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> On most cameras and film (remember those?) are Daylight balanced.



Sure do. Auto white balance makes a big difference on digital cameras. They have FL-D, tungsten and other filters to let you take pictures on daylight film...


If you take a picture under daylight 5500K or so fluorescent that looks white to you, the picture turns green. Fluorescent lamps have a green mercury line that films show much greater sensitivity than do our eyes, so the green gets accentuated.


----------



## MichaelW (Apr 6, 2008)

*all hail the insta-flash!*

Yes 3500K from filaments!
So isn't 3750 the white point of melting tungsten (3695K melting point, and slight deviation from black body ideal)

Is this why Cree says 3700-5000K for neutral white?
page 2
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLamp7090XR-E.pdf
see page 5
It seems as if Cree is really positioning warm white to replace bulbs in home/office applications.
Cool white really stinks for outdoor usage, but cool white has the highest efficiency.
So I'd like the warmest neutral-white for flashlights, and the coolest warm-white for an outdoor lantern.

page19
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS51.pdf
It seems like the same differentiation. Warm white for the home, etc.
Page 37, I want from the R-category(3650K). Right now it seems like the Inova is using the S-category(3950K).

and over time, don't LED eventually blue shift?


----------



## 2xTrinity (Apr 6, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> For those who might say that color correcting will yield something closer to what our eyes will see, I say rubbish. The color correction of our brains has limits. No matter how long I stay under candlelight it still looks horribly yellow, and everything looks like shades of red and orange. Even typical 2700K household incandescent is well beyond my limits. You can't magically add what isn't there, and there are simply not enough of the shorter wavelengths for our eyes to send enough information to our brain.


White balancing works better for our eyes at high intensity, that's because the way our eyes work is when they absorb a particular color, those pigments are "bleached out". If there isn't a lot of light to begin with though, there isn't simply won't be enough color contrast after this filtering process.

Ie, in hte daytime, I have no problem distinguishing colors in anywhere from say 3000k (direct sunlight near sunset, little sky component) to 8000k (sky only) range, but If I were to repeat the same comparison with low-output LEDs or incans at those color temps, there wouldn't be enough lux for the brain/eyes to compensate.



> Once you get to perhaps 3500K or so my brain can autocorrect and provide some semblance of decent color rendering, but an incandescent at 3500K is on the verge of insta-flash. The same holds true on the opposite ends of the spectrum.


Depending on application, this is why I like to stay in the 3500k - 5000k range. I like 3500k for general lighting as a substitute for traditional "warm" lighting (ie, incans). I like 5000k at higher intensity for task lighting.



> Lack of depth of LEDs has been mentioned. I think this is more a function of the different optical proporties of the beam than anything else.


Agreed. LEDs in reflectors inherently emit more of their ligh t"foward", thus capture far less light in the "beam" than incans with a comparable sized reflector. I once compared LEDs and incans that had similar beam angles and lumen output and determined that optics is by far the main reason why LEDs do worse in fog, higher degree of scattering from higher color temp is scattering.



> I've noticed myself that LEDs with smoother beams seem more artificial or sterile. Perhaps we need some of the beam artifacts that many despise just to get some depth perception.


This is because LEDs that have smoother outputs usually have some form of diffuser or texturing, which makes the beam less intense/less like a point source. Try using an aspheric lens based LED light.



> However, if we get the CCT of of LED within a decent range (say 4500K to 6000K), then LED is a hands down winner, even in outdoor scenes. I've compared a huge million CP spotlight with some of my LED lights. The spotlight only renders scenes better by virtue of its humongous lumen output. The greenery actually looks washed out to me under incandescent, and flat. Maybe certain types of tissue heavy in the reds are an area where incandescents currently excel, but I would guess that a light with 1 red emitter to 3 or 4 whites will do as well, while retaining proper color rendering of cool colors.


Mixed LED arrays (red + white) is the most color-accurate artificaial light source I've seen yet. In certain cases however, the heavily red biased incan light may enhance contrast between certain things, like branches against green grass, similar to the idea of wearing blue-blocking sunglasses.

In reality, this appearance while it improves contrast is far from realistic, I find that incans tend to make things like grass etc. look more "dead" (ie brown) compared to their appearance under natural light.



> Oh, and CRI does refer to how closely a spectrum reproduces that of a blackbody. A cherry red toaster oven heating element has a CRI of 100 by definition but it would make a horrible light source.


Someone needs to produce an efficient >90 CRI LED with a CCT of 4000k. End of discussion.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 7, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> Oh, and CRI does refer to how closely a spectrum reproduces that of a blackbody. A cherry red toaster oven heating element has a CRI of 100 by definition but it would make a horrible light source.



So based on this, what would you say the CRI of this is?


----------



## UnknownVT (Apr 7, 2008)

The problem of color rendition is that for most of us it is kind of subjective.

We can try to illustrate it by photos - but that has limitations, 
as well as being open to misinterpretations (eg: what is "Daylight balance"?)

CRI - or Color Rendering Index - is often quoted for good color rendering - but this definitely not well understood (at least by me) -
eg: most incandescents score CRI=~100 - yet most do see them as very yellow/orange biassed and have difficulties picking out shades of blue, and seeing yellow on white lines...... 
so isn't CRI=100 "perfect"?

Color Rendering Index at Wikipedia

" _Note that the CRI by itself does not indicate what the __color temperature__ of the reference light source is, therefore it is customary to also cite the __correlated color temperature__ (CCT)._ "

" _CRI merely measures the faithfulness of any illuminant to an ideal source with the same CCT, but the ideal source itself may not render colors well if it has an extreme color temperature, due to a lack of energy at either short or long wavelengths (i.e., it may be excessively blue or red)._ "

This article from NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology - criticises CRI for use with LED or SSL (Solid State Lighting) - and offers an alternative method of measurement - I am not sure if I've understood the latter - and certainly would not be able to do any measurements myself 

Color Rendering of Light Sources (NIST)


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 7, 2008)

http://www.sylvania.com/LearnLighting/LightAndColor/LightColorCharacteristicf/

Sylvania site says CRI is useful for comparing two sources with the same CRI. 

Just like the NIST article you provided, there are limitations, but it's been around for decades and I suspect changing over is going to be tough.

After all this time, we're (including Canada and GB to some extent) still using inches, gallons and pounds, despite the technical superiority of going metric.


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 7, 2008)

Handlobraesing said:


> So based on this, what would you say the CRI of this is?


 
Looks like a triphosphor lamp with a CRI of 85 or so (I base this on the two small humps around 550 and 590 nm which might not be present in a CRI 78 triphosphor lamp).

Anyway, my point is that while CRI is based on a blackbody radiator, things which look wildly different don't necessarily have bad CRIs. It's a highly complex formula.

Better measures of light quality are gamut area and full-spectral index (definitions here). Both take CCT into account whereas CRI doesn't.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Apr 7, 2008)

UnknownVT said:


> The problem of color rendition is that for most of us it is kind of subjective.
> 
> We can try to illustrate it by photos - but that has limitations,
> as well as being open to misinterpretations (eg: what is "Daylight balance"?)


IMO the most fair way to compare is using manual white balance against a white piece of paper. Even then though, cameras can usually compensate for extreme cool or extreme warm sources better than our eyes can, as they have the option of simply taking a longer exposure. Our eyes on the other hands have to work in real time, so they can't compensate for extreme tints in low illuminance as well as a camera.

I think the biggest thing I notice about these threads is that people aren't often referring to the same thing when they talk about color rendition. One side argues their light is more accurate to daylight, another argues their produces better contrast -- the two are NOT the same, as proven by the fact that one can wear blue-blocking sunglasses in the daytime to enhance contrast (at the _expense_ of color accuracy) 



> CRI - or Color Rendering Index - is often quoted for good color rendering - but this definitely not well understood (at least by me) -
> eg: most incandescents score CRI=~100 - yet most do see them as very yellow/orange biassed and have difficulties picking out shades of blue, and seeing yellow on white lines......
> so isn't CRI=100 "perfect"?


CRI means that the light source renders 8 arbitrary test colors exactly the same as they'd appear under a blackbody radiator at the same color temperature. An incandescent lamp is essentially a blackbody radiator, so it gets CRI 100 by definition.

CRI is then determined by finding the RMS difference between the way those eight test colors are rendered, compared to blackbody. Comparisons are only valid at the same color temperature, and even then, light sources wiht the same CRI number and the same CCT can have dramatically different properies -- ie, one 80CRI light source might produce a green cast, another might produce a purple cast.

CRI is not a very useful unit.


----------



## TorchBoy (Apr 7, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> CRI is not a very useful unit.


+1  :goodjob: :twothumbs  :thanks:


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 8, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> Comparisons are only valid at the same color temperature, and even then, light sources wiht the same CRI number and the same CCT can have dramatically different properies -- ie, one 80CRI light source might produce a green cast, another might produce a purple cast.


Which explains why people often have to buy different CFLs in order to find one they can live with even if the stated CCTs are the same. I don't know if I'm unique, but if a light source must have a slight tint then I can deal with a bluish or bluish-green tint far better than a green or a purple one. Red, orange, or yellowish tints are annoying as well, but probably green and purple are the hardest to deal with.


----------



## Patriot (Apr 10, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Damn! Those incans are kicking some serious LED's butts.
> 
> Great topic! Thanks for sharing.
> 
> Cheers




That's part of my issue with these test results. Obviously they're kicking butt because of the output difference. I like to see an LED and and incan, which both give similar light box numbers, go head to head. I still think I'd like incan more but I would be helpful for comparative purposes.


----------



## RichS (Apr 10, 2008)

Patriot36 said:


> That's part of my issue with these test results. Obviously they're kicking butt because of the output difference. I like to see an LED and and incan, which both give similar light box numbers, go head to head. I still think I'd like incan more but I would be helpful for comparative purposes.


That is why I was careful to mention that you can't compare output, only color rendering with those shots. I didn't take these shots specifically for the purpose of this thread, but they were handy from shots I had previously taken, and helped to illustrate a point I was making. However, output in the bottom of the two outdoor beamshots is much closer and helps with the comparison. Regardless, I think that anyone can see the difference in what the LEDs reproduce outdoors vs. the incandescents in these shots.


----------



## L.E.D. (Apr 11, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Damn! Those incans are kicking some serious LED's butts.



Haha, not really. LED's make everything look washed out / blueish and give bad depth perception? Yeah, cool white LED's that is. On that same line of logic, incans within the same output range make everything look orange, brown, and yellow giving even worse depth perception (crapped out). LOL @ "color rendering". Warm white emitters walk ALL OVER incans including xenons ESPECIALLY in outdoor use! Notice in the outdoor shots, both the DBS and the CL1H had definite cool emitters. Even a "100 CRI" halogen lamp made everything look crapped out!


----------



## RichS (Apr 11, 2008)

L.E.D. said:


> Haha, not really. LED's make everything look washed out / blueish and give bad depth perception? Yeah, cool white LED's that is. On that same line of logic, incans within the same output range make everything look orange, brown, and yellow giving even worse depth perception (crapped out). LOL @ "color rendering". Warm white emitters walk ALL OVER incans including xenons ESPECIALLY in outdoor use! Notice in the outdoor shots, both the DBS and the CL1H had definite cool emitters. Even a "100 CRI" halogen lamp made everything look crapped out!


Both the CL1H and the DBS have Q5 WC emitters. Isn't the WC bin supposed to be the whitest of the Cree bins, not leaning to the cool or warm side? I would venture to say that 99% of current high quality LED lights out right now that aren't yet using the R2s are using or claiming to use the Q5 WC as the premium LED bulb. And I can see why, as it is an amazing and very useful emitter, but it just has very different characteristics than an incandescent.


----------



## Canuke (Apr 22, 2008)

Handlobraesing is correct when he says that you can't judge these things reliably through a camera/monitor combination -- unless it is properly color managed. 

There is a reason why color management can be such a thorny issue in my line of work (TV and film effects) -- every camera and every display has its own color quirks. On my last project which I just wrapped up on Friday, there were a number of issues that arose because we did not have a pre-specified LUT (lookup table, which is a sort of "color transform" through which all the footage is processed to ensure that everyone in the pipeline is on the same page color-wise), which ended up creating unwanted color variations from shot to shot, in things that were supposed to be the same object in each shot (CGI insects).

The kind of color rendering errors that LED's introduce versus incandescent are significantly smaller than the variations introduced from step to step in an un-managed process like the on in this thread. Whatever color rendition variations exist between the LED and the incandescent in this test will be swamped out by those introduced at every step of the way from between LCD and CRT monitors, and from camera to camera, and even your video card's default gamma settings etc.

To do this test right would involve ICC color profiling at every step of the way, from the camera used to shoot the image to the image format used to store the data, the destination video card and monitor combination, and the software used to display it there.

If you ask me, it's simpler just to skip all that and do it in person, each of us for ourselves.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Apr 22, 2008)

> Both the CL1H and the DBS have Q5 WC emitters. Isn't the WC bin supposed to be the whitest of the Cree bins, not leaning to the cool or warm side?


WC is 6500k, which is very cool. There is a differnce between white balance or tint, and color temperature. WC is considered the LED with the best white balance amongst the "cool white" family of Cree emitters. WH emitters for example are a warmer color temprature, but that is simply because they have a stronger phoshor emission, relative to the primary blue emission, so they are actually "misbalanced" toward a yellow-green tint and not a truly balanced "warmer" white. If you mix an array of "yellow-green" tinted cool white LEDs with a small amount of red LED light, you will get a warmer white. 

If you want actual warmer color temperature, you need to go to a different "family" of LEDs, either the Neutral or the Warm white LEDs, which use different phosphor compositions.



> I would venture to say that 99% of current high quality LED lights out right now that aren't yet using the R2s are using or claiming to use the Q5 WC as the premium LED bulb. And I can see why, as it is an amazing and very useful emitter, but it just has very different characteristics than an incandescent.


R2 and Q5 are both efficiency bins. It is very possible we will see warm and neutral LEDs will start to come out in R2 and Q5 bins over the next several months. There are already Q2-bin warm white LEDs at about 3200k on the market, which is the same color temperature as a typical incandescent flashlight.

Now a direct comparison between a warm LED and incan _of the same color temp_ is something I'd very much like to see. Then we would actually be looking at the difference in CRI alone.


----------



## BackBlast (Apr 22, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> If you want actual warmer color temperature, you need to go to a different "family" of LEDs, either the Neutral or the Warm white LEDs, which use different phosphor compositions.



I found myself some neutral white LEDs XREWHT-L1-5C-Q2 . I was mostly looking for a warmer tint, and happened to find some available in a nicer flux bin for the temp. Anyway, the color temp range is 3700-4000. I think I might prefer ~4500 to bring out the blues a little bit more, but this is what I could find.

I've only had them for one night so far, and I LOVE THEM!  Such beautiful light, the reds and browns look so much more appealing to me than my WC tinted NDI. (PS, anyone around here know how to do an emitter swap with the NDI??  ) The blues are a little subdued, but not nearly as subdued as the browns are with the WC. I intend this for outdoor use, I believe I'm going to be quite pleased with the results.



> Now a direct comparison between a warm LED and incan _of the same color temp_ is something I'd very much like to see. Then we would actually be looking at the difference in CRI alone.



I have an incandescent I could try. I also have a mag bulb from one of my old modded mags. I could hook it up to a power supply and adjust the voltage until it looks about the same color as my LED and take some pics. Guess I'd better figure out how my camera works... I may have enough time to do a few beamshots tonight.

It's roughly the same color as my car headlights - maybe I should use those...

Too bad it's not dark out yet :candle:


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 22, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> Looks like a triphosphor lamp with a CRI of 85 or so (I base this on the two small humps around 550 and 590 nm which might not be present in a CRI 78 triphosphor lamp).
> 
> Anyway, my point is that while CRI is based on a blackbody radiator, things which look wildly different don't necessarily have bad CRIs. It's a highly complex formula.
> 
> Better measures of light quality are gamut area and full-spectral index (definitions here). Both take CCT into account whereas CRI doesn't.




That's actually a 5000K CRI 98 Philips TL90.


----------



## BackBlast (Apr 22, 2008)

BackBlast said:


> I also have a mag bulb from one of my old modded mags. I could hook it up to a power supply and adjust the voltage until it looks about the same color as my LED and take some pics. Guess I'd better figure out how my camera works... I may have enough time to do a few beamshots tonight.




Alright, I have some low budget beamshots for ya'll....

I tried to only take pictures of the spill beam. The camera was held in my hand, and in the case of the mag bulb, one hand as the other was needed to hold the power leads from the power supply on the bulb. Camera was set to manual -> daylight. The mag bulb is from a 3D maglight. Pictures were taken in my windowless bathroom of my shower curtain.

Yes, I know the pictures are slightly out of focus :sick2:. *shrug*, they seem to be roughly equally out of focus though :shrug: At least we're more interested in the color :twothumbs


6500k LED (Nitecore Defender Infinity)





4000k LED (in a modded EOS)





3.5v maglight (800 ma if that matters).





4.5v maglight (900 ma if that matters).





5.5v maglight (950 ma if that matters).





Control picture (flash)





As I was comparing incandescent color to the 4000k LED, I would say that the 5.5v is pretty close. Ballpark same color on the wall.

NDI was set to max, I should probably try and tone it down to approximately the EOS level at least to make it more apples to apples.

Anyway, there it is! Maybe I'll do another set..

Still waiting for darkness... :candle:


----------



## BackBlast (Apr 22, 2008)

control picture moved to previous post to keep it on the same page as the others...


----------



## FsTop (Apr 23, 2008)

Re. an incan for viewing into trees at night, you are effectively darkening the greens by using light whoise spectrum is biased toward the red end.

Using a red or orange filter to darken vegetation (or sky) is an old B&W photo trick. You are seeing the color version of that.

With the incan, the greens absorb more of the predominant red/orange light than the animals, so the animals are lighter relative to the vegetation. 

With the LED, the light is has a peak in the greens, so the vegetation reflects a higher percentage of the total light, and the animals look darker relative to that. 

An orange or yellow filter over the LED would give you closer to what you see with the incan bulb.


----------

