# Not Gonna Buy Cool White Again! [Join Club Here]



## EngrPaul (May 23, 2011)

I believe we've reached a point in the market place that we can buy just about any type of LED flashlight in neutral white, warm white, and Hi-CRI. :thumbsup:

A few impressive lights are only available in Cool White, but I've decided from here on out I will wait for good tints to become available. 

I've sworn off cool white CFL's years ago, and I've enjoyed the relatively warm light of soft white CFL's around my house. Even my nite-lites are upgraded to neutral! :huh:

I don't want cold light at home, at work, and my flashlight. From here on out, only Mother Nature is allowed to illuminate my environment beyond 6000K. 

If you feel the same way, join the club by replying to this thread. :grouphug:

Perhaps you can change your signature to reflect your preference. Spread the word that you demand the best!


----------



## Double_A (May 23, 2011)

Yea I decided a while ago all my LED's need to have at least a neutral if not warm tint. Even last Christmas the white led lights I bought were labeled "warm tint".


----------



## BIGLOU (May 23, 2011)

I recently got a 4500K drop-in and love it. I got a 3000K on the way. I found these work better for me since I work at night and have better color rendition.


----------



## skyfire (May 23, 2011)

I notice you all over the MP lately EngrPaul, you switching over to the "not-so-cool-side"?

after trying out warm tints, its hard for me to go back to neutrals. i still accept neutral tints, but prefer them 4000k and under.
i didnt like any of the neutral tint XP-Gs i had, to my eyes they all look alittle green to me. it just wasnt the same as the XR-E/XP-E neutrals.

there are plenty of lights offered in neutral, but true warm LEDs are a rarity. most my lights are warm tint, and most have been modded, or are custom.

saying "bye bye" to cool tint lights also saved me a bunch of money. heheh


----------



## tre (May 23, 2011)

Of the last 10 or so lights I purchased, only 1 has been cool white. 

I am done putting up with purple, blue, and green. I only buy neutral now.

Unfortunately, that takes good companies like 4sevens and HDS out of the running when I buy a light but many other brands like EagleTac, Fenix, Zebralight, Dereelight, Xeno, Malkoff, Lamdalights etc all sell neutral white lights.


----------



## run4jc (May 23, 2011)

I think I'm with you - perhaps I've gone totally over the edge. Sold off a bunch of cool white lights this afternoon and find myself preferring incans. I realize this is the LED forum, but incans are my current obsession. High CRI LEDs and XPG R4s are very satisfying, too, as are Zebralight XPE warms....

Yep - I'm with you.


----------



## flashnight (May 23, 2011)

I agree, didn't know what all the fuss was over warm vs cool leds. But once you use the warmer versions you'll never go back, just so much easier on the eyes IMO.


----------



## psychbeat (May 23, 2011)

WERRRRD!!

I just ordered a Spark NW460 XM-L headlamp as my warm 
lights seem to offer more contrast on muddy+rooty trails.

cool white dosent show wet/muddy patches nearly as well..

not sure I can take the lumen loss of the warm lights in most
situations but the neutral seem like a good compromise.

my dual 5B tint XP-G is my fav light right now.
hope the XM-L is as good.


----------



## shane45_1911 (May 23, 2011)

I'm not only a member, I'm also the president! 

Neutral for me - or no sale.


----------



## bluecrow76 (May 23, 2011)

Neutral or warm all the way!


----------



## AnotherADDiction (May 23, 2011)

Definitely count me in...I would even go as far as saying 'high
CRI or Die!' Well, I guess that is a little too much, but I will definately strive to at least go neutral if the high CRI is not available. This has kept me from a few lights, but hopefully all manufacturers will catch on soon. 
If you have not tried going to the 'dark' (neutral/warm) side, you do not know what you are missing.


----------



## Napalm (May 23, 2011)

Don't forget to also replace your computer screen background with a nice, warm, orange tinted one...

Nap.


----------



## AnotherADDiction (May 23, 2011)

Double post


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (May 23, 2011)

Hardly any lights are sold as high CRI meaning I'm considerably less tempted to buy new lights these days.


----------



## Kalsu (May 23, 2011)

Napalm said:


> Don't forget to also replace your computer screen background with a nice, warm, orange tinted one...
> 
> Nap.


 
Thats pretty funny!! 

I find myself looking at lights these days and going "Man if it was only neutral/warm I would buy it in a second." I am finding it harder and harder to buy cool white lights. I honestly think I only own 2 cool white lights now as it is. I just got my ship notice today for my ZebraLight SC51c and cant hardly wait. I carry a 4 seven's warm turbo with an 18650 body and I love it! Bring on the neutral/warm tints!!


----------



## joco (May 23, 2011)

Does this mean that I'm a Charter Member? If so, this will be the first organization that I've ever been one.

I changed over to lights in the 4,000k to 4,500k range, and won't go back. To my eyes, they even appear brighter than a slightly higher bin cool white. Contrast is much better, and 3 dimensions rather than 2.

I'll find out about warm white when my Xeno E03 arrives, and I anticipate very good things.


----------



## joco (May 23, 2011)

BTW, Paul. 

Is it a coincidence that this epiphany seems to have occurred at about the same time that you opened the package with your new WW E03 this afternoon?


----------



## EngrPaul (May 23, 2011)

joco said:


> BTW, Paul.
> 
> Is it a coincidence that this epiphany seems to have occurred at about the same time that you opened the package with your new WW E03 this afternoon?


 
OK three things you should know: 

(1) I ordered the light before my oath, 
(2) I bought 5 of these and only one was CW, and 
(3) It will be used as ammo for proving neutral and warm is better than cool!

Plus, as somebody else noted, I've been clearing house of CW flashlights, so that has to count for something!


----------



## dirtech (May 23, 2011)

I'm in.
I'll go farther and say only high cri. Got a u2a with one and it seems as bright as my neutral jet3m. Q2 vs Q3.


----------



## Napalm (May 23, 2011)

wade11a said:


> Thats pretty funny!!
> 
> I find myself looking at lights these days and going "Man if it was only neutral/warm I would buy it in a second." I am finding it harder and harder to buy cool white lights


 
What's really funny is that my brain is strangely wired. I keep hearing that "neutrals" are best suited for outdoors and "cool" for indoors. For me it's the other way round. Maybe because somehow my eyes/brain are trained to expect cooler light outside (sunlight) and warmer inside (incandescent lighting) and they get confused/annoyed the other way round. 

Nap. :shrug:


----------



## low (May 23, 2011)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, allright allready. Neutral for me. Cool tint just does not work with Mother Nature. Besides, she knows best don't she?

Low


----------



## chicken dave (May 23, 2011)

I'm on board. I've saved hundreds of dollars since buying a Zebralight H501w about a year and a half ago. Since then, lots of interesting lights have come along, but if they're not available in warm, I'm not buying. Also, my computer screen background has been a rich, warm red for years.


----------



## mikeyx (May 23, 2011)

Me too...I've even went from neutrals to warm. What makes it tough is that new emitters are always first released in cool white...so you have to wait for the newest stuff. Sometimes, I can't (the shakes won't stop), so I have to buy cool.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (May 23, 2011)

Another fan of warmer tones here. It amazes me that I still see new LED strip lights being put into food coolers in stores and they choose cool white for the job. It makes the food packages look a little ghastly IMO. Warmer tints might not have as much output but I prefer the warmer color rendition by far.


----------



## Glock27 (May 23, 2011)

Warm and/or High CRI for me.

G27


----------



## PayBack (May 23, 2011)

Not sure it's accurate to say cool white is the best. Some (myself included) would say more lumens are the best.

I don't work for CSI so as long as I can see red is red, I want more output.


----------



## brightnorm (May 23, 2011)

Is it true that the lower the Kelvin temp the less efficient the LED?

Brightnorm


----------



## think2x (May 23, 2011)

I only have VERY FEW white lights anymore and try to only keep the neutrals/warms. Even my Quark Ti 2x123 is now sporting an XP-E from a first run Neutral Quark AA2 now.


----------



## Lite_me (May 23, 2011)

Count me in. My ZL SC51w is the perfect tint to me. It always looks right both indoors and out. I have scads of cool tinted lights and hesitate to even use them. Don't like the way they look anymore. They are now relegated to glove box, trunk, and back-up lights. If the new, must-have, fancy UI, high output, multi-featured, futuristic light doesn't come in neutrul/warm tint, I'm not interested.


----------



## kyhunter1 (May 23, 2011)

Im not in the club of never buying CW again, but I do prefer neutral tint's when possible. It all depends on the purpose I have for the light. My users must have a nice tint. Keep this in mind: you will never again buy a new Surefire. (Excluding SF P60 incans to upgrade to led). Im not ready for that proposition yet. The LX2 is really tempting me right now. A local buddy let me handle one recently, and it is definitely on the hit list now.....


----------



## Stress_Test (May 23, 2011)

I've been thinking about "joining the club" and saying no more cool whites...

My last purchases were a Quark 123 Tac /S2, mainly because I wanted one in that battery type to cover all the bases. The other purchase was shortly after Thrunite released their XM-L p60 drop in, and I got one of those because, duh, never had an XM-L before. 

The tint on the XM-L drop in is a bit yellowish, but fairly nice.

The Quark S2 was greeenish yellow. Again. I just haven't had much luck with tints on the XPG 4Sevens lights. I've got four of them with XPGs:

Preon 1 
Quark AA Tac (really green!)
Quark Mini AA (really green!)
Quark 123 Tac (greenish yellow)

The Preon 1 has a nice kind of snow white tint that I like. All the others are pretty bad. Normally don't care about tint but come on! These were too green even for me. I won't send them back though. I was thinking about picking up one of the Turbo AA S2s, but given that I've only had a 25% success rate with good tints from these lights, I just can't pull the trigger.

Waiting on more neutral and/or high cri lights from 4Sevens before buying again!

I managed to get what I think might have been the very last R4 Neutral Quark head in their inventory, beause after I placed my order, it went out of stock shorly thereafter. 

The XPG Neutral R4 is awesome! It seems brighter than the R5 cool white, probably just because the color is sooo much better.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (May 23, 2011)

If we buy a light with the intent to kindly ask for another's help in modding it from cool to neutral or warm or high-CRI, are we still allowed to join?


----------



## burntoshine (May 23, 2011)

THIS IS THE CLUB FOR ME!

i weeded out all the cools long ago.

even if i really, really want a light, i will completely pass on it if it's only available in cool white.


----------



## Napalm (May 23, 2011)

brightnorm said:


> Is it true that the lower the Kelvin temp the less efficient the LED?
> 
> Brightnorm



Apparently yes. Most "white" LEDs work like this: the LED emits blue light, and its surface is painted with phosphor that converts some of the blue light into green and red. The thicker the phosphor the warmer the LED can be, but then the bigger the losses in raw lumens are (as the conversion process is non-ideal and some power is lost into heat). The good part is that you would want warm LEDs exactly for applications where you want gentle, non-aggressive light, so the loss in efficiency doesn't matter much.

Nap.


----------



## plainsman (May 23, 2011)

This whole cool/warm controversy brings up an interesting perceptual issue. I happen to work in visual arts, and our monitors are always corrected to 6500K. Having been at this calling for quite a while, I find significantly warmer light more peculiar looking inside or outdoors. This seems to be pretty consistent with other friends working with digital photography and commercial graphics that I've queried. I wonder how much our own personal backgrounds affect our preferences for light temperatures.


----------



## nfetterly (May 23, 2011)

NO COOL WHITES for me. Neutral or warm. In the last ~9 months or so I've been very happy with the neutrals (4500K SST50 & R4 XP-G). Just received a Malkoff M61HCRI (3000k, +90 CRI) and am VERY impressed with it. I ordered a custom build 2 weeks ago with a 4 week wait. Last week I ordered (after checking with builder) a warmer LED than the 5700K neutral offered.


----------



## cm_mtb (May 23, 2011)

Only NW or warm for me, High CRI preferred. :thumbsup:


----------



## cave dave (May 23, 2011)

Sold off most of my cools, don't plan on buying more unless I plan to instantly mod it. Even got rid of the Ti quarks because I would rather have aluminum Neutral Quarks.


----------



## EngrPaul (May 23, 2011)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> If we buy a light with the intent to kindly ask for another's help in modding it from cool to neutral or warm or high-CRI, are we still allowed to join?


 
Yes! In fact, saving flashlights from a cold life gets you to a gold membership faster


----------



## low (May 23, 2011)

EngrPaul said:


> Yes! In fact, saving flashlights from a cold life gets you to a gold membership faster


 
Ha! I figured that might be the case. Save the earth, by saving one flashlight at a time.


----------



## gcbryan (May 23, 2011)

I guess I don't totally get it yet. I do understand that lights around the house are more comforting that the lights at work.

Dive lights used to be halogen. They were very warm (orange) but I couldn't see much detail. Things may have been more natural but looking at an octo at night under a log in natural light apparently means that you can't see very much.

Then I changed to HID and I saw much more detail even though it had a bluish cast to it. Later I moved to LED (MC-E) and the unit I had as compared to HID was a little more neutral and that still worked for me. So I'm starting to get it I guess.

I also have a Surefire 6P incan and although it makes the leaves look for natural at night it isn't very bright. I see a lot more with the cold white lights but I guess that's mainly just because they are so much brighter.

So, so far I guess I haven't had a neutral or warm light of equivalent output to compare directly with a cold white light. Maybe I'll be won over and join the club one day 

At the moment with most headlamps I don't have that choice (I realize you do have that choice with Zebralight).


----------



## mitro (May 23, 2011)

I'm absolutely on board. I have been for a long time. Vote with your wallet.


----------



## Z-Tab (May 24, 2011)

Hi-CRI is the only way to go.


----------



## bansuri (May 24, 2011)

Count me in!
Here's my current lineup:
L to R Zebralight H51w, MJP Extreme III with High CRI Cree XP-G, Liteflux LF2X 5C, HDS Twisty with XP-G 5B, HDS Basic 60 and new HDS 120 EDC with XM-L 4000k Neutral.






L to R: Cool Q5 PD1 as cool tint reference, and the MJP and EDC 120 from above.





Once you join it's impossible to quit.


edit: I will eventually learn to break out the "real" camera when taking these shots.


----------



## Imon (May 24, 2011)

Hmmm... 

As much as I like neutrals, warms, and high CRI lights I'm not ready to make that a deciding factor when I chose a light. The HDS Ra Clicky (non-High CRI) remains my EDC of choice and I still place quality and functionality high on the list of reasons to buy a light.
Honestly, and I don't mean to offend anyone, I think _most_ flashlight manufacturers really don't care that there are people on CPF (maybe a majority) who prefer warm or neutral tint LEDs over cool. So you're really limiting your choices when you choose to not purchase lights that don't use warm LEDs.

I'll make a rather cynical prediction here and say that there will be apostates to this new movement who will quickly capitulate and return to buying cool white lights.


----------



## Echo63 (May 24, 2011)

Im not going to say i will never buy another Cool White LED again, but i will certainly try not to.
My 2nd Neutral light arrived today (its also my 1st TI light, and First Custom, if you dont count my Moddoo Triple/Oveready 9P)

I will continue to carry my Novatac EDC120P - it has been a faithful sidekick for close to 5 years now, and it has a cool white LED (towards the warmer end of cool white though)
my other 2 EDC lights are both Neutrals, my new TI Muyshondt Aeon, and my Moddoo Triple in a Oveready 9P
i do prefer the Neutral tint (dont own any warm whites) and it seems to work pretty well in photos too (had to photograph people looking in bins the other night, their windup torch was too dim so i handed over my 9P - 1000lumens works well as a close in photo light)

I am thinking of having my old Lux5 U2 and Lumensfactory P7 M head converted to Neutral/Warm LEDs too, the P7 looks horrible and blue after using a Neutral LED or Incan light, and the U2 has been an irritating slightly green tint from day one.

my New Neutral light




and the other one


----------



## Justchill (May 24, 2011)

Most of what I own has a cool type color. I feel that the cooler colors provide a bit brighter light in a true moonless outdoor night. Is that my eyes playing tricks on me. I guess what I am asking is...Is there any real advantage to the warmer colors?


----------



## woodentsick (May 24, 2011)

plainsman said:


> ...I wonder how much our own personal backgrounds affect our preferences for light temperatures.



Hmm, this is very interesting. I grew up reading Enid Blyton books where all her characters used old-fashioned torches (obviously with incandescent bulbs) and also, my first lights as a kid were all incans. When I got my first 'real' light, I couldn't care less about the tint. However, now I find that even a neutral white light looks too much like a 'high-tech' LED. I'm not going to switch to incans, but I've already ordered a warm 3700K light, to get a simulated 'old-fashioned' torch which appeals to my childhood. I certainly agree that someone's personal background has an effect on their preference for various tints.

Woodentsick

P.S. You can definitely count me in!


----------



## pjandyho (May 24, 2011)

I love high CRI, neutral and warm but that is not going to stop me from buying cool white. If I know there is a warmer tint available later I will wait. But some manufacturers just doesn't seem to have warmer tints in mind, i.e. Surefire. I love some products but they just so refused to go the warmer route. At times I wonder why Surefire wouldn't use neutral white for their Outdoorsman series of lights but they are really great lights and I am happy that I bought them. Wanted to buy Elzetta but again they are not available in warmer tints. Would be a waste to buy a complete light only to remove the M60 in there to replace it with an M60W or M61W. Don't they sell just the host?


----------



## Colorblinded (May 24, 2011)

I'm not buying anything else unless it's neutral white (warm is nice but I find neutral is the best) and high CRI would be ideal. While some manufacturers are adopting more neutral white, I don't see that much widespread adoption of warm and especially not high CRI. I can keep hoping though.


----------



## pjandyho (May 24, 2011)

Colorblinded said:


> (warm is nice but I find neutral is the best) and high CRI would be ideal.


 
Sounds like you prefer something in the 4000K to 4500K range? Not sure if you realize that the Cree high CRI is pretty warm in the 3000K range?


----------



## don.gwapo (May 24, 2011)

EngrPaul said:


> Plus, as somebody else noted, I've been clearing house of CW flashlights, so that has to count for something!


You can send your cool white lights to me coz I'm a cool white guy. Would not venture to neutral or warm coz brighter/cooler is better to me. :devil:.



PayBack said:


> Not sure it's accurate to say cool white is the best. Some (myself included) would say more lumens are the best.
> 
> I don't work for CSI so as long as I can see red is red, I want more output.


Yep, I'm with you bro. I always want more output too. .


----------



## warmurf (May 24, 2011)

Blasphemy! Traitors!!!

But at least we now know who you all arrrrre!! :devil:


----------



## vinhnguyen54 (May 24, 2011)

don.gwapo said:


> You can send your cool white lights to me coz I'm a cool white guy. Would not venture to neutral or warm coz brighter/cooler is better to me. :devil:.
> 
> 
> Yep, I'm with you bro. I always want more output too. .


 
I love Cool White too! The brighter the better. I recognize color with cool tint even better than warm tint. I never quite understand why a yellow tint render color better....

Also you cant direct drive Neutral White LED. I am not sure why but they will color shift and die easily.


----------



## DaveyJones (May 24, 2011)

i dont even own any warm lights (yet) but im gonna have to jump on the bandwagon here.

technically ud expect white to be the color that reflects the highest range of colors,
but the cool led's arnt really white, they fail at a big chunk of the spectrum.
hard to appreciate until u see them side to side.
videos like this have convinced me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P23_gU0zy70

i dont know if im ready to say ill never buy another cool white, but imo the warms are far superior
in their capability to reflect a larger spread of the color spectrum.


----------



## ZMZ67 (May 24, 2011)

I won't rule out CW completely if I find an inexpensive light that fills a niche in my collection but I am after NW lights as well.I still lack a true warm or high CRI LED light but I am thrilled with neutrals I have that are around 4000K.If I am going to spend any significant money it will be for NW or high CRI.The "brighter is better" crowd has lost me completely,I am more interested in tint and beam quality at this point.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 24, 2011)

High CRI all the way!

I've given up in production lights, they take too long to ship with good tints. 

I'm waiting on Mac's 3300L triple triple, using high CRI emitters. Nine high CRI XP-G's, 2500 warm toasty lumens


----------



## azzid (May 24, 2011)

Warm, neutral and high cri only for me. Got a load of cool white lights which i don't use anymore, used by family members when a blackout/power outage occurs. The only non neutral light that i still use is a hds/ra 170t which imo has a almost neutral tint.


----------



## faco (May 24, 2011)

Warm - Neutral - High CRI :thumbsup:


----------



## akajimmy (May 24, 2011)

I am in. I really dislike the cool bluish tint. I tried the Quark tactical Warm and was in after that. I am celebrating joing this new club buy buying the new SC51c Zebralight.


----------



## netprince (May 24, 2011)

Neutral tints only for me. Or at least lights I can mod to a neutral LED.


----------



## calipsoii (May 24, 2011)

Haven't bought a cool white in a very long time now. Actually I haven't bought a neutral in a long time either, I'm primarily a warm white guy now. Until someone figures out how to make a neutral LED with a touch of red in it instead of sea sickness yellow/green, I'll take my nice rich 3000k emitters.


----------



## tbenedict (May 24, 2011)

I didn't think I would buy a cool white again, until the V10A finally made me bite the bullet. I will try to trade up if neutrals are eventually offered.


----------



## bodhran (May 24, 2011)

No question about it. 3 HCRI, 3 neutral, 4 warm, and 2 cool throwers which I seldom use. Used to have a number of cool lights but not no more..*s*


----------



## Colorblinded (May 24, 2011)

pjandyho said:


> Sounds like you prefer something in the 4000K to 4500K range? Not sure if you realize that the Cree high CRI is pretty warm in the 3000K range?


 Oh no, I'm fully aware and fully disappointed with that being the case


----------



## Draz (May 24, 2011)

+1 for me, join me up. I will not buy one unless its a light for a really good deal. If I had a "choice" it would also be a warm/neutral version


----------



## pjandyho (May 24, 2011)

Colorblinded said:


> Oh no, I'm fully aware and fully disappointed with that being the case


 
Hey don't worry pal. I don't really fancy warm tint and preferring neutral all the way, until I tried the Malkoff M61HCRI that uses a Cree high CRI LED with a minimum 90 CRI rating. Boy am I in love with it! Suddenly I find myself playing with the limited edition warm white Quark 123 Turbo. It is a thrower of course and makes a good companion to the Malkoff.


----------



## Chongker (May 24, 2011)

Received a light today from going gear, a Thrunite 2AA Neutron which I could have sworn I'd ordered in Neutral, but I must have confused my N's and thought that when I was buying a Neutral Neutron, it was just a regular old cool Neutron 

Contacted GG and they were great though, quick to give me an RMA and the light is going back across the atlantic tomorrow. Gonna be a looooooong wait to get my light though.

Ohh, I also got the Novatacs that were on sale, which are cool white, but those are due for a mod 

Other then that, Neutral/Warm/High CRI FTW!


----------



## TyJo (May 24, 2011)

I'll be a social member. I would like all of my purchases from here on out to be warm/neutral/high CRI, but tint/CRI is not the only thing I consider. UI, build quality, and a few other factors are more important to me, but I'm pretty happy with my collection right now and will be pursuing warm/neutrals mostly. I'm modding a TK30 to a warm MCE this weekend and I am excited to see how that turns out.


----------



## Phaserburn (May 24, 2011)

Far prefer neutrals to cool tints. As for warm, not so much; they appear almost amber to me. For truly warm tints, I still prefer incandescents.


----------



## MWClint (May 24, 2011)

Phaserburn said:


> Far prefer neutrals to cool tints. As for warm, not so much; they appear almost amber to me. For truly warm tints, I still prefer incandescents.


 
im this way too. i tend to stick with neutral leds between 4000-4500k, and as for tint at this color temp, i avoid the greens at all cost, I dont mind the blue and reddish tints.
warm leds are like underpowered incans...dont like them in a reflector, but they are great as mules.

the worst led is cool+green. makes everything look sickly ill.


----------



## PayBack (May 24, 2011)

warmurf said:


> Blasphemy! Traitors!!!
> 
> But at least we now know who you all arrrrre!! :devil:



But I'm your sock puppet. You really need to worry when you argue with yourself! 

On a slightly more serious note people. Can someone tell me what the Olight M31 runs? It doesn't say it's neutral, but it's definitely warmer than my G5... and although I hate to admit it, it does tend to let me see better at range due to not reflecting back so much on dust or whatever's in the air at the time. I don't believe it's purely down to the bigger reflector, much as I wish that were the case being a "cool" guy.


----------



## B0wz3r (May 24, 2011)

Sign me up. The only cool tint light I even have anymore is the EO1 I still have and let my daughter play with. In general, I don't even consider a light that isn't available in a neutral; there has to be something really compelling about a light for me to even consider buying a cool version of it. The one cool tint light I'm considering right now is the BC40; it would be my first cool tint light in over a year.


----------



## MichaelW (May 24, 2011)

*Always have an exit*

The only place where cool-white might be a requisite, dive lighting.
The optical transmissibility favors the blue light.
So the marginal increase of output of cool-white over neutral-white would be warranted there. I'd take any/all advantages when under water.

I like a big and open tent, so my wide range neutral is 3500K - 5000K, and my preferred range being 4000K - 4500K.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (May 24, 2011)

B0wz3r said:


> The only cool tint light I even have anymore is the EO1 I still have and let my daughter play with.



Totally forgot about that one. Yep, I keep some E01s in the stable...it is almost sacrilegious not to. They are cool, though, and I wouldn't mind them being a few kelvins warmer...


----------



## B0wz3r (May 25, 2011)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> Totally forgot about that one. Yep, I keep some E01s in the stable...it is almost sacrilegious not to. They are cool, though, and I wouldn't mind them being a few kelvins warmer...


 
Agreed. My daughter is 2 1/2 so I tell her it's "old mac donalds" light... E - 1 - E - 1 - 0...


----------



## RCantor (May 26, 2011)

Cools are definitely the worst but warm lights in the lower 3000K range make the browns of the forest floor all blend together. This makes it hard to tell what you're looking at. Neutrals don't create this problem. I just got a 4000 and 4500 K xml from nailbender and I'm going to see if there's a significant difference there. I'm not straying out of the 4000s any more. I'm paying for emitter swaps on my best cool lights.


----------



## Moka (May 26, 2011)

Hi-CRI is where it's at for me, neutral is a close 2nd... I have my Sundrop XR-U, Hi-CRI Haiku used most, followed closely by my Neutral Ti Iris =) I also have one of the Quark Warm Lights, a little too warm for me, but a nice light nonetheless.
I've got an Ra Twisty on it's way to me at the moment modded with a Nichia183, really looking forward to getting it! =)
Will always buy the Warmer whites if the options available!


----------



## EngrPaul (May 26, 2011)

Here's an article that helps describe why flashlights provide better lighting when not "daylight" (cool white) in color temperature. 

It has to do with our eye's response to light, and adjusted perception of what "white" is at lower lighting levels.

Daylight: Is it in the eye of the beholder?

_"Outdoors, ... With the higher light levels the responsitivity of the cones is dominant yet the rods to a much smaller degree are still contributing to the overall response. With this large amount of light entering the eye, 6000K appears white. _

_"Moving indoors, the pupil size grows allowing a larger proportion of light to pass. Once again, the iris is not capable of maintaining a constant level of_
_illumination on the retina. Under these reduced lighting conditions, rods with blue sensitivity come more into play and hence the 6000K light that looked white outdoors now appears bluish and 4700K appears white."_

For me, it's the level of red that's most important at lower lighting levels. Anytime someone complains thier "warm" light is too yellow, I believe they simply got an emitter with too much green in it. It could also be they are using it in the presence of brighter lighting which influences the eye's response.

Check out this link as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purkinje_effect


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 26, 2011)

As riveting as this discussion is, we need to talk membership. Should there be an "ASCII graphics" badge we could put in our signature to highlight our membership?


----------



## B0wz3r (May 26, 2011)

To my knowledge, the above mention that the rods contribute during photopic vision is incorrect. As far as I can recall, the rods are overwhelmed in normal daylight levels and essentially shut down. Once light levels become much lower, then the rods reactivate.


----------



## swrdply400mrelay (May 26, 2011)

Neutral tints for me too!


----------



## JCK (May 26, 2011)

Well, having picked up a surefire 6P incan, I've been converted. I compared it to my M61WLL dropin that I recently got, and whilst the drop in is very nice, I liked it alot - nice beam profile, construction, I just didn't like the tint. So I can't wait to pick up a M61HCRI. From now on, I'll try to find lights in the 3000K - 4000K, but I think 3500K would be the sweet spot for me.

Even so, I'm perfectly happy using the surefire p60 lamp until I get the led m61HCRI.


----------



## shao.fu.tzer (May 26, 2011)

...and for every reaction, there's an opposite and equal reaction... The "Not Gonna Buy "insert color temperature here" Again!" threads are interesting reading... but it's kinda silly to swear off one tint forever. What if Cree came out with a new LED only available in cyan, but put out 2000 lumens per 300ma and was cheaper than an XP-C? Or conversely, what if Osram came out with an orange die that produced similar numbers? I know I would be an orange/cyan junkie in no time and threads would pop up "Not Gonna Buy Cyan Again!"... After all that - I still prefer cool to cool/neutral lights. I just like raw POWER!!! Although I will admit a nice incan or high CRI light is very pleasing to the eye.

Shao


----------



## JCK (May 26, 2011)

I guess it depends on what your after/what you're using your torch for. I don't really need 2000 lumens in a handheld torch, and in my use, I'd prefer better colour rendering over sheer output.

But in saying that, eventually I'll try out one of the bigger LED torches with lots of throw and output. For that purpose, I don't really mind the tint colour.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 26, 2011)

Paul, you are definitely not alone!


----------



## Csp203 (May 26, 2011)

I am in, this is actually saving me money.


----------



## DHart (May 26, 2011)

I'm in.... neutrals and slightly warms offer the most natural and enjoyable tints in flashlights... they are what I buy now. Cold blue flashlights appear cheap & cheesy looking to my eyes.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 27, 2011)

shao.fu.tzer said:


> What if Cree came out with a new LED only available in cyan, but put out 2000 lumens per 300ma and was cheaper than an XP-C? Or conversely, what if Osram came out with a orange die that produced similar numbers? I know I would be an orange/cyan junkie in no time...


Hmmm, contrarian just because? The LED described here holds no interest for me whatsoever, primarily since I use my lights to see with and not as gimmicks. Non-cool tints are easily available with outputs good enough for 99% of us and there is no sense in my picking a particular LED for any reason other than that I find the tint to be pleasant to use.


----------



## SaturnNyne (May 27, 2011)

I've been hooked on warmer tints for about two and a half years, but I hadn't really given much thought to my buying habits until I came upon this thread. While I haven't officially sworn off cool tints entirely, I just realized that the entire list of lights I've bought since the beginning of 2009 is, I think, Malkoff M60 warm, Ra Clicky warm, NiteCore EZ123 warm, and ZL SC51 neutral. While I'm not going to commit to buy or not buy any particular tint, my actual buying decisions speak pretty clearly.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 27, 2011)

shao.fu.tzer said:


> What if Cree came out with a new LED only available in cyan, but put out 2000 lumens per 300ma and was cheaper than an XP-C? Or conversely, what if Osram came out with a orange die that produced similar numbers? I know I would be an orange/cyan junkie in no time and threads would pop up "Not Gonna Buy Cyan Again!".


 
I think the denizens of CPF deserve a little more credit than that. We're making the educated decision to leave cool white lights behind. We're not doing it just to be different or contrary.


----------



## Nos (May 27, 2011)

Love the new high CRI XP-Es.


----------



## clg0159 (May 27, 2011)

I am definitely in! I will never buy a cool white light again!

I don't know how many other colorblind folks there are like me but in my case lower CCT and higher CRI are a must! For those who aren't colorblind, allow me to explain briefly. It is not a complete inability to see color, just trouble differentiating between close shades of red/green/brown (in my case). Give me a cool white light source outdoors at night and i lose depth perception. Give me a lower CCT or high CRI source and depending on the characteristics I regain the depth perception and the ability to distinguish colors. For me the difference can be dramatic! I believe there are many others like myself, many of which may not be aware of their colorblindness. I have read statistics saying between 7-8% of the male population has some form of colorblindness. Seems like an exploitable niche in the flashlight market to me!


----------



## shao.fu.tzer (May 27, 2011)

I'm just saying... I don't know about all you warm and neutral heads (no offense meant), but I'm pretty sure if Cree came out even with a badly purple tinted light that put out 2000 lumens @ 300ma and 4000 @ 700ma, let's say, in two months - there would be a ton of people swarming all over the lights, regardless of how ugly the tint was. There are a large enough percentage of CPFers who would appreciate the raw power and efficiency. Plus, with that much light coming out the end, you could always correct the tint with some colored film on the lens....


----------



## bodhran (May 27, 2011)

I have both a Tk40 and 35. I love both of these lights and they have their uses. The thing is it's not often that I need something that bright or even with that much throw. For everyday use I want something that offers more flood and 100-200 lumens is just fine. Of course a low low is always nice. A neutral or warm tint offer better color rendition and is easier on the eyes. I don't think there's any argueing that. Cool, neutral and warm all have their place but for a edc light, neutral or warm is the only way to go in my opinion.


----------



## matt4270 (May 27, 2011)

My Fenix TK 20 has been very, very good to me, like baseball has to Garrett Morris!


----------



## ingo76 (May 27, 2011)

can only agree sense my neutral trunite 1c i have compared my light on a new level have had an eagletac tc20 mk2 for edc at work but now i have a surefire z2 ,,will be fitted with neutral or warm tint xm-l the eagletac tint on the latest dropin is way to cool blue


----------



## kaichu dento (May 27, 2011)

shao.fu.tzer said:


> I'm just saying... I don't know about all you warm and neutral heads (no offense meant), but I'm pretty sure if Cree came out even with a badly purple tinted light that put out 2000 lumens @ 300ma and 4000 @ 700ma, let's say, in two months - there would be a ton of people swarming all over the lights, regardless of how ugly the tint was. There are a large enough percentage of CPFers who would appreciate the raw power and efficiency. Plus, with that much light coming out the end, you could always correct the tint with some colored film on the lens....


I can agree that there might be a few who would be interested just for the wow factor, but most of us would probably shrug and wonder why in this age of controllable tint, they had taken the effort to make something so useless.


----------



## Blindasabat (May 28, 2011)

I have been converting to neutral for some time now. Any light is made better to me converted to neutral. I liked my direct drive K2 TV0D L1, but I like my neutral E Vf (less efficient Vf bin) more due to the tint. I liked my SF U2A, but rarely used it as I always noticed the blah tint until I got a neutral R4-5B XP-G put in it a couple of weeks ago - now it is excellent for outdoors. I see warm tints (7A and beyond) have too much a flux drop while neutrals only sacrifice a bin or two at most. There are good tint R2 XP-E (4D), and R4 XP-G. These are well worth it. If a light does not come in neutral, it better be moddable, or have some outstanding features for me to buy it. I have bought very little lately for this reason.


----------



## woodentsick (May 28, 2011)

kaichu dento said:


> I can agree that there might be a few who would be interested just for the wow factor, but most of us would probably shrug and wonder why in this age of controllable tint, they had taken the effort to make something so useless.



+1

I wouldn't buy a cyan, orange or purple tinted light no matter how many lumens it put out the front. There's no way I'd want something that unpleasant and useless, IMHO.


----------



## pjandyho (May 28, 2011)

@shao.fu.tzer,

Maybe you don't realize, but the majority of campers in the neutral and warm tint camp (high CRI included) does not really care about maximum lumens. We care more about color rendition, depth perception, contrast, and ease of use on the eyes. I recall there was once I was walking around the jungle with my cool white Surefire LX2, and the moment I switched it over to the high CRI HDS clicky I could feel a relieve to my eyes instantly. It is so soothing. During those times of using the cool white LX2 on the walk, I did not realize that my eyes are being strained until I switched over to the HDS. Moreover, I have always hated cyan tint on my light. If I know the 2000 or 4000 lumen light is cyan tinted, I won't even think about it.


----------



## choombak (May 28, 2011)

Given 99% of applications don't require an accurate color rendition, I use the LED that gets my job done best. Whether its cool, neutral, or warm, or any other color in the visible and invisible spectrum. I am not joining any similar club, but you folks carry on, and enjoy your lights. As long as lights trigger the pleasure nerve centers, all is well. ;-)


----------



## kaichu dento (May 28, 2011)

choombak said:


> Given 99% of applications don't require an accurate color rendition, I use the LED that gets my job done best. Whether its cool, neutral, or warm, or any other color in the visible and invisible spectrum. I am not joining any similar club, but you folks carry on, and enjoy your lights. As long as lights trigger the pleasure nerve centers, all is well. ;-)


We can probably all agree with you on this point - I can still enjoy my cool tinted Titan and V10R, but simply prefer the warmer tinted lights for both depth perception and the pleasant tint. 

My dream emitter/light will probably never exist, but would actually be moonlight cool on the lowest settings, and incandescent warm on high, slowly graduating between the two throughout the mid-range. That said, for me, anything with much throw must be warm or neutral, and cooler lights need to be floody. While I'm at it, I'd like to lay to rest the myth that goes warm, high CRI or neutral = outside; cool = indoors. At medium and high levels, warm and neutral all the way.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 28, 2011)

pjandyho said:


> Maybe you don't realize, but the majority of campers in the neutral and warm tint camp (high CRI included) does not really care about maximum lumens.


 
Oh, I still care about maximum lumens, I'm just no longer willing to sacrifice tint to achieve them!


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 28, 2011)

kaichu dento said:


> While I'm at it, I'd like to lay to rest the myth that goes warm, high CRI or neutral = outside; cool = indoors. At medium and high levels, warm and neutral all the way.


 
I used to believe that cool tints were better for inspecting equipment and machinery. That was until I started EDCing a High CRI light. I'm not going back!


----------



## RedLED (May 28, 2011)

Don't forget to gel your camera flash with 1/4 Orange CTO. For shots of people mostly, for products you could make them look funny, depending... This dates way, way back to the stone age of film. Then, around 1999, the Nikon D1 came out, and made digital less expensive. You could correct/add in post, (I hate the "Workflow"term) in a D3 series, you can cc right in the camera, not all cameras do this. I would never do CC in the camera...just FYI

Even now, I still gel the flash sometimes... 

Engineer, this will assist you in keeping you in your warm period, artistically speaking, but I know you already know this.

OH...I forgot, you can gel your flashlights to get some very nice "white" (if you can call them that), tints. I started doing this with the first Gen. L1 to filter out that purpleish tint, and it worked great. 

If you guy's go to the camera store, (or is there only B&H left) the color correction gel samples are FREE! Plus diffusion gels, and silk gels are in there, too. You can even make a red light!!!

Good luck, 

Best wishes,

NR


----------



## pjandyho (May 28, 2011)

mvyrmnd said:


> Oh, I still care about maximum lumens, I'm just no longer willing to sacrifice tint to achieve them!


 
Don't get me wrong. I do care about lumen too, but I have a more realistic expectation when it comes to non-cool emitters. The day that any high CRI could even achieve 200 lumen without being overdriven would be the day I pop the champaign. If I needed any brighter light that throws I would be very happy to use my Surefire M3LT. And even though it is rated at only 400 lumen, it felt much brighter than that due to the TIR lens.

What I am saying in my previous post is that those who love warmer tints know what they are going for and lumen output does not always trump in their decision making. In my case, lumen number is secondary when I am looking at warmer tints.


----------



## Echo63 (May 28, 2011)

RedLed said:


> Don't forget to gel your camera flash with 1/4 Orange CTO. For shots of people mostly, for products you could make them look funny, depending... This dates way, way back to the stone age of film. Then, around 1999, the Nikon D1 came out, and made digital less expensive. You could correct/add in post, (I hate the "Workflow"term) in a D3 series, you can cc right in the camera, not all cameras do this. I would never do CC in the camera...just FYI
> 
> Even now, I still gel the flash sometimes...
> 
> ...


 
Some of us still use gels for effect rather than CC.
A 1/2 CTO with a daylight WB and no diffuser on the flash mimics late afternoon sun wonderfully.

Of course I use the full CTO, And Plusgreens to colour correct when I have too.

Never thought of using gels on my flashlights though, I have a Rosco swatch book around here somewhere.


----------



## edc3 (May 28, 2011)

I won't go so far as to say that I'll never buy cool white again, but I've developed a definite preference for neutral white. I haven't tried any warm white yet.

BTW, EngrPaul I bought a Bluetooth headset based on your Amazon review. It had better be good. :wave:


----------



## oldways (May 28, 2011)

I will *NEVER* buy a cool or neutral!!!!


----------



## Derek Dean (May 28, 2011)

I know this has been mentioned before on CPF, but some of the folks replying to this thread might be interested in this, so I'll mention it again.

It may seem low tech, and I'm sure there might be good reasons not to go this route, BUT..... I've had excellent success using *colored filters* to alter the color of my LED lights to EXACTLY the tint I like.

It's simple, inexpensive, and gives total control to us picky flashaholics over the color of our LED lights.... AND... it's totally reversible. 

I just finished "modding" my NovaTac 120P. It took me 10 minutes.

What am I talking about? The infamous *Lee Filters Swatch Book*! This was originally made for motion picture and TV lighting technicians to help them pick the correct filters for their lights. 

You can purchase one for $2, which includes shipping. You get a filter sampler that is 2 1/2" thick, filled with thin plastic colored filters, each about 1 1/2" x 3", so they are perfect for small AAA, AA or CR123 lights. Here is a link:
http://www.shop.leefiltersusa.com/Designer-Swatch-Book-SWB.htm

It has every color under the rainbow, each in many slightly different gradations from very intensely colored to only lightly colored. The ones I tend to use the most are the very lightly colored filters with just a hint of color, but the intense ones are fun to play with if you're a photographer (see my CPF photo where I used the deep purple filter over a flashlight :naughty.

My 120P had a nice white LED, but slightly cool, and after getting my new Revo SS neutral tint LED I became a bit less satisfied with the 120P's tint, so last night I went through the filters and found the one that gave me the color I liked, snipped out a square and then cut it to the size of the UCL glass cover. Now the filter is sitting just inside UCL cover. It looks kind of rosey with the light off, but when I turn on the light I now get beautiful white light on all levels. Neat.

My Revo SS neutral had just a hint of green, so I cut a small circle of magenta filter and used a removable glue stick to put the filter on the front of the glass cover. Now the tints is perfect. I went from having an almost perfect light to having a perfect light.

There is negligible light loss, but it makes a big difference in the quality of the light. 

So, for $2 you can play to your hearts content with the color of your light. Best $2 I ever spent. 

Have fun !


----------



## RedLED (May 28, 2011)

Dude,

I just stated the exact same thing above:shakehead...And, the sample Gels are *free* if you go to a decent camera store. I have never paid for the samples. Also check _Rosco_ gels as well.


----------



## RedLED (May 28, 2011)

Echo63,

Well, in LA everyone has a tan, so we only need the 1/4 Orange CTO!.

The main reason I Don't do this is most all of my work goes to an art director, or production/graphic/artist/designer, and they want to do all the color correction...And for hard news, I would not take any risk, even though cc is ok.

When we shot chromes I used it more.


----------



## Derek Dean (May 28, 2011)

RedLed said:


> Dude,
> 
> I just stated the exact same thing above:shakehead...And, the sample Gels are *free* if you go to a decent camera store. I have never paid for the samples. Also check _Rosco_ gels as well.


 The Lee Filter Swatch pack used to be free (I didn't pay for mine either), but I think after the last time we talked about this they got swamped with requests and started charging just to cover their shipping costs.

In any case, there might be a few local camera stores around the world that don't carry free sample packs, and $2 is a pretty fair deal to have these nice filters shipped directly to your door.


----------



## StandardBattery (May 29, 2011)

Derek Dean said:


> .... There is negligible light loss, but it makes a big difference in the quality of the light. ..... Have fun !


 
I'm not familar with Lee filters, never used gels before, but don't most filters drop the transmission by at least a stop?


----------



## pjandyho (May 29, 2011)

StandardBattery said:


> I'm not familar with Lee filters, never used gels before, but don't most filters drop the transmission by at least a stop?


 
How much is lost depends on the intensity of the filter but generally you only loose about 1/3 to 1/2 stop.


----------



## EngrPaul (May 29, 2011)

Whatever. Still not gonna buy cool white.


----------



## 2100 (May 29, 2011)

Guys, just some info.... in the HID world including high powered metal halides, higher K does not mean low (or much lower) CRI. I mean 6000K, of course lets not talk about the really high K HQIs used in aquarium. It may vary a bit but that's about it. Like your CFLs.


----------



## RGB_LED (May 29, 2011)

I have to say that I now prefer neutral- to warm-tints vs. cool white. 

I used to subscribe to the school of thought that, 'the more lumens, the better!', that is, until the one day when I went mountain-biking at night with a cool white head lamp. It was my second night-time ride and I was stoked to head out with my new head lamp ready to see how much terrain was lit up. I turned that puppy on full and... was immediately disappointed. All detail on the trail and surrounding path was washed out! Now, I know that a head lamp, being pretty much at eye level means that you don't get very much separation so I tried to make up for this by mounting a backup light to my handlebars so the light was at a lower level that would then provide a bit more more contrast but I couldn't get over how flat everything looked and, despite the extra handlebar mounted light, I still found myself staring at the trail trying to make out the detail.

After that, I started looking for lights with neutral to warm emitters and I have been heading that way ever since. I had my HDS U60 modded with a neutral emitter and my main light for night-time rides is a neutral as well. My last 3 of 4 lights are either neutral or warm - the one exception being my SWM V10Ti. But, I'm holding out for the day when I can get that modded with a neutral to warm emitter. For now, I'm looking at picking up either a M61W or M61HCRI to replace my current M60. 

So, where do I sign up to become a member? :grouphug:


----------



## Brasso (May 29, 2011)

Personally, I think the guys who like cool tints need to have their heads examined. But, to each their own. The warms give so much better depth perception and contrast. Loving my M61hcri's.


----------



## bodhran (May 30, 2011)

I now carry the M61hcri on my belt and a Mini CR2 warm in my watch pocket. The color rendition and tint of both serve me well on duty as a Paramedic and relaxing in the outdoors. I've reached this point through a lot of trial and error, not because I've always been a fan of warm tints. Like Brasso and others have said...I'm loving my M61hcri.


----------



## mvyrmnd (May 30, 2011)

I think the 90-CRI XP-G is going to be the catalyst for a lot of people switching to warm / high CRI . Especially for the new guys, it's a little less esoteric than the other options out there, and can be easily swapped into existing lights to allow them to experiment. 

I hope it's the first in a long line of high CRI option from Cree.


----------



## csshih (May 30, 2011)

I like this thread 
can't say I'm never going to buy CW again, I have to cater to the other folks too! 

Craig


----------



## pjandyho (May 30, 2011)

Thanks Craig for making the M61HCRI happen. I love mine very much and thanks for providing me excellent customer service!


----------



## 2xTrinity (May 30, 2011)

> I'm just saying... I don't know about all you warm and neutral heads (no offense meant), but I'm pretty sure if Cree came out even with a badly purple tinted light that put out 2000 lumens @ 300ma and 4000 @ 700ma, let's say, in two months - there would be a ton of people swarming all over the lights, regardless of how ugly the tint was. There are a large enough percentage of CPFers who would appreciate the raw power and efficiency. Plus, with that much light coming out the end, you could always correct the tint with some colored film on the lens....​




I'll take this one. A light emitting ~2000 lumens/watt (as stated in a prior post) would interest me greatly. By definition, 2000 lumens of cyan light is about 5W of radiation around 500nm, or 500% efficiency... Convert some of that back to electricity with some photovoltaics, feed it back into some more cool LEDs to get some more free energy... and I'll have enough excess FREE energy to drive thousands of neutral white LEDs :naughty: 

As it stands, with blue emitter + phosphor technology, we're nearing theoretical limits of lumens/watt with some of the emitters coming out in the labs. Most of the waste heat is in the phosphor now. Some of this is unavoidabe (converting from a blue to a red photon by a fluorescent process requires that the difference in energy between a blue photon and a red photon by dissipated), some is excess loss due to imperfections in the fiber. To the extent these excess losses have been a problem, cool white has been more efficient -- a thinner phosphor layer means less losses, even though our eyes are less sensitive to spectrum that is very blue-dominated. As phosphors improves though, we should actually see the neutral white at ~4500K be MORE efficient than the ghastly purple cool emietters, because more neutral means proportionally more green output (which our eyes are most sensitive to) Cree's 200+lm/watt prototype is at 4500K for this reason. 

At that point, choosing to go more warm than that will drop the lumens/watt, for two reasons: 1) our eyes are less sensitive to red. 2) converting blue photons to red photons is inherently very lossy. The same is true of making a higher-CRI by increasing the amount of deep red light emitted. 

In my lights, peak efficiency isn't really a key. I like to have a flashlight with the following modes: 1) As bright as possible for "bursts", 2) a medium mode that runs as bright as can be sustained for ~2 hours on a given battery. 3) a dim mode that produces just a few lumens for use up close. Efficiency is moot as at such low output, I don't care if a flashlight runs for 1 continuous week or 2 weeks on a charge... 

With an incandescent lamp for example, dimming a light to 0.1% of its peak output will render it utterly useless, as color temp drops as incans are dimmed. 

Given that the total number of lumens and runtime I'm getting on my lighths are just fine, trading off ~20% efficiency to get neutral is not a big deal. Especially since modern neutral white lights destroy the cool white lights from ~4 years ago in every category. As efficiency improves even more, there will be even LESS reason to opt for cool whites IMO. And the physics really make it impossible for cool whites, or any kind of white, to have 10X more efficiency than what we already have, as per your example.

Now, one possibility I can conceive of is that cool white lights will offer significantly better throw/surface brightness or lumens/emitter-die-area. In most of my lights I want somtehing moderatly floody so this isn't a big deal for me, but for some it may be. To the extent the limiting factor to LEDs is waste heat in the phosphor layer, cool white LEDs will be able to be able to tolerate much more light going through a small phosphor. This is already the reason why cool white lights are rated at 1A but warms are only rated at 750mA even though they're based on the same blue LED -- more waste heat in the phosphor with warm emitters. For things like household bulbs, where diffuse light is desired, it's possible to have a very large "remote" phosphor to spread the heat around. But this kills throw. 

However, it's not clear that taking a cool white "throwy" LED, and reducing its color temperature using a filter would ever by more efficient than than simply using a neutral emitter, and running it at reduced output, as limited by phosphor heating. 
​


----------



## uplite (Jun 1, 2011)

I'm mostly in the club, with a few exceptions.

All of my general purpose lights (mostly Zebralights) are 5A neutral tint XPE's. I found that the neutral tint makes a HUGE difference in perceiving depth and detail, especially for up-close illumination with a headlamp. I still have a couple of old Petzl Tikka/Zipka headlamps lying around, but haven't used them at all since buying the H501w's.

My Intova divelights are cool-white XRE's. Partly because Intova doesn't sell neutral tint lights, and partly because bluish tints travel the farthest underwater for signalling. Red is the first wavelength you lose in water. It would be nice to have a warm tint on the flood light though...to bring the red back for reef wildlife viewing/photography.

I also have a few dozen "fauxton" 5mm LED, 2x2016 lights from batteryjunction that are cool white. But I really can't complain about the tint since they only cost 99 cents. These let us keep a flashlight in every glovebox, jacket, toolbox, backpack, and trailpack we own...plus extras to hand out to friends.

Last but not least, I just bought an Eagletac M3C4 with XML-T6, cool white 6000K, 750 lumens OTF. You just can't get those wicked-powerful XMLs in neutral white yet. BUT I discovered that the M3C4 bezel thread is compatible with standard 58mm photography filters. So, ordered a Tiffen 85C filter to bring the tint down from 6000K to around 4000K. AWESOME.

Color me neutral.

-Jeff


----------



## Helmut.G (Jun 1, 2011)

uplite said:


> Last but not least, I just bought an Eagletac M3C4 with XML-T6, cool white 6000K, 750 lumens OTF. You just can't get those wicked-powerful XMLs in neutral white yet. BUT I discovered that the M3C4 bezel thread is compatible with standard 58mm photography filters. So, ordered a Tiffen 85C filter to bring the tint down from 6000K to around 4000K. AWESOME.


I'm gonna check that on my (already neutral white) M2 this evening! Thank you for the info.


----------



## morelightnow (Jun 1, 2011)

my last cool white was a lux3 quad. After that I got into incandescent lights for their sheer output. Now it's high cri or neutral to tide me over if necessary. My favorite is the seoul p4. I'm just waiting on the replacement of that in the HDS. 

Honestly, I'm not sure if I will like the warm xp-g or not. I really like the color of the seoul p4 and it seems a lot of people on this forum agree. The 4k neutral xp-g I got is too yellow for me compared to the old A2 from cree. I'm afraid the high cri xp-g may end up the same way, or perhaps too brown.


----------



## pjandyho (Jun 1, 2011)

I was worried I may not like the high CRI XP-G too since I am quite used to the HDS high CRI but I decided to give it a try and get the Malkoff high CRI M61. I am happy that I did. It is warm no doubt but it is definitely a very pleasing tint. In fact I love it so much I just can't have enough of it.


----------



## Z-Tab (Jun 1, 2011)

I think the M61HCRI really shows it's strengths outside in the woods. When you're inside hunting white walls, it is a touch warmer than an incan with the floody beam pattern of an XP-G, though it absolutely doesn't have the sickly yellow look that some warm emitters have. Once you get it outside, it functions the way that a flashlight ought to -- it just lights up what you're looking at. It doesn't change the color of it, it doesn't wash it out... it just lets you see what you're looking at, the way it is.

I also just received a Malkoff Hound Dog XM-L with a Warm XM-L in it (same as the one in the M91W)... Mindblowingly perfect thrower.


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Jun 1, 2011)

My very first HDS high CRI got me over cool white. Its funny, i found an old PM that i sent to nailbender when I first got here.. It went something like this: " i want the whites, most throwiest, most lumens ya got"

Everything I have bought recently is neither cool white nor throwy... Nor am I so "lumen oriented" (Except for the SF KT2 I just ordered) Lately Ive even been getting out of LEDs as my interest in this hobby progresses, I am looking at incans a LOT and absolutely love the warm glow of 3500K. I really appreciate the superior color rendition and warm comfortable feeling produced by neutral to warm lights. Nailbenders XP-G High CRI 3000k is getting a lot of use. I even sold my last beloved M60.


----------



## B0wz3r (Jun 1, 2011)

Brasso said:


> Personally, I think the guys who like cool tints need to have their heads examined.


----------



## Captain Spaulding (Jun 1, 2011)

> Personally, I think the guys who like cool tints need to have their heads examined.





B0wz3r said:


>


 
I agree! 

Cold and clinical like a hospital  VS warm and comfortable like a romantic restaurant :kiss:. Easy decision.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jun 1, 2011)

uplite said:


> .................. BUT I discovered that the M3C4 bezel thread is compatible with standard 58mm photography filters. So, ordered a Tiffen 85C filter to bring the tint down from 6000K to around 4000K. AWESOME.
> ....


 
*Oh that is Cool *(but warm)*. *I have an earlier big EagleTac, but now with the Fenix TK-35 I was not looking at EagleTac anymore. That is a very nice feature though that could come in handy in a few senarios. Hmmm.


----------



## hoongern (Jun 1, 2011)

Brasso said:


> Personally, I think the guys who like cool tints need to have their heads examined.



To be honest, I feel this is a bit too far of a statement. I can completely understand it when people prefer warm/neutral. Warms/Neutrals are awesome! This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with cool white (as a tint) or the people who like them. 

After all, there are cool whites which are *very *good (imo) - i.e. 5600/5800K McGizmo Sundrop and daylight from the Sun (5500-6000K)! (I don't think anyone denies that higher CRI = better)

For the record, my collection is more warm/neutral than cool - if I average the CCT of all my flashlights, the result is 4750K


----------



## Helmut.G (Jun 3, 2011)

uplite said:


> Last but not least, I just bought an Eagletac M3C4 with XML-T6, cool white 6000K, 750 lumens OTF. You just can't get those wicked-powerful XMLs in neutral white yet. BUT I discovered that the M3C4 bezel thread is compatible with standard 58mm photography filters. So, ordered a Tiffen 85C filter to bring the tint down from 6000K to around 4000K. AWESOME.


I checked and it works on the M2 as well, thank you for the info again


----------



## DHart (Jun 3, 2011)

uplite said:


> You just can't get those wicked-powerful XMLs in neutral white yet.
> Color me neutral.
> -Jeff


 
Jeff... one currently available neutral tint XM-L light is the Thrunight Neutron 1A (runs on a single 14500, AA lithium, AA NiMH, AA alkaline). I got mine from goinggear. It's essentially a Quark AA clone with a neutral XM-L emitter - very nice and bright pocket light with a wonderfully useful general purpose beam and a clean, neutral tint. Highly recommended.


----------



## twl (Jun 3, 2011)

I specifically avoid all warm tints, but I can tolerate some cooler neutrals.
All my lights are cool white tint, but mostly leaning toward neutral(on the cooler side).
I don't want a "blue" light, but I detest the horrid yellows and browns that pass as "warm".
I couldn't wait to get rid of my incandescants. I want white light, not yellow.
If a light is only offered in warm, I won't buy it.


----------



## uplite (Jun 4, 2011)

Helmut.G said:


> I checked and it works on the M2 as well, thank you for the info again


You're welcome. 

FYI, an 85C filter will kill about 1/3 stop of the light (~25% of lumens). Works for me. If you want it even warmer, you could use an 85 or 85B filter (and lose maybe 2/3 stop or 33% of the lumens).

Another nice thing about photo filters is that they're threaded on both sides, so you can still attach the Eagletac bezel or diffuser. :thumbsup:




DHart said:


> Jeff... one currently available neutral tint XM-L light is the Thrunight Neutron 1A


Thanks. Actually, the Thrunite Catapult was the other light I considered against the M3C4, and it just got a neutral option as well.

The Thrunite product descriptions say these lights use a T6 flux bin. That sounded strange to me, because neutral-white emitters are typically a few flux bins lower than the cool-whites.

So I looked at Cree's XM-L datasheets. Hmmm. They define "neutral" as 3700k-5000k, and they make 5000k emitters (with 3A-3D tints) in the T6 flux bin.

Personally I think 5000K is still cool, and neutral is more like 4000K. But even then, you only have to drop down to T4 bin to get a 4000K XM-L (with 5A-5D tints). Nice. I'm really liking these XM-L emitters. Now they just need to make a big quad-die RGBA. 

Anyway I already have a "neutralizable" big thrower in the M3C4, so my next light will probably be the more-floody, neutral-tint Zebralight SC600w in a few months. Zebralight has a great track record of delivering excellent neutral tints.

-Jeff


----------



## DHart (Jun 4, 2011)

uplite said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> The Thrunite product descriptions say these lights use a T6 flux bin. That sounded strange to me, because neutral-white emitters are typically a few flux bins lower than the cool-whites.
> 
> ...


 
Jeff... could it be that the regular cool white Thrunight XM-L is the T6 and the neutral tint XM-L models have a T4 flux bin?

I agree that 5000+ is cool. To me about 3700 to 4000 is fairly neutral.


----------



## csshih (Jun 5, 2011)

uplite said:


> So I looked at Cree's XM-L datasheets. Hmmm. They define "neutral" as 3700k-5000k, and they make 5000k emitters (with 3A-3D tints) in the T6 flux bin.


 
Indeed they do. :devil:

Craig


----------



## Ediblestarfish (Jun 5, 2011)

This one is simple.

I'm grilling outside and it gets dark. I grab a cool white light and try to see how things are cooking, but can't tell because the color is not conducive to showing a nice browning, no matter how bright it may be (all the food has a sickly greyish color).

Neutral white and warmer lets me see things properly and get the job done.

No cool white lights for me from now on if I can help it.


----------



## chenko (Jun 5, 2011)

Let me join the club too!  I'm going to mod my only cool white flashlight to neutral white, but I absolutely love warm tints too! I'm having warm and floody XM-L xeno E03 soon, can't wait to feed those a 14500 and have a piece of sun in my hand! Cool tints are just un-natural and disappointing, and the dimmer the light the uglier they get! My personal choice for "neutral" neutral white is 4300k.


----------



## candle lamp (Jun 5, 2011)

I like neutral white(4000K).   :kiss:


----------



## Moka (Jun 5, 2011)

My Hi-CRI Ra Twisty arrived today, Magnificent light, amazing colour rendition and with the lovely warm tint it's light that I just enjoy using...!


----------



## pnwoutdoors (Jun 5, 2011)

EngrPaul said:


> Not Gonna Buy Cool White Again!



What few cool white lights and LED modules that I had acquired have mostly been sold off, leaving me with warm/neutral varieties as the bulk of my small collection: Malkoff M61W, VanIsleDSM Quad XP-G R3, a relatively soft Quark 123 Tactical R5. My preference is definitely for softer, warmer output in the 3500-4000K range, 5B-6B tint. If HCRI 3000-3500K LED's were capable of resulting in 130-150+ L/W, then that would be all I'd have. I'm hoping we'll double or triple the output in the next 5-10yrs, while solving the problem of "warmth" leading to low output.

Oh, for a 2000 max lumen (OTF) SF 6P sized flashlight in the HCRI 3500K 6B range that lasted 10hrs on a single 18650 charge.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jun 5, 2011)

uplite said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> FYI, an 85C filter will kill about 1/3 stop of the light (~25% of lumens). Works for me. If you want it even warmer, you could use an 85 or 85B filter (and lose maybe 2/3 stop or 33% of the lumens).


actually I like the tint as it is (as I mentioned the light has got neutral LEDs already), but some cheap color filters could be nice 




> Another nice thing about photo filters is that they're threaded on both sides, so you can still attach the Eagletac bezel or diffuser. :thumbsup:


or you could attach the bezel ring to your lens:







or the flashlight to the camera:






wanna sell your light on ebay for a good price? claim it's compatible to canon, it even has a red ring, must be L series


----------



## Fallingwater (Jun 5, 2011)

I'll go against the flow and say that I've always liked cool white. It's one of the basic reasons why I got hooked to LED flashlights in the beginning - I really hated the yellowish light of incandescents (that and efficiency).
I still like cool white more, and the fact that warm white makes you lose a small amount of efficiency goes against my mentality as an efficiency junkie, so I have no plans to switch.

But then, I'm a hardcore night owl, so it's not surprising that I like moon-like bluish light more than sun-like yellow. 

Edit: whoops... I hadn't noticed the opposite thread... sorry!


----------



## morelightnow (Jun 5, 2011)

pjandyho said:


> I was worried I may not like the high CRI XP-G too since I am quite used to the HDS high CRI but I decided to give it a try and get the Malkoff high CRI M61. I am happy that I did. It is warm no doubt but it is definitely a very pleasing tint. In fact I love it so much I just can't have enough of it.


 

That's good news coming from you. If I remember correctly you posted many pictures in the HDS thread comparing your high cri to a cooler HDS light, and it highlighted the superiority of that led well.

I actually keep a stock magglite around to show people how far leds have gone. The other night I compared a modified light that has the high cri p4 in it to the magglite. I makes the P4 look cool and it makes me want an even warmer color. 

Personally, the less light in my eyes the better. Not only do wamer tints and high cri work better on colors for me, they also seem to reflect a lot less light and are easier to look at.


----------



## uplite (Jun 5, 2011)

DHart said:


> Jeff... could it be that the regular cool white Thrunight XM-L is the T6 and the neutral tint XM-L models have a T4 flux bin?


This seems likely. The product descriptions say "T6", but they also say that the lumens will be lower than normal. Probably they just forgot to update the flux bin in the description for the neutral-white products.



Helmut.G said:


> actually I like the tint as it is (as I mentioned the light has got neutral LEDs already), but some cheap color filters could be nice


Helmut, I love your pictures and the red-ring L-series idea. LOL. 

fwiw here is a picture of my cool-white M3C4-XML with an 85C filter stacked behind the bezel. This makes the tint very similar to my 5A-tint Zebralights:






Also fyi...EagleTac sells a pack of very nice red, green, blue, and amber filters, as an option for the M3C4, at the very low price of $20. Hard to beat that price. The green, blue, and amber filters are all glass dichroic filters. The red one seems to be red plastic. Also there's the neutral glass diffuser that shipped with the light.

Here is a picture of all the filters from Eagletac:






-Jeff


----------



## ToNIX (Jun 5, 2011)

I've always been using cool, untill 1 year ago when I got my first neutral.

I have the M61W (neutral one) and I have yet to try the M61HCri... if I decide to buy one. I'm afraid it'll be too warm for my tastes. 

One thing that's sure, never again I'll go cool.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jun 6, 2011)

I just made an interesting choice. I bought some XM-L T6's at the cool end of the neutral band (4900-5000K) for upgrading some XR-E lights. I think they are a good compromise for flux vs. tint. 

I was thinking of my ability to re-sell some of the lights I upgrade. It seems by the comments people don't want to go too deep toward warm if it sacrifices output.

So no, I didn't fall off the bandwagon. But I did consider some of the comments I've been reading.

The main reason for going XM-L is that most of the XR-E lights I have throw a spot and don't have enough spill.


----------



## pertinax (Jun 10, 2011)

I won't promise to never buy a cool white again, but I'll never buy one for any important use. They're crap. Green tint (4Sevens S2)? Reminds me of 2005...

I'll go a step further though-- I'll never buy another light that requires 123 batteries. AA or 18650 for small; D's for large. Nothing else. And with a strong preference for AAs over 18650.

Pertinax


----------



## ryguy24000 (Jun 11, 2011)

I like warm colors, but I'll remain neutral in this matter!


----------



## kyhunter1 (Jun 27, 2011)

Even though I prefer neutral tints, tonight I was in a situation where a cool tint was better. It got dark while we were putting up vynl siding on my out-building and needed to get a few more peices up to finish the side we were working on. I went and got my instant daylight maker. It is a extended 2x18500 6p host with a Malkoff M91 inside. The huge flood beam and extra lumens offered by the cool tint was nice to have in a situation where color rendering was not important. The beam lit up the whole side of the building and was plenty bright for us to get the job done. Most of my purchases these days are in neutral/warm tints, but I do keep some really "cool" lights around.


----------



## Flying Turtle (Jun 27, 2011)

I'll not likely be buying anything cooler than neutral again. Sure glad our options are increasing. I'd really like to find a warm 1AAA.

Geoff


----------



## Ti²C (Jun 28, 2011)

Due to the lack of choice of tints I only buy edc lights that are easy to swap to neutral (5a/c) or warm.. Nitecores and quarks are great for that !


----------



## KenAnderson (Jun 28, 2011)

Have to admit I've been switching to 4500k for each of my new lights. Have 3 so far and am planning on upgrading my cool keepers to warm or neutral. Color rendition is so much better. Just a matter of time before the public catches on as well.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 28, 2011)

I've been trying a 90+ CRI xpg as my EDC for the last few days. The warmth is nice. Looks just like an incandescent. But I feel like I can actually see stuff better with cool and neutral white. I think the 90 CRI is just too warm for my tastes. I prefer neutral tint, but cool white as long as it's not too cold works well.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm having the emitter in my Ti Quark AA upgraded to the 90 CRI XP-G. I can't wait! I'm pretty sure it'll be a while before anything replaces it as my EDC after that.


----------



## hoongern (Jun 28, 2011)

Fireclaw18 said:


> I've been trying a 90+ CRI xpg as my EDC for the last few days. The warmth is nice. Looks just like an incandescent. But I feel like I can actually see stuff better with cool and neutral white. I think the *90 CRI is just too warm* for my tastes. I prefer neutral tint, but cool white as long as it's not too cold works well.


 
Just for accuracy, CRI* has nothing to do with tint - you can have a 90 CRI cool or warm emitter, just as you can have a 40CRI cool or warm emitter. 

*As used by LED manufacturers (I.e. Cree, Nichia, Luminus, Seoul, etc.)


----------



## B0wz3r (Jun 28, 2011)

hoongern said:


> Just for accuracy, CRI has nothing to do with tint - you can have a 90 CRI cool or warm emitter, just as you can have a 40CRI cool or warm emitter.


 
Can we PLEASE not get into that again?


----------



## hoongern (Jun 28, 2011)

B0wz3r said:


> Can we PLEASE not get into that again?


 
PM'ed you. Perhaps we could keep that (our discussion/argument) out of this thread as it's not exactly relevant?

EDIT: Also, what I meant to do when correcting that was to make sure that people didn't go and buy a "90 CRI" emitter thinking it automatically meant a warm tint.


----------



## edc3 (Jun 28, 2011)

Flying Turtle said:


> ...I'd really like to find a warm 1AAA.
> 
> Geoff


 
+1


----------



## flashy bazook (Jun 30, 2011)

Well, it's nice to remind people of the CRI vs warm issue.

I have a very excellent quality high CRI light, and it puts out a less "warm" (ie, yellow) light than a neutral "W" LED, also of an excellent manufacture.

If you go to the nichia website, you can download a brochure of their various LEDs and you can see a chart there mapping the sunlight measured on two axes (and helpfully colored appopriately) against their LEDs. Then you can have an accurate idea of what you really like and, at least for nichia products, what you would be getting exactly.

On the topic as initiated by the OP, I don't think we have to get one or the other, we can have multiple choices. It is true I have gotten a few more "warm" or "high CRI" lights recently, exactly because good ones have started coming out.

Let's remember that until quite recently, the sacrifice in terms of lumens/efficiency (so, runtime) was quite significant when avoiding the "cool" (most efficient) LEDs. Now finally the lumen/runtime numbers are becoming acceptable.

So, for a Malkoff M31 vs. M31W, you give up just 20 lumens to get a significantly warmer tint. If you can live with the runtime of this product, and you prefer warmer tints, there is indeed no reason not to get it!


----------



## Schuey2002 (Jun 30, 2011)

The updated Streamlight Stylus Pro that I have inbound comes with a cool white beam stock. 

So there is nothing that I can do about it, not unless I want to crack it open and swap out its emitter...


----------



## CheepSteal (Jul 8, 2011)

Count me in. After discovering warmer and neutral tints, I don't want to go back to cool white, especially because it's winter here in Aus. The warmer lights just give me a nicer feeling... 
I wish I knew how to modify my previous lights, I would SO put some warm/HCRI XPG's in them. Never cool white again!  (unless there's no choice  )


----------



## Phaserburn (Jul 8, 2011)

edc3 said:


> +1


 
Eagletac makes a neutral single AAA.


----------



## edc3 (Jul 8, 2011)

Phaserburn said:


> Eagletac makes a neutral single AAA.


 
Thanks. That looks like it might be something. What's really got me interested is a Peak Eiger with a neutral emitter and the QTC.


----------



## B0wz3r (Jul 9, 2011)

CheepSteal said:


> (unless there's no choice  )


 
If there's no choice, I don't buy. As per my sig, I don't really buy cool tint lights. I'm a big ZL fan too, and I am passing on the new SC600 until they do a neutral version. 

Right now there are only two cool tint lights I'm even considering: the jetbeam BA40 and PA40; the BA because of it's excellent value, and PA because it would be a great light for BOB stock.


----------



## kramer5150 (Jul 9, 2011)

Long answer:
I definitely prefer neutral tints around 5000k, but not enough to completely bail out on the pale whites.

Warm tints that copy incan don't appeal to me enough to bail out on the pales. I personally don't think incan color is the ideal color to model after. Its the CRI that should be replicated, not the tint. The ideal color should be natural mid-day sunlight, which to me appears around 5000k, and is considerably more pale than incans or any of the warm products I have seen. There are some exceptions though, some warm MCE designs are really nice paired with the ledil boom... but these are typically custom builds and $$$.

The other thing to keep in mind too is that the emitter companies always release pale whites first, warmer tints always follow months later. And (often times) by the time warm tints are readily available to the volume manufacturers the pale whites have jumped up a flux BIN or two. So if you are a collector, you are always going to be collecting something $$$ (custom/boutique where the builder can get the warm tints before the volume manufacturers), or dim and not as bright as a pale white.

Short answer:
I'm keeping my options open


----------



## DHart (Jul 9, 2011)

kramer5150 said:


> The other thing to keep in mind too is that the emitter companies always release pale whites first, warmer tints always follow months later. And (often times) by the time warm tints are readily available to the volume manufacturers the pale whites have jumped up a flux BIN or two. So if you are a collector, you are always going to be collecting something $$$ (custom/boutique where the builder can get the warm tints before the volume manufacturers), or dim and not as bright as a pale white.


 
Yep - cool tints come first, dang it! 

Many of us here have far more lights than we can really use, but we like having them for their various unique attributes. As such, we are flashaholics and prone to keep buying more lights even though we don't need them. When a new light or a great new emitter comes out, it is so tempting to buy one even though the neutral editions won't be available for a period of time. Finally, I've been able to wait on adding a new light until the neutral edition comes out and then, I don't care if the flux bin has edged up a notch... it's the tint and CRI that really matter - after all, most of todays best lights have virtually all the output we really need anyway.

The exception for me is with the TK35, which just so blows me away with it's capabilities, size, and features that I had to have one even with the slightly greenish tinge (which I only see on a white wall - never outdoors). If and when the TK35 becomes available with a neutral XM-L, I will be sure to get one. But I would not have wanted to be without a TK35 for the interim period, because it's that great of a light.

As a Quark fan, I've been turned away from them for a while as 4Sevens doesn't seem motivated to provide neutral tints on them. I would have bought several neutral tint XM-L Quarks if they were available, but instead I bought Thrunight 1A neutral XM-L and I'm absolutely thrilled with the light.

As a Zebralight fan myself, mine are all neutral tint and I'm waiting for the SC600 to come out with a neutral tint as well.


----------



## bodhran (Jul 9, 2011)

Very well put DHart. Though I prefer a neutral or warm light, I love my Tk35 also. I was a Quark fan but haven't had any desire to purchase their products since the last neutral, warm offering. Since they've gone big time it seems that they've forgotten or ignore their loyal customers who were there in the beginning. Sad....


----------



## Chrisdm (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm in. I just did a mass selloff of all my cool whites.


----------



## luceat lux vestra (Jul 9, 2011)

I don't own any warm/neutral lights,my XP-G R5 is all I need.
Why are you people so happy about giving up led efficiency?
Maybe I missed something.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 9, 2011)

I have some posts in this thread already but have not stated so until now: count me in.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 9, 2011)

luceat lux vestra said:


> I don't own any warm/neutral lights,my XP-G R5 is all I need.
> Why are you people so happy about giving up led efficiency?
> Maybe I missed something.


I like the neutral color more. It renders red and green colors much better compared to a cool white LED, while blue colors loose dominance. I perceive this behaviour as an advantage most of the time. I also like a lower color temperature, but not too low.
It's down to personal preference, some people have tried neutral tints and stated they don't like it.

For me some 10 to 15% less lumens don't matter, and I'm happy to trade them for a more pleasant color.


----------



## bodhran (Jul 9, 2011)

Nothing wrong with perfering cool white, but it seems that many who don't like the neutral and warms state that they don't own any neutral or warm lights. Most all who prefer neutral or warm state that they have or have had numerous cool whites. For a long time I only bought cool and the brighter the better. It wasn't until out of curiousity I purchased my first neutral and then warm, and actually gave them a chance, that I realized how much better they are. I have a Tk35 and 40 because there are times when you need a lot of light but most of the time 100 lumens or less is plenty. We live in a world of color and even at night, I like to see those colors, maybe not perfect but close enough.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 9, 2011)

I bought my first neutral white after comparing the impressive outdoor beamshots. I never missed those additional 100 lumens or whatever the cool white version was rated at.


----------



## kyhunter1 (Jul 9, 2011)

Something else to think about is that neutral tints are easier on the eyes. Cool tints seem to strain my eyes more with extended use especially with brighter lights. To me, less glare and eye strain is more important than just color rendering alone. 4500K is just about right. Im not into extremely warm or high CRI tints.


----------



## Swedpat (Jul 9, 2011)

I don't consider the tint to be the most important. But yes; if the option of a warm white LED is available I always choose it. Because of the development of LED-technology it's nowadays possible to get warm tint with only slightly lower output. A warm tint is more natural and comfortable for the eyes(and provides better color rendition in the wilderness). Therefore I guess that warm LEDs in a near future will be the capital option of LED-lights.


----------



## dirtech (Jul 9, 2011)

I wish I could get a neutral or high cri peak Logan with QTC.


----------



## sleep creeper (Jul 18, 2011)

count me in i hate cooler leds now, I bought a ultrastinger few months ago and since then have sold all my leds except my strion led which is my light i keep for everyone around the house to use...i want to get into the warm led scene now but not to warm just to be compared to that "Xenon" look...can you guys recommend anything warm led light?


----------



## pjandyho (Jul 18, 2011)

sleep creeper said:


> can you guys recommend anything warm led light?


 
My personal favorite right now is the Malkoff M61HCRI drop-in available exclusively at Illumination Supply. I used it in a Malkoff MD2 host and it has been great! Was over in an island northeast of Singapore over the weekend and went Durian (a local tropical fruit) searching with a villager there. Lent him my Malkoff as his LED is a little too cool. At the end of the search he commented that the warmer tint really helps a lot in the search. Those durians on the ground that he missed on the first run was immediately picked up by the Malkoff on his second run with me.


----------



## sleep creeper (Jul 18, 2011)

Yeah exactly i hate when led lights wash out everything i live in el paso texas we have some mountains and and mainly desert here...we went off roadig in my car the other day at night just for fun and my US was just making everything pop in color especially some sneaky rattlesnakes in some bushes...do you know any flashlights that are similar in size of the Ultrastinger that have a warm led?


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 18, 2011)

sleep creeper said:


> Yeah exactly i hate when led lights wash out everything i live in el paso texas we have some mountains and and mainly desert here...we went off roadig in my car the other day at night just for fun and my US was just making everything pop in color especially some sneaky rattlesnakes in some bushes...do you know any flashlights that are similar in size of the Ultrastinger that have a warm led?


 the thrunite catapult would be about 2 inches shorter (when you use the extension tube, without it much shorter) and isn't available with warm but with a neutral led.
check out selfbuilt's review:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?311102


----------



## Napalm (Jul 18, 2011)

Swedpat said:


> ...and provides better color rendition in the wilderness...


 
Is this a subjective or objective assessment?

If objective, may we have some details on the method that was used?

Nap.


----------



## B0wz3r (Jul 18, 2011)

Napalm said:


> Is this a subjective or objective assessment?
> 
> If objective, may we have some details on the method that was used?
> 
> Nap.


 
I had an involved fencing match with Hoongern over this a week or two ago.

Strictly speaking, CRI is independent of color temperature. However, when you take into account the range of wavelengths that we are most sensitive to and what we see as brightest, there is a perceptual, if not physical, relationship between CRI and color temp. I don't want to go into digging up references or going into a long explanation here, but for our visual systems, we see color temps of about 3,500 - 4,500 K as providing the best color rendition.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 18, 2011)

B0wz3r said:


> I had an involved fencing match with Hoongern over this a week or two ago.


 
I'll spare you from having one with me, there's only one thing I would like to mention. One of the most color-accuracy sensitive industry - the glossy printed magazines one - has traditionally used 5000K (or even more) as the reference light source for judging color rendition:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lightboxes-Light-Tables/ci/1558/N/4233500245

I've always noticed how in these magazines the bikini(-less) models don't have any green or purple or yellow tint to their skin or teeth or white of the eyes.

So maybe they know something about it?

nap.


----------



## pjandyho (Jul 18, 2011)

I don't understand why we are always going into this topic again and again about whether 5000k is the correct tint or not for color accuracy. You guys seem to miss the point that light emitted by an LED does not consist of the full color spectrum and therefore could not reproduce colors accurately as what pure white light made up of the RGB spectrum could do. What you get may be white 5000k but it is a white formed of blue and phosphor yellow and thus lacked the red spectrum, period. Why don't you guys try comparing a 5000k full spectrum RGB light source against a 5000k LED light before making any comments? I am very sure you would see a difference in terms of color reproduction.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 18, 2011)

pjandyho said:


> I don't understand why we are always going into this topic again and again about whether 5000k is the correct tint or not for color accuracy. You guys seem to miss the point that light emitted by an LED does not consist of the full color spectrum and therefore could not reproduce colors accurately as what pure white light made up of the RGB spectrum could do. What you get may be white 5000k but it is a white formed of blue and phosphor yellow and thus lacked the red spectrum, period. Why don't you guys try comparing a 5000k full spectrum RGB light source against a 5000k LED light before making any comments? I am very sure you would see a difference in terms of color reproduction.



I don't understand why you don't understand that 5000K refers to the "Correlated Color Temperature" CCT and not the real temperature of the light tables I've linked to, of which some use fluorescent lights that have a discrete spectrum too.

Nap.


----------



## Satanta (Jul 18, 2011)

Napalm said:


> I'll spare you from having one with me, there's only one thing I would like to mention. One of the most color-accuracy sensitive industry - the glossy printed magazines one - has traditionally used 5000K (or even more) as the reference light source for judging color rendition:
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Lightboxes-Light-Tables/ci/1558/N/4233500245
> 
> ...



Sure we do. The right lighting for photoshoots is not neccesarilly the right lighting for 'eyeball' use. Trust me-few models have perfectly white _anything_ and it takes some work-at times a lot at others notsomuch to get the eyes teeth and skin tones proper and that may include retouching the '-less' areas to remove blemishes, darken or lighten certain things and so forth. I can take a model with stretch marks so wide one can insert a nickle edgewise into them and not touch the sides, ye;;owed teeth and a bug-eye that is bloodshot and make her look pristine. BTDT except the bug-eyed tho I have had to remove bloodshot 'partied too much before the shoot' eyes. 

Now that said I'm still trying to figure out what to buy for my first 'real' EDC light. Really thinking the 
*EagleTac P20A2 MKII 300 Lumens Cree XP-G R5*


then someone mentions getting the HO, ok...fine and now another thread debating the 'color temps'. I'm ready to just use gasoline and my Zippo to set fire to the area and go wit that. 

*
*


----------



## Napalm (Jul 18, 2011)

Satanta said:


> Now that said I'm still trying to figure out what to buy for my first 'real' EDC light. Really thinking the
> *EagleTac P20A2 MKII 300 Lumens Cree XP-G R5*


 
I have both the XP-G S2 and XM-L HO. The XPG looks "whiter" (with the XML being a tad "angry blue") - see shots side by side in the "New toys!" thread I started some time ago. Of course this is because of bins not the Led model, guess Eagletac sourced the XMLs from a worse bin. Otherwise the beam profile of the XML is much nicer.

Get both! (lol)

Nap.


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jul 18, 2011)

i don't know much about the technical side of accurate color reproduction, but just based on personal experience with LED lights, i'd say that neutral or warm LED's don't necessarily produce more accurate colors than cool white, they just produce warmer colors. 

warmer tints seem to enhance contrast and depth perception the same way my yellow tinted sunglasses do. and greens and browns stand out better, which is helpful in the outdoors. 

but i wouldn't bet my life that any of my LED's, whether it's my 6500K cool whites or 4700K neutrals or 3500K warms, could reproduce white accurately.


----------



## B0wz3r (Jul 18, 2011)

What? Do I have to send you guys to your rooms or something? 

I'm not going to go into it again, but I will just say that because of the properties of the cone receptors, there are certain wavelengths we see better than others, and those wavelengths do correspond to certain color temperatures. It's just a fact of neurophysiology.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 19, 2011)

robostudent5000 said:


> i don't know much about the technical side of accurate color reproduction, but just based on personal experience with LED lights, i'd say that neutral or warm LED's don't necessarily produce more accurate colors than cool white, they just produce warmer colors.
> 
> warmer tints seem to enhance contrast and depth perception the same way my yellow tinted sunglasses do. and greens and browns stand out better, which is helpful in the outdoors.


I agree with you. I believe that neutral LEDs reproduce colors more accurately for me because blue colors are not dominant where I use my lights (Outdoors AND Indoors).
Another aspect is that I simply like lower CCT light at night.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 19, 2011)

B0wz3r said:


> What? Do I have to send you guys to your rooms or something?
> 
> I'm not going to go into it again, but I will just say that because of the properties of the cone receptors, there are certain wavelengths we see better than others, and those wavelengths do correspond to certain color temperatures. It's just a fact of neurophysiology.


But two light sources with the same CCT can have entirely different spectra, don't they? How does that fit into your explanation?


----------



## Vee3 (Jul 19, 2011)

clg0159 said:


> I am definitely in! I will never buy a cool white light again!
> 
> I don't know how many other colorblind folks there are like me but in my case lower CCT and higher CRI are a must! For those who aren't colorblind, allow me to explain briefly. It is not a complete inability to see color, just trouble differentiating between close shades of red/green/brown (in my case). Give me a cool white light source outdoors at night and i lose depth perception. Give me a lower CCT or high CRI source and depending on the characteristics I regain the depth perception and the ability to distinguish colors. For me the difference can be dramatic! I believe there are many others like myself, many of which may not be aware of their colorblindness. I have read statistics saying between 7-8% of the male population has some form of colorblindness. Seems like an exploitable niche in the flashlight market to me!



I'm severely colorblind; in with the worst ~20% they tell me. Can't tell the difference in paint jobs on cars at night other than to say that this one's a lighter shade of grey than that one.

Neutral LEDs don't really help me distinguish colors much better than cool, but what I do see with a neutral is much more definition, depth and clarity. Cool pretty much gives me a picture I can only imagine is what 'normal' people might see when using a light on a winter night where everything is covered with frost.


----------



## robostudent5000 (Jul 19, 2011)

Helmut.G said:


> I agree with you. I believe that neutral LEDs reproduce colors more accurately for me...



maybe it's a language thing, but i specifically said that i DO NOT think that neutral or warm leds necessarily reproduce colors more accurately.

i don't care if they do or they don't. i just care that they enhance contrast and depth perception.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 19, 2011)

robostudent5000 said:


> maybe it's a language thing, but i specifically said that i DO NOT think that neutral or warm leds necessarily reproduce colors more accurately.
> 
> i don't care if they do or they don't. i just care that they enhance contrast and depth perception.


Sorry I expressed myself poorly. I also don't believe neutral white LEDs reproduce *all* colors more accurately. But they have a bigger rate of red light and less blue light coming out of them, and that's what makes the difference. That's the point where I agree with you.

But while I don't believe they reproduce *all* possible colors more accurately, I sure believe that they reproduce *some* colors more accurately compared to cool white LEDs. And these colors are actually what is all around me. There is hardly any blue stuff, but lots and lots of brownish (indoors) and green (outdoors) all around me.


----------



## Napalm (Jul 19, 2011)

Helmut.G said:


> .. lots and lots of brownish ... all around me.


 
We don't want to know the details.

Nap.


----------



## Helmut.G (Jul 19, 2011)

Napalm said:


> We don't want to know the details.
> 
> Nap.


You are scared by wooden furniture and khaki carpets?


----------



## Napalm (Jul 19, 2011)

Helmut.G said:


> khaki carpets?


 
Still don't want to know...

BTW what happened to good old concrete, stainless steel and glass that goes so well with cool blue?

Nap.


----------



## B0wz3r (Jul 19, 2011)

Helmut.G said:


> But two light sources with the same CCT can have entirely different spectra, don't they? How does that fit into your explanation?


 
Am using my phone right now, so a proper explanation is hard to do. I'll post later tonight about this.

EDIT/Follow-up:

Yes, two lights can have different spectra and have the same CCT. This is a phenomenon known as metamerization. A metamer is when you perceive two colors as being the same, but they are made up of different wavelength constituents. 

The reason for this is because of the distribution of cone percentages in the retina, and how each different type (R, G, and B), is differentially sensitive to different wavelengths of light. About 60% of all cones are R, about 30% are G, and the remaining 10% or so are B. 

The brain interprets brightness based on the amount of signal it receives from the receptors. So, a red light and a blue light of equal objective intensity will not be perceived as equally bright. The red light will appear brighter because we have more R cones and thus a stronger signal is being sent to the brain.

Further, all three cone types are differentially sensitive. In other words, R cones will respond to green light, but only weakly (relatively few action potentials generated to send to the brain. In comparison, G cones respond very strongly to green light, but conversely, relatively weakly to red light.

Because of this there are certain combinations of wavelengths we see better (brighter) than others. Assuming a full spectrum light source like the sun (which generates tremendous amounts of energy across the entire EM spectrum, but whose major output falls within the range from very long IR to very short UV) we see colors best about 5,000K.

In an impoverished light source like an LED flashlight (impoverished means it puts out light in only a few narrow areas of the visible spectrum), the constituent wavelengths have to be adjusted to make the peak sensitivities of the cones in order to facilitate accurate color rendition. Because of this, the CCT of a light may be different from that of sunlight, but still produce a high CRI value.

Of course, CRI is independent of CCT, but once you consider the constraints of the range of wavelengths the visual system can receive and is most sensitive to, it necessarily limits the CCT of any high CRI light. In short, that light must put out wavelengths that are close to the sensitivity peaks of the three different types of receptors to achieve a high CRI effect. So physically, there is no relationship between CCT and CRI, but perceptually there is a very strong correlation because of the functioning of the neurophysiology of the visual system.


----------



## SeanHatfield (Aug 2, 2011)

I admit i didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned...
I think a better title would be "not gonna USE cool white again".
There is so much more to a flashlight than just its tint. What if your favourite interface is not available in neutral/warm/high-cri?
I would still buy it, and try to swap the emitter for a better tint.
That's the club i'm in. 

As soon as my Quark Tactical Neutral R4 arrived, i was hooked on that tint, and really hated the greenish Quark S2 that i had before.
Now that i neutralized the S2 with an XM-L, i can use the light again.


----------



## B0wz3r (Aug 2, 2011)

For me, it's "buy". If it's not available in neutral, I won't buy it, no matter what.


----------



## Jash (Aug 2, 2011)

Don't like warm, can handle neutral or cool white, it doesn't bother me. So long as there's no harsh blue or purple I'm happy, but warm, yuk.


----------



## batvette (Aug 9, 2011)

Haha, funny thread, wonder if the OP is my neighbor gettin' blinded by the 6500k "daylight" floodlamp I put up by my front door. All you people just go ahead and box up your "ugly" 6000k+ torches, CFL's, fluorescent tubes and your cute sister if you got one and send 'em all to me. I've just gotten rid of the last WW CFL in my house, reminds me of living rooms with old traditional furniture, natty brown couches, cheesy wood panelling. 
Earth tones. 
Really the only offensive color in an LED is that yellowish green pukey color. 
It's no secret that our eyes view colored light as relative to other sources of light. Lights may look just fine until you put them up to another light.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Aug 11, 2011)

The other night I was on a nighttime geocaching run, and found myself on a mountain-biking trail in the middle of nowhere...

I doscovered a very useful 'feature' of a warm tinted light: I navigated back to my car by finding the reflectors that had been nailed to trees to mark out the trail. These were white reflectors. With a warm tinted beam, the while reflectors stood out (excuse the local slang) like dogs balls. With a cool tint, the white reflectors would have been far less obvious.

Plus hunting for camo'ed geocaches is easier when you can tell the difference between it and it's hiding spot (Yay for High CRI!)


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Aug 13, 2011)

matt4270 said:


> My Fenix TK 20 has been very, very good to me, like baseball has to Garrett Morris!


For years I remained a hotwire, complete with the signature line, "LEDs impress; incans satisfy." Then the Fenix TK20 (4200K) served my introduction to LEDs. Its high CRI spoiled me. Unfortunately, I often set my sights on a warm or neutral-tint offering only after it's become nearly impossible to find--for example, the Nitecore EZ-AA Warm. Thankfully, I picked up a couple Malkoff M30WFs and a ShiningBeam Romisen RC29-II in 5C tint during their respective run. And just this week I nabbed a Peak Eiger 1xAAA with the exact configuration I had despaired of finding: a warm Rebel, wide beam, level 8 of 8.

I could "warm" to neutrals if I knew they were of a color temperature below 4500K. Too many 5000K emitters are billed as neutral.


----------



## B0wz3r (Aug 14, 2011)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> I could "warm" to neutrals if I knew they were of a color temperature below 4500K. Too many 5000K emitters are billed as neutral.


 
Check out the Zebralights; their lights are usually no more than 4,500K and they are VERY consistent in their tints across different lights. I have been very satisfied with the ZL's I have, and all are very close to one another in their tints.

The EZAAw was my very first neutral/warm tinted light, and I was in love with it for a very long time. In fact, it was my main EDC/keychain light for nearly an entire year when I got my SC50w+ which displaced it. I gave the EZAAw to my son with a spring-clip on it, and it's now the zipper-pull on his school backpack, and still going strong despite the punishment that an 11 y.o. dishes out... 

I wish they still made the same light with the same UI with a newer neutral emitter. I'd buy half a dozen in a second, keep one for myself, and gift the others to my brothers in law and father in law.


----------



## TyJo (Aug 14, 2011)

Armytek Predator has the high CRI XPG as an option (I think it's 3000K), I like the light a lot. HDS is supposed to come out with a high CRI any day now.... I'm guessing it will be the XPG high CRI but IIRC nothing official has been released.


----------



## GaAslamp (Aug 15, 2011)

Fallingwater said:


> I'll go against the flow and say that I've always liked cool white.



I prefer the appearance of cool white (as long as it's around 5000K-6500K and not bluish or greenish) itself over neutral and warm, but I do not like how typical cool white LEDs render colors, especially outside in natural surroundings. Their CCT might be more "accurate" in the appearance of white if we regard natural sunlight as the ideal source, but their spectral power distributions are way off. Generally speaking, the spectra of typical neutral white LEDs results in significantly better rendering of color, even though white looks a bit yellowish. In my opinion, this is more than a fair trade-off because it results not only in more accurate colors, but also better contrast and less glare.



Fallingwater said:


> I'm a hardcore night owl, so it's not surprising that I like moon-like bluish light more than sun-like yellow.



It depends on where they are in the sky when you look at them. I suspect the reason so many people consider the Sun yellowish in general is that they only ever look straight at it, inadvertently, when it is low in the sky, with most of the blue component of its light scattered widely (Rayleigh scattering). At sunset the effect is even more pronounced, making the Sun appear reddish. However, if you looked at the Sun at noon, it would appear much whiter (about 5000K or so), and out in space, above the atmosphere, it looks even whiter still (about 5800K, which happens to be its surface temperature in kelvins).

The same goes for the Moon, which really just reflects the Sun's light off its fairly neutral gray surface, of course.



hoongern said:


> Just for accuracy, CRI* has nothing to do with tint - you can have a 90 CRI cool or warm emitter, just as you can have a 40CRI cool or warm emitter.



I understand what you're saying and you have a point, but at the same time any given CRI value doesn't mean the same thing at different CCTs, so they're not entirely independent in every single way. What I mean is that at each CCT, an LED is being compared to a different standard--a black body radiator at the same CCT--rather than a single standard that we individually would consider accurate. This implies that you cannot compare the CRIs of two LEDs of different CCTs and determine that one is more accurate at rendering colors on that basis alone. For example, an LED with a CCT of 3000K and a CRI of 90 is not necessarily better at rendering colors than another LED with a CCT of 4000K and a CRI of 85 because they're being compared against two different things--the former a 3000K black body radiator and the latter a 4000K black body radiator, neither of which, by the way, renders colors the same way that natural sunlight (the ultimate standard in the view of many) does.

Having said that, even when we are comparing "apples to apples" CRI is still a pretty weak method of evaluation, as we might expect from the fact that it results in a single number, when what really matters is looking at the actual spectra of the LEDs in question, and comparing and contrasting them.



B0wz3r said:


> Strictly speaking, CRI is independent of color temperature. However, when you take into account the range of wavelengths that we are most sensitive to and what we see as brightest, there is a perceptual, if not physical, relationship between CRI and color temp. I don't want to go into digging up references or going into a long explanation here, but for our visual systems, we see color temps of about 3,500 - 4,500 K as providing the best color rendition.



I think the latter happens to currently be the case where LEDs of the same type--in this case blue with a broadband yellow phosphor blend--that share some of the same basic spectral flaws (e.g. weak red and cyan ranges) are concerned. That said, ideally the color temperature would be 5000K-6500K with far better balanced spectra (with no gaps).



pjandyho said:


> I don't understand why we are always going into this topic again and again about whether 5000k is the correct tint or not for color accuracy. You guys seem to miss the point that light emitted by an LED does not consist of the full color spectrum and therefore could not reproduce colors accurately as what pure white light made up of the RGB spectrum could do.



What do you mean by "RGB spectrum?" That's just three colors. If you mean sunlight, then it has a full spectrum (imperfect but close enough), not whatever "RGB" could possibly mean. How our eyes actually see colors, how we capture it on video, and reproduce it on displays is a different matter, but the important thing for light sources is that they cover as much of the real visible spectrum as possible because there is also the matter of how objects reflect things. If we only took RGB (red, green, and blue) into account, then we'd be missing some colors as they are reflected by objects, regardless of how we see them afterward.

In any case, typical phosphor-based white LEDs we use today produce a fairly full, continuous spectrum. While a couple ranges of wavelengths are lacking in most, they're usually not entirely absent. These LEDs are certainly superior to LEDs that consist of red, green, and blue dies that together emit "RGB" light in narrow spikes--those "RGB" LEDs have really bad color rendering because so much of the visible spectrum is missing. They work fine for displays (like in stadiums) because they simulate the original colors by taking advantage of metamerism, but objects do not reflect color in this way, so light sources should have more complete spectra, which can subsequently be captured by the broad spectral sensitivities of the red, green, and blue cones in our eyes.



pjandyho said:


> What you get may be white 5000k but it is a white formed of blue and phosphor yellow and thus lacked the red spectrum, period.



The basic phosphor used (cerium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet) is broader than you might be thinking. It covers most of the spectrum between cyan and red, although by itself it is weak at those endpoints. More of it could be used and other phosphors could be added (at the cost of efficiency) to make up for this, however. This has the side effect of using up more of the blue light, which is why current white LEDs pretty much have to be lower in color temperature in order to have better color rendering, even though that's not ideal. As new phosphors and techniques are developed, this may change in the future, however.



pjandyho said:


> Why don't you guys try comparing a 5000k full spectrum RGB light source against a 5000k LED light before making any comments? I am very sure you would see a difference in terms of color reproduction.



I think you mean "incandescent" rather than "RGB" because the latter makes no sense (at least to me). The creatures of this planet evolved primarily under incandescent light from the Sun, which is why it is considered ideal by most folks.



B0wz3r said:


> In an impoverished light source like an LED flashlight (impoverished means it puts out light in only a few narrow areas of the visible spectrum),



Is it that bad? The spectral power distribution graphs I've seen of common white LEDs exhibit some serious flaws, but it's better than just a few narrow areas, I think. The latter better describes mercury lamps and even fluorescent lamps, but LEDs seem to have smoother, more continuous spectra.



B0wz3r said:


> the constituent wavelengths have to be adjusted to make the peak sensitivities of the cones in order to facilitate accurate color rendition.



I think that objects don't care about how we see, and need a full spectrum from light sources to have their colors rendered accurately. For example, a pigment that reflects a narrow spectral band in the cyan range is not going to show up real well if the light source only accounts for blue and green (which are on either side of this range). We can see the cyan wavelengths because our blue and green receptors have somewhat broad ranges, but we can't see what isn't there, and it's not going to be there unless it is emitted by the light source, right? Like I said earlier, perception is one thing (as well as reproducing on a display) but reflecting colors from a light source is another.



B0wz3r said:


> Because of this, the CCT of a light may be different from that of sunlight, but still produce a high CRI value.



That's right, but what I've been saying is that a light source that has a higher CRI value doesn't necessarily produce better color rendering than another light source that has a lower CRI value, especially if the first one is of a lower CCT (an "apples to oranges" comparison).



B0wz3r said:


> Of course, CRI is independent of CCT,



In most respects, yes, but like I said earlier a different CCT implies a different standard against which a light source is evaluated. But even when we assume the CCTs of two LEDs being compared is the same, CRI is still a pretty weak method of evaluation. In short, CRI doesn't tell us a whole lot, really.



B0wz3r said:


> but once you consider the constraints of the range of wavelengths the visual system can receive and is most sensitive to, it necessarily limits the CCT of any high CRI light. In short, that light must put out wavelengths that are close to the sensitivity peaks of the three different types of receptors to achieve a high CRI effect. So physically, there is no relationship between CCT and CRI, but perceptually there is a very strong correlation because of the functioning of the neurophysiology of the visual system.



If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think you're right, and the implication is that accurate color rendering requires a sufficiently high CCT (regardless of CRI). We cannot, after all, let our blue receptors starve for input--they are there for a reason, and that would be the Sun, which has a high CCT and puts out lots of blue light (and even some shorter wavelengths, of course). What good is a high CRI if the CCT is so low that everything looks too red and not blue enough? If that's what some people prefer, then more power to them, but my standard is sunlight. And right now, for various reasons I touched on earlier, neutral white LEDs, whatever their CRIs, produce the most accurate colors overall, even though their CCTs are a bit low. Hopefully this will change in the future, and we can, as an option, use cool white LEDs that render colors accurately and without that nasty glare we currently get when using them in natural environments.

As if I haven't rambled enough already :shakehead, I'd like to illustrate what I've been saying to make it more clear and concrete (what we're talking about is so abstract I'm starting to confuse myself! :duh2: ). I'll try to come up with visual aids (e.g. spectral power distribution graphs) to show what I mean regarding CCT, CRI, and accurate color rendering, and post them tomorrow with explanations.


----------



## B0wz3r (Aug 15, 2011)

GaAslamp said:


> If I'm understanding you correctly, then I think you're right, and the implication is that accurate color rendering requires a sufficiently high CCT (regardless of CRI).



Not necessarily a "high" CCT; rather one that is the product of the wavelengths that the cone receptors are maximally sensitive to. There is a perceptual phenomenon called metamerization where we can see two lights of different constituent wavelengths as being exactly the same color. This is because the ratios of the wavelengths in each light produce similar ratios of activation in the three types of cone receptors, regardless of the intensity or actual wavelengths in the light. The result is we perceive both lights as having the same color. 



GaAslamp said:


> We cannot, after all, let our blue receptors starve for input--they are there for a reason, and that would be the Sun, which has a high CCT and puts out lots of blue light (and even some shorter wavelengths, of course). What good is a high CRI if the CCT is so low that everything looks too red and not blue enough? If that's what some people prefer, then more power to them, but my standard is sunlight. And right now, for various reasons I touched on earlier, neutral white LEDs, whatever their CRIs, produce the most accurate colors overall, even though their CCTs are a bit low. Hopefully this will change in the future, and we can, as an option, use cool white LEDs that render colors accurately and without that nasty glare we currently get when using them in natural environments.


 
The sun does put out lots of blue light, but yet we don't see the sun as being blue. No, we see it as being bright yellow/white. Why? The reason is the differential amounts of different cone receptors in the retinae; about 60% of all cone receptors are for long wavelengths (red), about 30% are for medium wavelengths (green), and the remaining 10% are for short wavelengths (blue). Brightness is perceived as the total amount of action potentials being sent to the brain from each type of receptor (it's actually much more complicated than this, but I'm simplifying for brevity). Thus, since we have more red cones than blue cones, when presented with two lights of equal objective intensity, we will see the red one as brighter simply because there are more red receptors sending signals to the brain. 

Again, while the CCT of the sun is in the neighborhood of 5,000K, that is not actually what we see colors best at. The high CRI value of sunlight comes from the fact it is full spectrum light, not that it has more of one color or wavelength in it than another (it doesn't). Rather, the best CRI will occur at a color temp that is produced by constituent wavelengths that maximally stimulates all three types of cone receptors. (Sunlight does this automatically because it's full spectrum.) We will still see red as brighter than blue, but the point is to reproduce the ratios of the activation level of the different kinds of cones, and not necessarily to have a full spectrum. (I'm ignoring other associated effects of full spectrum light, like melatonin production, suprachiastic nucleus activation that sets the circadian rhythm, and so on.) Thus, as far as I know, that would translate to a CCT of about 4,500k or so, but basically somewhere in that neighborhood.

In short, we're pretty much on the same page with this stuff. And, your point about CRI being defined relative to the black-body standard is a good one, and one I hadn't really put much thought into. Which of course, as you mention, means comparing two LEDs with respect to CRI is problematic at best. The only truly accurate way of evaluating the CRI of a given emitter would be to compare it to full spectrum sunlight and the black-body temp that it has (which I can't remember off the top of my head).


----------



## pjandyho (Aug 15, 2011)

When I used the term RGB I was referring to how white light are formed using the 3 primary colors. It is the basic color spectrum that form all the other colors available. Combine all 3 and you get pure white light. Subtract any one color and you get a different color.


----------



## cplusplus (Aug 15, 2011)

I prefer Neutral but I'm still going to buy cool whites though they may have a creepier tint to it.


----------



## GaAslamp (Aug 15, 2011)

OK, let's start with some visuals before we continue. Here is a pretty typical example of a cool white LED's spectrum:






Note the large spike in the blue region (around 460 nm), which is part of the actual LED die's narrow-band blue output. This leakage is one reason white LEDs can be as efficient as they are--using ultraviolet instead and having phosphors take care of the entire visible spectrum (like fluorescent lamps pretty much do) would make white LEDs substantially less efficient. The rest of the blue is absorbed by the Ce:YAG phosphor, and re-emitted in other wavelengths that make up the remainder (a broad-band yellow-tinted emission) of the LED's overall spectrum. The two overlap only slightly, leaving a fairly wide and deep gap in the cyan range (around 500 nm), and although the red range on the right (starting near 650 nm) is represented, it's pretty weak, especially deep red around 680 nm. Ideally we'd want more of the blue converted into cyan and red (while keeping the CCT the same), but that would cost us some efficiency as well as increase the complexity of the LED.

For comparison, here are the output spectra of several types of fluorescent lamp:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp#Phosphor_composition

The typical white LED spectrum doesn't look too bad next to some of those, and there are other types of lamp that are far worse, but obviously there are still some major deficiencies. There will be more on this later.



B0wz3r said:


> Not necessarily a "high" CCT; rather one that is the product of the wavelengths that the cone receptors are maximally sensitive to.



In order to have enough blue/cyan relative to the other color ranges, the CCT cannot drop below a certain point, no matter what the CRI may be. At the same time, due to technological limitations we can't practically go cooler than neutral white without seriously ruining color accuracy because the blue portion of the white LED spectrum is too narrow (we need more cyan, not more of the same blue) and we'd lose even more deep red. So we're kind of stuck with neutral white for the time being for accuracy, but if the spectra of LEDs can be made more uniform, then the most accurate color rendering (not CRI--actual color rendering) would be achieved at higher CCTs (around 5000K-6500K).



B0wz3r said:


> There is a perceptual phenomenon called metamerization where we can see two lights of different constituent wavelengths as being exactly the same color. This is because the ratios of the wavelengths in each light produce similar ratios of activation in the three types of cone receptors, regardless of the intensity or actual wavelengths in the light. The result is we perceive both lights as having the same color.



That's correct, but there is how we see and then there is how objects reflect the light shining on them. For example, the right combination of red and green can stimulate our receptors in exactly the same manner as yellow, so we perceive yellow and cannot tell the difference. That's all well and good for displays and things like that, but what if a pigment only reflected a narrow band of yellow wavelengths (not some red and some green--just pure spectral yellow), and the light source has green and red wavelengths represented in narrow bands, but not yellow? There wouldn't be much of that yellow light reflected, I imagine, and therefore little yellow for our broad-band red and green receptors to pick up and interpret, making the color rendering inaccurate. That's just one example of what can go wrong when you have a wonky, messed-up spectrum, even if white looks white and the peak sensitivities of the human eye are taken care of.

To illustrate, here is how we see color:





And here is the spectrum of an RGB-type white LED:





Such an LED should work fine for a display device, but as a light source for illumination, it has a serious lack of spectral yellow output. This means that even though it can display (to human eyes) every yellow hue, it cannot render all such hues accurately when it is used to illuminate actual objects (even with human eyes looking at the reflected light). The bottom line is that no matter how we see colors, the only way to get accurate color rendering is illumination with a full and properly balanced spectrum and with a CCT of 5000K-6500K (analogous to various forms of daylight that could all be considered ideal). LEDs aren't nearly there yet, and the best overall compromise that maintains maximum efficiency is to use a bit more Ce:YAG phosphor to get to a CCT in the vicinity of 4000K for better balance.



B0wz3r said:


> The sun does put out lots of blue light, but yet we don't see the sun as being blue.



And my point was that the Sun is able to put out a lot of blue light and a lot of red light at the same time, while LEDs currently have to trade off so much blue to get just a little more red for the best overall color rendering (forget CRI--I'm talking plain accuracy), making the resulting light (neutral white) have a lower CCT than the ideal.



B0wz3r said:


> Again, while the CCT of the sun is in the neighborhood of 5,000K, that is not actually what we see colors best at. The high CRI value of sunlight comes from the fact it is full spectrum light, not that it has more of one color or wavelength in it than another (it doesn't). Rather, the best CRI will occur at a color temp that is produced by constituent wavelengths that maximally stimulates all three types of cone receptors. (Sunlight does this automatically because it's full spectrum.) We will still see red as brighter than blue, but the point is to reproduce the ratios of the activation level of the different kinds of cones, and not necessarily to have a full spectrum. (I'm ignoring other associated effects of full spectrum light, like melatonin production, suprachiastic nucleus activation that sets the circadian rhythm, and so on.) Thus, as far as I know, that would translate to a CCT of about 4,500k or so, but basically somewhere in that neighborhood.



For current white LEDs, yes, I agree. I'm just saying that if the spectra of white LEDs can be made more like a full and balanced spectrum, then cool white would actually be the best at rendering colors. For the time being, cool white LEDs are terrible at this, which is perhaps one reason so many people prefer neutral white LEDs--that's the only reason I do, as I don't like the slightly yellowish tint of 4000K that shows up in whites and grays, but I'll gladly make the trade-off. Hopefully someday I won't have to, though.



B0wz3r said:


> In short, we're pretty much on the same page with this stuff.



Yes, we're sort of talking about different but parallel issues and from different perspectives, but I think you know what you're talking about, and I hope that I'm making at least some kind of sense. 



B0wz3r said:


> And, your point about CRI being defined relative to the black-body standard is a good one, and one I hadn't really put much thought into. Which of course, as you mention, means comparing two LEDs with respect to CRI is problematic at best.



Exactly, and here are a few comparisons to help visualize the concept. I borrowed these graphs from data sheets distributed by Lumileds (Luxeon Rebel) and Cree (XLamp XP-G). For your reference:

http://www.philipslumileds.com/pdfs/DS63.pdf
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXP-G.pdf

First here's the spectrum (relative spectral power distribution) of the Lumileds LXML-PW51 neutral white emitter, which has a CRI of 70:





See how it has a taller broad-band yellow spectrum than the LED spectrum shown above? This brings its CCT down to about 4000K, and increases the amount of desperately-needed red (as well as other color ranges). However, look at that deep, wide gap in the cyan range.  That's probably a big reason why its CRI is only a mediocre-at-best 70 despite representing most other wavelengths alright.

Anyway, some folks have been excited about the prospect of the 90 CRI oo: warm white XP-G from Cree being used in flashlights. 90 is considered high-CRI and therefore quite accurate in color rendering. Unfortunately I don't have the spectral data for that emitter, although I do have a graph for the 90 CRI warm white (3000K) Rebel emitter, the LXML-PW71:





What's interesting is that it looks a lot like the graph of the neutral white LXML-PW51 above that only has a measly CRI of 70. :thinking: While the warm white LED does have more deep red, it trades off a lot of blue for it, seems to have way too much orange relative to red (and everything else), and has practically the same massive cyan gap. The main difference, though, is that relatively speaking, it has less blue. That's pretty much it--take away some blue and the CRI suddenly shoots up by 20 points because the standard of comparison has been changed (in accordance with the changing CCT). But when we use sunlight as an ideal reference, this 90 CRI LED is not necessarily more accurate in actual color rendering than the 70 CRI LED. In fact, one might even argue that it's worse, despite the impressive-looking CRI. Some may prefer how it renders colors (e.g. makes everything look "richer" and more "pleasing"), and that's their prerogative, but I think it is less accurate overall than the lowly 70 CRI neutral white LED. By the way, Lumileds has other warm white Rebel emitters with lower CRIs, and their main problem is that they're way low on blue, making their color rendering even worse (unless you love orange).

Now let's look at the spectrum of the neutral white (4000K) 85 CRI LXM3-PW51 Rebel emitter that ZebraLight uses in their high-CRI flashlights:





There are clearly some visible improvements, which comes at the cost of efficiency (about 19%), as you might expect. In comparison to the 70 CRI neutral white LED above, it has a lot more deep red, which is then balanced out (keeping the CCT the same overall) with lots of additional cyan (finally!). And in comparison to the 90 CRI warm white LED above, it looks strangely similar except for the addition of blue and cyan, and the toning down of the excess orange while maintaining the reds--a big improvement in real accuracy all around despite having a slightly lower CRI. Additionally, it's actually about 29% more efficient than the warm white LED. I'd take this 85 CRI LED over that 90 CRI LED any day, and actually I did--I just got an H51c for EDC, and its color rendering does seem very accurate. :rock: For example, purples look just like they do under sunlight, whereas they often look too reddish under incandescent lighting (100 CRI), or too bluish under fluorescent lighting (even warm white) and most neutral and cool white LEDs.

Now don't get me wrong--for all I know, Cree's 90 CRI warm white LED may have far superior color accuracy than Lumileds' 90 CRI warm white LED despite having the same CRI, but my point all along has been that you have to look at the spectrum (and the end result, of course) to really tell because CRI tells you next to nothing.

Finally, to emphasize how much LED spectra can vary despite everybody using similar designs, here is a composite spectral graph published by Cree for their XP-G product line:





The green line represents neutral white, which for the XP-G has a typical CRI of 75. Note that in comparison to the 70 CRI neutral white Rebel LED, the XP-G is superior in the cyan range but inferior in the red range. I think that most people who have owned or used both slightly prefer the color rendering of the Rebel, probably because it has a bit more red, but neither are a match for the 85 CRI Rebel in terms of color rendering. The question is whether this improvement in accuracy, which is more subtle in actual usage than in the measurements (but definitely visible for the discerning, based on firsthand experience), is worth the drop in efficiency, and currently most of the focus in the industry (as well as the consumer market) is on maximizing efficiency.


----------



## GaAslamp (Aug 15, 2011)

pjandyho said:


> When I used the term RGB I was referring to how white light are formed using the 3 primary colors. It is the basic color spectrum that form all the other colors available. Combine all 3 and you get pure white light. Subtract any one color and you get a different color.



That's an artificial system based on how the human visual system perceives color, allowing us to take advantage of its idiosyncrasies, but that's not what white light is. True full-spectrum white light contains all of the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation that are visible, not just red, green, and blue. This includes, for example, wavelengths that are perceived as yellow. These wavelengths are NOT a combination of red and green wavelengths--they are different, specific wavelengths that appear to our visual system as yellow. You can simulate their appearance using red and green wavelengths, and our eyes couldn't tell the difference, but they are still a unique range of wavelengths, which is why yellow appears in rainbows (which are, of course, visible spectra).

Humans can see millions of colors that do not exist as ranges of wavelengths within white light, such as brown and magenta, but in order to see all of them the entire set of visible spectral colors (colors in the visible spectrum) must be present. As the example in my last post showed, it's not good enough just to have red, green, and blue because what you're looking at may contain colors such as spectral yellow and spectral cyan, neither of which are visible under narrow-band "RGB" illumination. Likewise, any missing or weak portions of a light source's spectrum are going to change the colors we perceive--it may or may not look pleasing, but it's still inaccurate.

You have the right ideas about needing a full, balanced spectrum in order to achieve accurate color rendering, which I've just restated here, but it's not exactly what you think it is--there is more to it than just RGB (a human invention). I hope this made some sense. And by the way, LEDs aren't so bad in general, aside from red and cyan being weak--there are many other light sources that consist of only a few narrow bands of the visible spectrum, or have a continuous spectrum with huge spikes that make LED spectra look tame in comparison. The big issue is that colors look really bad under cool white LEDs (not because of the CCT or tint but because of the LEDs' spectra as a whole), which is the most efficient and popular type. Those who participate in this thread know that even current LEDs can do better, though.



cplusplus said:


> I prefer Neutral but I'm still going to buy cool whites though they may have a creepier tint to it.



I only find colored objects (that would be most objects ) creepy-looking under cool white LED illumination--white walls look great, though.


----------



## B0wz3r (Aug 16, 2011)

GaAslamp said:


> Yes, we're sort of talking about different but parallel issues and from different perspectives, but I think you know what you're talking about, and I hope that I'm making at least some kind of sense.


 
Thank you.  I don't normally reveal this kind of info about myself on the internet, but I think that it'll be okay for me to do so here; I have a Ph.D. in perceptual psychology from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and I teach college courses on things like sensory perception, cognitive neuroscience, physiological psychology, etc. So my expertise in this comes from the need to understand the physics of light in order to understand how it is the visual system processes that light as information. It's funny, a former friend of mine has been a professional photographer for decades, and I know more about optics than he does!

And yes, you're making sense, but the technical aspects of this stuff are a bit out of my knowledge base. 

Your post has gotten me thinking, though, about some of the stuff you mention with respect to object properties, albedo, lightness, etc. Those things of course play a role in our perceptions, but one thing I feel I should point out here is that we need to be careful about making sure we're talking about additive color mixing and subtractive color mixing when necessary. As PJ mentioned, adding different colored lights together produces white, which is additive color mixing, because as you do so you get closer and closer to a full spectrum. On the other hand is subtractive color mixing, which is where pigments absorb light and reflect only the range of wavelengths we see as that particular color. So with paint, when you add more and more colors, you eventually get black, because so few wavelengths are being reflected.

One thing I want to mention too, is that the neurophysiology of color perception is such that we can still see red as red under different colored lights, and so on. This is because as I mentioned before, it is the ratio of activity levels in the three populations of cone receptors that determines what color we perceive. So if you shine a yellow light on a red, green, and blue object, as long as the light is cast evenly and you don't change the albedo of any of the objects, we still see them as their respective colors because even though the colored light is there, the new ratios of wavelengths are still close to their original ratios. 

And as a last item, just for fun to throw a wicked curve ball into all this, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "color" in the world. Rather there are just the ratios of reflected constituent wavelengths in the light luminant and illuminant light. Color as we understand it exists only in our perceptions, and not in the world itself.


----------



## GaAslamp (Aug 16, 2011)

B0wz3r said:


> Thank you.  I don't normally reveal this kind of info about myself on the internet, but I think that it'll be okay for me to do so here; I have a Ph.D. in perceptual psychology from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and I teach college courses on things like sensory perception, cognitive neuroscience, physiological psychology, etc.



In that case, I guess you don't need me to tell you that you know what you're talking about , but I think I know enough to understand what you're saying. 



B0wz3r said:


> So my expertise in this comes from the need to understand the physics of light in order to understand how it is the visual system processes that light as information. It's funny, a former friend of mine has been a professional photographer for decades, and I know more about optics than he does!



I'm familiar with the basics of visual perception, but most of my focus is on the physics side of things, hence the differing perspectives.



B0wz3r said:


> Your post has gotten me thinking, though, about some of the stuff you mention with respect to object properties, albedo, lightness, etc. Those things of course play a role in our perceptions, but one thing I feel I should point out here is that we need to be careful about making sure we're talking about additive color mixing and subtractive color mixing when necessary.



I'm quite familiar with additive color mixing from my experience with home theater calibration (and the field in general), as well as subtractive color mixing from my fountain pen hobby.  Subtractive mixing doesn't have anything to do with anything I was talking about--for me it's all about how light at various wavelengths throughout the spectrum get from the light source to the eye. The idea is simple--if the light source doesn't emit certain wavelengths that an object tends to reflect, then light of those wavelengths won't even reach the eye, potentially altering color perception.



B0wz3r said:


> As PJ mentioned, adding different colored lights together produces white, which is additive color mixing, because as you do so you get closer and closer to a full spectrum.



Sure, but I think that describing it in terms of RGB misses the point. The system itself has a limited gamut, and is really about simulating colors, whereas I'm talking about the actual visual spectrum that includes an infinite number of wavelengths rather than just red, green, and blue and combinations thereof. For example, a rainbow, which is of course a natural phenomenon, is not made up of just red, green, and blue--it's all the wavelengths in the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.



B0wz3r said:


> On the other hand is subtractive color mixing, which is where pigments absorb light and reflect only the range of wavelengths we see as that particular color. So with paint, when you add more and more colors, you eventually get black, because so few wavelengths are being reflected.



I fully understand this, but in the example I gave, I wasn't talking about mixing pigments--just one pigment that absorbs practically everything but spectral yellow light (yellow happens to be a subtractive primary in the CMYK system, but that's beside the point). My point was that if the light source, despite its apparent white appearance, was severely lacking in spectral yellow emission (the example I gave was an RGB-type white LED, complete with spectral graph), then color perception would be significantly affected because you can't see light that was never emitted in the first place. Maybe such a scenario is not a common case, but it's just an example of what could happen.



B0wz3r said:


> One thing I want to mention too, is that the neurophysiology of color perception is such that we can still see red as red under different colored lights, and so on. This is because as I mentioned before, it is the ratio of activity levels in the three populations of cone receptors that determines what color we perceive.



The eye and brain are very adaptive, that's true, but when something is off about the spectrum of a light source I can always see the effects. For example, low-CCT incandescent light bulbs always make certain purples look too reddish--no matter how long I look at it, the color is always different from how it looks under sunlight (just from memory). I can also always tell the difference between white light (reflected off a white wall) of different CCTs--4000K always looks yellowish, no matter how much time I've had to get used to it, and even outside in the deep shade during the evening hours, daylight is always bluish with a CCT of over 7000K. The latter affects how just about every color looks, which is why television sets must be calibrated to a certain standard illuminant in order to reproduce colors as they were intended. I can always tell when a TV's color temperature is off because colors just don't look right. Similarly, the ideal flashlight, in my view, would have a full spectrum matching that of the Sun at the same CCT (a limited range of "ideal" values). Any other CCT would make colors look different.



B0wz3r said:


> So if you shine a yellow light on a red, green, and blue object, as long as the light is cast evenly and you don't change the albedo of any of the objects, we still see them as their respective colors because even though the colored light is there, the new ratios of wavelengths are still close to their original ratios.



The eye is good at making such adjustments to optimize color discrimination, but the colors still always look different under differently-tinted light. This is from personal experience and is easily reproducible. I presume that you mean white light with a yellow tint, by the way. With actual yellow light, like that of a low-pressure sodium lamp, for example, red, green, and blue objects would appear to be some value of yellow, or even black if they're extremely "pure" and saturated in color.



B0wz3r said:


> And as a last item, just for fun to throw a wicked curve ball into all this, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as "color" in the world. Rather there are just the ratios of reflected constituent wavelengths in the light luminant and illuminant light. Color as we understand it exists only in our perceptions, and not in the world itself.



Of course, and this is actually more in line with what I've been trying to say! Forget color and perception and all that for a moment, and think solely in terms of wavelengths. If there are visible wavelengths that a light source does not emit, then an object that would normally reflect those wavelengths to the eye when under sunlight would not reflect them under the other light source (because there is no light of those wavelengths to reflect in the first place). Bringing this back to perception now, if there are missing wavelengths that never reached the eye, then it could change how the object appears to us (which we'd normally call color, even if it's only a perception and not a physical thing).

I think that possibly the problem here is that people tend to get hung up on the whole trichromacy thing (red, green, blue--we're good), but there is more to the visible spectrum than that--physical phenomena that can ultimately affect how we see color before the light even hits our receptors.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Aug 16, 2011)

Sorry I'm so late to this party. I haven't bought a light in quite awhile. Mostly due to lousy LED tint options and crappy user interfaces. There's some really great stuff out there, it just never hits the mark for me.
Besides, I like being one of the dead horse-beating, rebellious consumers with an over-developed sense of self importance.


----------



## Scubie67 (Aug 16, 2011)

Is it just the Cool White Leds that have the bad tint or are there also Neutrals that can have bad tints? The only high performance LED I have is an old Fenix L1D with a Q2 emmiter and it has a very nice White (but not very bright) "snowy" looking tint...Not blue at all...All my other lights are either Incandes. or HID lights so I have not seen a large range of the Leds to compare over time


----------



## pjandyho (Aug 16, 2011)

I think it would be harder to get a bad tint when we cross over and enter into the neutral and warm tint category. It would be more like less preferred tint than bad tint. I like neutral and warm but I find that some neutrals tend to consist of only the yellow green spectrum and very much lacking in the red spectrum. Do I think it's bad? No, but I would rather have one near to the 5A or 5B tint.


----------



## psychbeat (Aug 16, 2011)

yeah I prefer my 5B XP-G Linger module over my neutral XM-L which is more
yellowy with less reds. Both have waayyyy more contrast on muddy 
rooty trails than any of my cool white led lights. I believe the contrast
improvement is more due to CCT than CRI in this case most likely. the
lower CCT is better in foggy conditions too in my experience.


----------



## GaAslamp (Aug 18, 2011)

psychbeat said:


> yeah I prefer my 5B XP-G Linger module over my neutral XM-L which is more
> yellowy with less reds. Both have waayyyy more contrast on muddy
> rooty trails than any of my cool white led lights. I believe the contrast
> improvement is more due to CCT than CRI in this case most likely.



The lower CCT does have a more immediately noticeable effect since the blue range of the emission spectrum no longer overwhelms every other color (i.e. no more bright bluish glare that washes out contrast).

What high CRI generally does is fill in the gaps that typical LEDs have in their spectra, most notably in the red and cyan ranges. Colors should be more accurate and have additional "pop" or contrast, although the overall effect is more subtle.


----------



## psychbeat (Aug 18, 2011)

I use my lights often for downhill mountain biking so
contrast is king (especially in foggy AND dusty [at the same time!]
condidtions) Id probably rather have the ~4000-4500 and 
extra lumens of a neutral over the lower output and CCT of most
high CRI emitters.
that said - maybe for an EDC like a mini123 or zebralight it might
be worth the subtle improvement.

the neutrals def have less dazzle in the foggy dust than CW.


----------



## TyJo (Aug 24, 2011)

I may have officially joined the warm side. I have cool white lights that I use, mainly my HDS rotary EDC, but other then that I usually use warm/HighCRI and see no reason to purchase otherwise in the future.


----------



## whiteoakjoe (Oct 17, 2011)

I recieved a 4/7 Quark X neutral and a Jetbeam PA40 Neutral this month and they have push me over the edge. I just can't see being happy with any cool white light again. I would just be dissapointed in it after the purchase.


----------



## dieselducy (Dec 28, 2011)

I am in the club too. I am using a modded neutral ti quark and i will never go back to cool white. my next venture is into High CRI. i have one on order.


----------



## jamie.91 (Dec 28, 2011)

Ive just got my first neutral tint light and I love it, I think my next light might be a warm


----------



## LGT (Dec 28, 2011)

jamie.91 said:


> Ive just got my first neutral tint light and I love it, I think my next light might be a warm


Congratulations on yor first neutral light. What is it? Warms are nice, but sometimes they will have a pinkish tint. You might want to consider looking into high cri lights. My quark mini high cri renders some nice coloring to whatever I shine it on. No blue, green or purple tints, as some neutral or cools will do.


----------



## ruriimasu (Dec 28, 2011)

me too. havent bought a CW for quite a few years except this month (a thrunite Ti - on the yellowish side) for my dad who prefers CW.

JJ


----------



## eh4 (Dec 28, 2011)

Yeah I'm pretty much there, I will buy an extraordinary light though if it suits me whether it be cool, blue, green, red or whatever. Overall though the warm side of neutral is where it's at. I only came over to LEDs for their efficiency in the first place, I'll take a little lumens hit to be able to see better.


----------



## blackbalsam (Dec 28, 2011)

I almost dont even want to turn on a light that is cool white anymore. I think i love 5000k and less more each day....Robert.


----------



## dirtech (Dec 28, 2011)

I purchased one of vin's 1.8 amp EZ900 xre P60 thrower. He just posted a pic that looks pretty cool to me, as expected. This was my first cool white purchase in quite some time (as least one that I didnt intend to modify). Other than this one, I have many High cri and a few warm or neutral lights. They rock.


----------



## tobrien (Dec 29, 2011)

eh4 said:


> Yeah I'm pretty much there, I will buy an extraordinary light though if it suits me whether it be cool, blue, green, red or whatever. Overall though the warm side of neutral is where it's at. I only came over to LEDs for their efficiency in the first place, I'll take a little lumens hit to be able to see better.


i'm in pretty much the same boat


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 29, 2011)

eh4 said:


> Yeah I'm pretty much there, I will buy an extraordinary light though if it suits me whether it be cool, blue, green, red or whatever. Overall though the warm side of neutral is where it's at. I only came over to LEDs for their efficiency in the first place, I'll take a little lumens hit to be able to see better.


Sounds like the evolution of a lot of us and I'd like to add that as efficient as the newest emitters are, losing a touch on top is not a big deal for most of us.


----------



## Labradford (Dec 29, 2011)

Just bought my first neutral...the Fenix LD40 with the Cree XP-G R4. I wasn't sure what to expect and so I was pleasantly surprised to find that I really love the tint. My next light must be a neutral or I won't be buyin'.


----------



## kreisler (Dec 29, 2011)

cool white isnt cool white.
i agree that i wont buy greenish tints anymore (can be found in XPG R5, and also in XML T6) .. but cool white itself can be quite pure (see XML T6 emitter as chosen by Eagtac)


----------



## Harry999 (Dec 29, 2011)

I may be the only one disagreeing here. I will buy cool white lights. But usually that is followed by the use of Lee filters to make it the neutral or warmer tint I want.


----------



## ODatsBright (Dec 30, 2011)

I too, won't buy cool white tints. I see several triple XML lights and really liked the Fenix triple but will not buy them until they become available in neutral to warm tints.


----------



## Chrisdm (Jan 11, 2012)

Im also waiting to buy my first neutral triple xml... if somebody doesnt release one soon im going to commission my own from a custom builder.


----------



## Helmut.G (Mar 28, 2012)

I received a 4sevens Mini AA high cri yesterday.
This is the first time for me to say that the color temperature of a light is too low for me! It's a lot more yellow even compared to under-driven incandescent lights.
I've got a lot of neutral lights and some warm whites but never had that feeling before.

Color rendition is pretty good. Clearly more red and green than most LEDs.


----------



## Jeffro2690 (Mar 28, 2012)

I too liked cool white, then I got my first warm (Zebralight sc51w) almost sent the ZL back, I hated it at first. Now that I'm used to it I can't stand anything that's not at least neutral.


----------



## dlmorgan999 (Mar 28, 2012)

Chrisdm said:


> Im also waiting to buy my first neutral triple xml... if somebody doesnt release one soon im going to commission my own from a custom builder.



The Nitecore TM11 is available in Neutral White - I have one!  A Google search will easily turn up places where you can find them.


----------



## mrlysle (Mar 28, 2012)

Well, I wanted to hold off awhile, before I chimed in on this thread, but it's time. Since the thread started, I've purchased several lights in warm, neutral, and even got my first HCRI the other day. I'm joining this club! lol I've got to the point where I just love the tint from these neutral/warmer emitters. Just posted a new thread with some pics of one of my favorites. The ZL SC60w. Love that thing! Same with the HCRI Peak Logan I just picked up from GeoBruin over on the marketplace. SWEET! Will I now rid myself of any of my cooler tinted lights? NO! lol, but I'm thinkin' pretty much all newer purchases will be from the neutral/warm/HCRI family. They're just so much more pleasing to my old eyes! :tired:


----------



## orbital (Mar 29, 2012)

+

The question is,
will manufactures stop putting cool tints in their new line of lights?, probably not for a while.

Why:::: If your average joe blow goes to buy a light,, one has 240 neutral tint lumens & another has 270 cool lumens, 
he'll likely buy the cold tint 270 {cuzzzzz it's brighter.}

People _say_ they want brighter, brighter, brighter, brighter ..........................................................!
It's just like a really loud, harsh & blaring stereo.

I can hear it now:_"Where can get a Tactical AAA light w/ a U2 XM-L"_ :shakehead

*No, I personally won't buy another cool tint.*

~ side note; if I bought some cfl bulbs and they were blueish, I'd be pissed off to no end.
This because of the gas I'd waste going back to yell at them, while I was getting my money back.


----------



## greatscoot (Jul 28, 2012)

My last module was a M31W. The light I have coming is neutral. Much nicer than the cool white. Now I am going to have my Rotary upgraded.
Hate CFL's though. Would much rather have a 60w Incan


----------



## biglights (Jul 28, 2012)

I buy them all cool, warm, neutral, high CRI. I find uses for them all. :kiss:


----------



## bushmattster (Jul 28, 2012)

I haven't had a problem with cool white, but I'm fairly new to all this and would like to see the high CRI or neutrals first hand to see what all the fuss is about. Losing a few lumens wouldn't bother me at all. Losing efficiency would bother me a little. I'm into runtimes for the moment, but rechargebles are helping me get over it.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jul 28, 2012)

I like coolish tints on lower levels as long as they're in the form of a floodier beam pattern, but for higher output levels and tight beams it's got to be on the warmer side.


----------

