# Have LED's really caught up with incans?



## Pydpiper (Jan 1, 2009)

I came by for a visit to see what is new in the past few months, I see all these little lights that claim big throw. The Dereelight DBS is one that caught my eye, can this thing throw like my old faithful M3T?
So many new lights out there..


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 1, 2009)

LEDs have outclassed incan in efficiency and are now in the process of outperforming the big HIDs.

In raw luminous flux though, incan and HID still ruel supreme. The state-of-the-art big LEDs (4 die LEDs MC-E or P7) all produce about 900lm or so, and you still need a cluster of them to compare to a bright incan.

With that comes the fact that HID is still way more focussable than LED and rules in the throw department. Although modern developments like aspheric lenses and new TIRs are about to change that.

What you see is LED taking over the market up to 250lm almost completely right now and ever expanding "upwards".

Color rendition is another important factor being adressed right now. We have high powered "High CRI" LEDs like the Nichia 083 or some Cree or Seoul brethren at our disposal, albeit with some losses in output compared to the "colder" LEDs.


Despite that long winded post I can't exactly tell if the Dereelight will outclass your M3T in thrwo though. 

bernie


----------



## donn_ (Jan 1, 2009)

IMO, the KT4 reflector out-throws almost everything else in or below it's size range, given comparable bulbs/LEDs. I say almost, because I think some of the older SF turboheads still outdo it. The SRTH and 3" turboheads still rule.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jan 1, 2009)

Well I'm waiting to see if they can release a warm/neutral tint version of the MCE. They should be able to, and I think that will be a real nice light even compared to an incan. It really depends on the application though. I'm not expecting LEDs though to 'outclass' the M6 for a few years yet. 

With nice rechargeable power sources I don't think we have to get rid of the Incan.


----------



## yellow (Jan 1, 2009)

the incan You see with Joe average are only a joke now,
think of anything in size 2AA, or with a price or runtime an occasional user will accept.

SPECIAL PURPOSE lights (= big, or heavy, or short runtime, or all together) remain special.
Depends if one is willing to accept the drawbacks


----------



## Pydpiper (Jan 1, 2009)

So there must be a decent LED replacement for the MN15/16 by now?

Thanks for the help, and thanks for not hanging me for a seemingly newb question, there is just so much new to absorb right now.


----------



## JasonC8301 (Jan 1, 2009)

I was just about to run out to my back yard and do some tests between some LEDs I have and some incandescents (gonna make a video and post it on youtube.) 

I am an incandescent guy at heart. I sold my SF U2 because it just doesn't get any use. I am aware of newer LEDs than LuxV's and Cree XR-E's, but have yet to see one that can come to the color rendition of incandescents.

I currently run a SF 6P body with a Lumens Factory EO-9 bulb and 2 X IMR16340 cells. Short run time, but I back it up with the more efficient Surefire cree L1 and CR2 Ion.

Jason


----------



## kongfuchicken (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm also curious; can I expect high CRI leds to solve the "grey light" problem outdoors with cool color temp leds?

If so, I have half a ton of lights that need upgrading...


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 1, 2009)

No direct replacement as the reflector of the SF turboheads does not work well with LEDs. The existing "Tower Modules" do not have the punch the MN16 has.

However, there are LEDs that do throw a good beam quite far. If you want to stick with SF, look at the E2DL ... a mere 120 lumens, but the beam is a terrific thrower and it looks like more lumens.

Then there are the Malkoff drop-ins for the 6P et al. Those are said to be in excess of 200 lumens, and while I don't know the exact numbers, I can attest that they are bright and throw well.

And the icing on the cake ... the "warm white" dropins. It is called the M60W (Malkoff), puts out a bit less than the usual M60, but has a good color rendition.

If you are willing to change brand, than there is an abundance of cheaper lights using the Cree XR-E or Seoul P4 LED that are as bright as the Malkoff and seem to offer throw, but I can't comment any further about those as I don't have one. 
An example would be the Fenix TK11, but there are many more.

The power up to about 200 lumens is there, as is the throw. Now the color rendition also gets better. 

bernie


----------



## mudman cj (Jan 1, 2009)

kongfuchicken said:


> I'm also curious; can I expect high CRI leds to solve the "grey light" problem outdoors with cool color temp leds?
> 
> If so, I have half a ton of lights that need upgrading...



This area is subjective, as some do not seem to report the "grey light" problem that others experience. Furthermore, those that do experience it also report varying degrees of improvement for the Cree neutral white bins such as the A and B series (5A is common) compared to a high CRI Seoul or Nichia high CRI LED. 

I really like the high CRI Seoul, but it gives considerably less light for the power used and has a current limit of 800mA. The lower efficiency is due to the different phosphors used in this LED compared to most other LEDs. It also tends to produce beams with shifting tint from hotspot to corona. If you can live with no more than 100 lumens and the aforementioned characteristics, then it is a formidable replacement for incandescent lights of small size. IMO, it does a great job of eliminating the "grey light" problem.

Comparitavely, the Crees are quite a bit more efficient than the Seoul high CRI LEDs. They do not have high CRI like the Seoul or Nichia LEDs under discussion, but they do offer a noticable improvement over the cool white bins (even the warmest of them) when used in certain environments such as the outdoors. The drawback is less efficiency compared to the cool white bins, but the difference of about 15% is well worth the trade IMHO. The Cree will also produce more throw than either the high CRI Seoul or high CRI Nichia LEDs IMO. I still have not had enough experience with the Cree 5A LEDs to decide to what extent they address the "grey light" problem in terms of the confidence I have in my ability to accurately and easily perceive my surroundings such as when walking through woods. I can say that I appreciate the improved rendering of colors that would be present in the outdoors. 

The Nichia high CRI LED uses an innovative phosphor blend that produces a light spectrum similar to that of sunlight, at least to a greater extent than any LED before. It's main limitations are the die configuration (6 dies over a fairly large area in LED terms), power handling ability (350mA), and low efficiency. It excels for use around the house or for close tasks, and just renders everything very 'naturally' compared to other LEDs.

The difference in these new LEDs is enough to make many converts. I will no longer buy a light using a cool white LED - with the exception of a Surefire Optimus. My lights now use Cree 5A (both XR-E and MC-E), Seoul 4000K CCT high CRI LEDs, or Nichia 083 high CRI LEDs. I also still enjoy various incandescent lights because these LEDs still cannot compete in the higher power classes. I suspect that will change with time, but for now I enjoy them for their efficiency, potentially excellent dependability (depending on component and build quality), ability to dim without yellowing, and no burned out bulbs.


----------



## etc (Jan 1, 2009)

a trick question?

Surefire 9P with P91 module runs for 14 mins in actual test, generating 200+ lumens. (20 mins ad runtime)

Malkoff M60 module in 9P runs for 2:30 hours, generating 230 lumens. PLUS more reliable PLUS (IMO) better tint.

Incan hit a dead-end, there is nothing exciting going on, SF is not developing new units but there is surely (pun intended) much development going on with LEDs.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 1, 2009)

Some members say that with those new high-discharge lithium rechargeables very high-powered incans in a small form factor will be possible ... and LED just can't produce the raw power of incan and HID yet, at least not in one emitter.
bernie


P.S.: the tint of the M60W is not bad, but it is not uniform and certainly not perfect IMHO. Only the Nichia 083 surpasses incan there IMHO, but it isn't really focussable and is relatively low in power.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 2, 2009)

kongfuchicken said:


> I'm also curious; can I expect high CRI leds to solve the "grey light" problem outdoors with cool color temp leds?
> 
> If so, I have half a ton of lights that need upgrading...


As mudman cj said this is indeed entirely subjective. Even the present crop of cool whites I find render colors more realistically to me than incan ever did. However, others disagree. Regardless, the issue of color rendering is being addressed, although unfortunately most of the focus seems to be improving warm and neutral whites. I've yet to see a cool white LED purposely designed for higher CRI. However, long term I'm sure it's coming. LED seeks to replace general lighting. Some of the present general lighting market is 5000K to 6500K high CRI fluorescent tubes. As a bonus, the efficiency penalty when making high CRI at high CCTs seems to be less than for lower CCTs.


----------



## fieldops (Jan 2, 2009)

Your question about the M3T vs DBS set me to thinking. I had not tried my M3T in about a year. I loaded it with fresh SF cells and threw a fresh 18650 in my DBS V2 R2. I tried them at 75 feet. There was just no contest. The DBS just blew away the SF M3T. The DBS smaller and brighter hot spot just carries and carries. At ranges beyond 100', the differences are even more dramatic. It kind of brought a tear to my eye, as I always loved my M3T. I still will keep it no matter what. There is no doubt, however, that lights like the DBS will carry the throw flag in the small lights department from now on.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 2, 2009)

Basically incans can go as bright as you want as long as you have the juice to power them. A single LED emitter only gets so bright before burning out. LED's big advantage is their efficiency of course. 

I just ordered a 350 lumen incan bulb for my SF E2e and a 500 lumen bulb for my SF 6P. Thanks to the new IMR16340 cells they can now design bulbs that draw more current than was previously safe for 2 cells. The run time will have to be ridiculously short, but it's more for the shock and aw.  500 lumens coming out of a SF 6P will be something. However a properly driven MC-E module in a SF 6P should be able to generate 800-900 emitter lumens and out perform these new incan bulbs as far as raw lumen output. 

As of now it would seem an incan flashlight needs to be larger than LED flashlights to get the same output or more. Take the Dereelight C2H which should have a good 200 or more out the front lumens. It's not much larger than a pair of CR123's. Are there any incans that can output 200 lumens at that size? My E2e should be able to match it or beat it with the new 350 lumen bulb, but at over twice the size and with two IMR16340's compared to the single IMR16340 in the C2H.

If size doesn't matter LED's can keep up with just about anything. If anyone has seen the Databank 70 you'd be amazed at what LED's can do. With 70 Cree XR-E's driven at around 1.8A each and an aspheric lens over each LED the Databank destroys HID's, incans, etc. I witnessed it beat out a 75-watt HID, a dual 55-watt HID, etc. However it's not the most practical thing to carry around, but maybe if it was mounted on a turret on a vehicle with a constant power supply it could be fairly useful.


----------



## baterija (Jan 2, 2009)

StandardBattery said:


> Well I'm waiting to see if they can release a warm/neutral tint version of the MCE.



You mean like say a *Cree MC-E 5A J Bin (320 lumen @350ma) *on sale here?
:thumbsup:


----------



## Flea Bag (Jan 2, 2009)

Pydpiper said:


> I came by for a visit to see what is new in the past few months, I see all these little lights that claim big throw. The Dereelight DBS is one that caught my eye, can this thing throw like my old faithful M3T?
> So many new lights out there..



Judging from some reviews, the Dereelight DBS v2 will out-throw the M3T but it must be remembered that it does this with a very narrow spill beam that won't do well for closer ranged tasks. The M3T's spill beam is actually rather wide at closer distances too and so it's a more well-rounded light.


----------



## yellow (Jan 2, 2009)

funny what lights are compared here 
ANYONE has EVER seen "normal" ppl with such lights, on night hikes and such?
(except from us?) 

in the "main" market - thats 2 AA and possibly D-celled models - the led age has begun 1.5 years ago (= Cree revolution)


----------



## RyanA (Jan 2, 2009)

etc said:


> Incan hit a dead-end, there is nothing exciting going on,



I've got to disagree with you there, with these new IMR cells a lot of new possibilities are opening up, even with Led, now a P7 can be driven to full output off a single 16340. And as far as incan, I've just picked a light about the size of a 9p thats running a wa1185 at about 12v. It's very, very bright. There is a lot of potential in both areas. But it is my opinion that if you want to put up the big numbers incan is the way to go.:shrug:


----------



## Yoda4561 (Jan 2, 2009)

While incan bulbs are pretty much at a dead end, battery tech is not. The big disadvantage of bright incans is runtime, and if recent breakthroughs in lithium ion technology pan out it will greatly offset that shortcoming. LED's will still last longer, and will have more customizable light spectrums etc, but incan isn't out yet


----------



## kongfuchicken (Jan 2, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> As mudman cj said this is indeed entirely subjective. Even the present crop of cool whites I find render colors more realistically to me than incan ever did. However, others disagree. Regardless, the issue of color rendering is being addressed, although unfortunately most of the focus seems to be improving warm and neutral whites. I've yet to see a cool white LED purposely designed for higher CRI. However, long term I'm sure it's coming. LED seeks to replace general lighting. Some of the present general lighting market is 5000K to 6500K high CRI fluorescent tubes. As a bonus, the efficiency penalty when making high CRI at high CCTs seems to be less than for lower CCTs.



Absolutely. I've always known that it's subjective; I just happen to have drawn the short stick because my eyes can't stand cool leds outside. 

It's not even a question of color rendition (I'm not into painting or photography at night, I'm into being able to see) but rather comfort. With cool leds, colors hues appear muddy and make my eyes tired very quickly to the point of it being barely tolerable past a certain distance.

While the efficiency is pretty wonderful on paper, in practice I'd rather turn the light off and walk in the dark or bust out the ph40 and make eyes roll in a mile radius. 

That's why I'm really putting a lot of hopes into the high cri leds. I couldn't care less if the efficiency and evenness of the beam is set back a year or two as long as it's comfortable outdoors and runs longer than incans.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 2, 2009)

I absolutely agree with kongfuchicken. That would sound really wierd out of context.... but I found when I got a Nuwai (remember those guys) Q3 (the once popular light, not Cree bin) with a Lux 3 SV1K star in it. I much preferred it to any other light I had outdoors. So much so that I tore it apart to get the bin off the star, then ordered the same bin for my EOS headlight. My old 5mm Tikka had a blue tint that gave me headaches if I used it to read. I knew that might happen though, since I had paid attention to my mother....
when I was a golf caddie in highschool, my mother gave me a cap with greem material on the underside of the lid/shade. She said they told her at the store that green was easier on the eyes. Later, when I had to use a colored filter over an orchestra light, I chose green - remembering what my mother said. The poor classmates that had to read music with blue or red lights complained of eyes hurting and headaches. My fellow baritone player thanked me for choosing green as we had no such problems.

In summary, I find the blue base of all cool LEDs shines through to some extent and I much prefer warmer and neutral/natural color LEDs. I have found that even if color is not correct, then depth perception is improved, which is actually much more important to me for night hiking and mountain biking. Night hiking is weird and it is hard to feel confidence in my footing on rough ground with very cool LEDs. Incans are better in that situation, and until I get my neutral MC-E bike headlight mod done, I will still use a halogen headlight mountainbiking.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 2, 2009)

While IMR battery tech is exciting for incans in the short term, better CRI and hopefully more full spectrum LEDs are around the corner, and they will also benefit from improving battery technology.


Yoda4561 said:


> While incan bulbs are pretty much at a dead end, battery tech is not. The big disadvantage of bright incans is runtime, and if recent breakthroughs in lithium ion technology pan out it will greatly offset that shortcoming. LED's will still last longer, and will have more customizable light spectrums etc, but incan isn't out yet


I can't wait for next gen batteries (double the energy density of current Li-ion) powering next gen high CRI and broad spectrum (visible spectrum) LEDs optimized by next gen optics (read: focusing) for great usability at phenominal runtimes. The hot lights to have in 2020 will be 1AA sized with 200L variable output, spot to flood adjustable, run for a week at useable levels, and be able to stick to your cheek, temple, or clothes as an ad-hock headlight.

In 2030, the kids will wear ear/eyesets with built in screens for not just phone calls, but virtual group gatherings that replace phone calls. This headset will have built in light of about 2-10 lumens for walking (2-5L) and taking video (10L).

OK, enough mind play for Mark


----------



## mudman cj (Jan 2, 2009)

Blindasabat said:


> In summary, I find the blue base of all cool LEDs shines through to some extent and I much prefer warmer and neutral/natural color LEDs. I have found that even if color is not correct, then depth perception is improved, which is actually much more important to me for night hiking and mountain biking. Night hiking is weird and it is hard to feel confidence in my footing on rough ground with very cool LEDs.



+1

This is more of a deal breaker for me than correct color perception as well, but it is much harder to convey using the internet.


----------



## maroast (Jan 3, 2009)

Blindasabat said:


> In 2030, the kids will wear ear/eyesets with built in screens for not just phone calls, but virtual group gatherings that replace phone calls. This headset will have built in light of about 2-10 lumens for walking (2-5L) and taking video (10L).



Don't forget the flying cars and complete meals in pill form.......


----------



## Neubauej (Jan 3, 2009)

I still think that for all out power and wow, make you smile factor, incans rule!

On the other hand, for low to medium output with good runtime, albiet poor color renditioning, led is the way to go... as led's get warmer, I believe they will eventually take over completely with the exeption of ultra-high output setups. Think 5,000 lumen plus wow lights. 
I.E. I don't think leds will ever get the output or wow factor of a properly driven 623 for instance...


----------



## Jake.t (Jan 3, 2009)

i think i'll always love incans because i don't need a really effcient light because i dont use them that much but one problem with incans is heat due to how they make light


----------



## ToeMoss (Jan 3, 2009)

Wow.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 3, 2009)

kongfuchicken said:


> Absolutely. I've always known that it's subjective; I just happen to have drawn the short stick because my eyes can't stand cool leds outside.
> 
> It's not even a question of color rendition (I'm not into painting or photography at night, I'm into being able to see) but rather comfort. With cool leds, colors hues appear muddy and make my eyes tired very quickly to the point of it being barely tolerable past a certain distance.
> 
> ...



Well said. What would one of these threads be if I didn't weigh in with one of my bull in a china shop comments? :devil: There are those that seem to have been born from LED parents, and can see no other source of light.

Obviously, LED's can be more efficient and work on small battery sizes...but you rarely hear "LED Jockeys" demonstrate a working/practical knowledge of Osram IRC (Infra Red <Reflecting> Coating) incan technology and efficieny. 

Unlike natural sunlight and incan lights, LED's have specific bandwidth output limitations, so unless you combine multiple LED's (which is a blow to their Holy Grail argument of "Supreme Efficency"), their color does not render outdoor objects as the eye is meant to see them.

Other than using aspheric or fresnel lenses, the other problem with LED's is their planar base does not allow focussing inside of a reflector as you see with spherical/tubular incans.

There are yet many obstacles that LED's must overcome before they are considered on the same par excellence scale in all aspects of a light's function. Many of us "Incan Jockeys" do have many LED's, and use them in specific settings...but they are not yet close to replacing my stable of incan stallions.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 3, 2009)

Lux ... the reflector argument doesn't have much weight any more. A LED looses less light as it projects only forward and needs no reflector for rear-emitting light. The former lack of adequate collimation is coming to an end. There are very good reflectors for LED that can produce beams far superior (more useful) to incan reflectors, and there are especially the new generation TIR optics that can do things a bulb can only dream about. Think SF E-Series TIR. Heaven sent.


Then the color rendition. I hear you. But I think incan is as far from perfect as is LED. Sunlight, real natural light that is, is different from LED and incan. And the new warm High CRI LEDs have gotten really close.

Incan spectrum: massive reds and IR







Sunlight: way more blue and green than incan, less red:






Cree XR-E: more blue (spike) than sunlight, less red






All that ... old news. And here comes the interesting thing: 
Nichia 083 High CRI vs. Sunlight:







And to the eye, the LED delivers what it promises. Almost perfect natural light, no cold buish LED light, no yellow or even reddish ioncan cast. The best I have seen to day.


bernie


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 3, 2009)

Bernie, thanks for your thoughtful, and informative post. I did not mean to imply that incan's performance is identical to overhead, direct sunlight in terms of matching the intensity of all frequencies of visible electromagnetic radiation. Your Minolta program images demonstrate spectral radiation intensity which is accurate, but not necessarily useful when examining human perception of light. 

My above statements were along the lines of incan being a fuller, broader spectrum of visible light which must be constrained within the parameters of how the human eye visualizes lighting, namely using photopic & scotopic perception. This is another resource that discusses LED design for human perception in roadway lighting. 

While I agree the Nichia 83 & several others have higher "Color Rendering Index" values (Incands are considered "black body" sources and given a top CRI value of 100); they must be framed not only with their SPD (Spectral Power Distribution), but also actual human eye scotopic/photopic perception scales. 

I don't have resources about how the Nichia 083, Rebel, and others perform in actual side by side human color perception testing, nor have these been out long enough to make it into the mainstream and all their pro's and con's examined. I have two lights with Rebel LED's but not the Nichia 083. I'm disappointed at the reduced lumen output of the Rebels I have. No question that advances are being made in the area of LED color rendition....but is it soup yet? I don't think so.

I don't have a SF using the TIR optics, so that is news to me. Is there a resource that explains what it is actually doing? My 'beef' with LED reflectors is that they are almost all textured to the point of giving substantial coronal light and not enough throw. I'm seeing coyotees out looking for food every other night, and I'm either picking up Saabluster's DEFT, or one of my incans with a great throwing reflector to keep me and my dog safe.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 3, 2009)

Lux ... ok, point taken. 
It is not my nifty Minolta program, I have stolen those shots from somewhere else on CPF, of course. I have no real background in this scientific stuff.

My eyes tell me that the 083 does perform very well in simulating daylight. It is a very comfortable light to use, feels good. If it is scientifically there yet, I don't know. Those LEDs sure take a hit in efficiency, but with the lm/W numbers we have today I can loose a few and gain in light quality.


The current SF TIR focusses the Cree XR-E in a relatively tight and long throwing spot and looses the broad spill. It has a narrow and quickly fading spill that is enough for close quarters and that has enough punch to throw midrange.
The E2DL is a real puncher in the night with just 120 (SF) lumens. IMHO this optic is a small revolution. They really got it right this time. 

bernie


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 4, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> The current SF TIR focusses the Cree XR-E in a relatively tight and long throwing spot and looses the broad spill. It has a narrow and quickly fading spill that is enough for close quarters and that has enough punch to throw midrange.
> The E2DL is a real puncher in the night with just 120 (SF) lumens. IMHO this optic is a small revolution. They really got it right this time.
> 
> bernie



That TIR Optics piqued my interest, but I could not find any specifics on what is being done, or how it works. Do you know if it is an aspheric lens, or a collimating type of plano-convex lens (similar to MaxaBeam's), or some type of reflective lens coating?


----------



## Marduke (Jan 4, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> That TIR Optics piqued my interest, but I could not find any specifics on what is being done, or how it works. Do you know if it is an aspheric lens, or a collimating type of plano-convex lens (similar to MaxaBeam's), or some type of reflective lens coating?




This is one of the best pictures I've seen depicting how it works:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/186096


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 4, 2009)

Has anyone bought one and taken it apart with photos?


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 4, 2009)

milkyspit mods tons of SF lights and throws away the TIRs in favour of reflectors for the folks who prefer those. He should be able to show you how they look and maybe give you some.

IMHO they're just advanced LED optics like the old venerable NX05. Only better and for the Cree.

This optic makes out of tiny lights like the L1 or E1B real throwers that easily outgun the P60.

bernie


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm suddenly no longer impressed by a supposedly superior optics system if Milky is tearing them out and tossing away in favor of some more primitive reflector setup. So for now, I'm discounting that pro-LED countering incan benefit of being focussable in the focal length of a reflector argument as well. Still looks like on many fronts although LED's are making progress, they have not caught up with superior incan features.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 4, 2009)

So you are saying because if someone exchanging the TIR you assume it is inferior? Without having seen it? :thinking:
Guess there are a lot of things you have missed :nana:
bernie


----------



## Jarl (Jan 4, 2009)

incans will always have a place. There's nothing quite like watching the filament of a super high power incan take ~10 seconds to stop glowing after you've turned it off. However, for small lights, IMHO LED's easily outgun incans, especially with the warmer tints like 5A MC-E's, which I can't wait to experiment with.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 4, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> So you are saying because if someone exchanging the TIR you assume it is inferior? Without having seen it? :thinking:
> Guess there are a lot of things you have missed :nana:
> bernie



LOL! Well yeah, I guess that is what I am saying. I cannot imagine someone of Milky's reputation "trashing" a remarkably superior piece of LED reflector/optics technology in lieu of an older standard reflector setup. 

In the absence of seeing a technical discussion of what "magic" is behind the curtain in the Land of Oz, how it is working, and/or see it spreading like wildfire as the new de-facto standard in LED improvements, rather than being ripped out...this remains my default position....and I'm sticking to it (for now).


----------



## Marduke (Jan 4, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Has anyone bought one and taken it apart with photos?



It's a one piece lens, nothing to take apart. You can however buy a bag of cheap plastic ones and study them to death if you choose to.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 4, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> LOL! Well yeah, I guess that is what I am saying. I cannot imagine someone of Milky's reputation "trashing" a remarkably superior piece of LED reflector/optics technology in lieu of an older standard reflector setup.


I'm pretty sure he does this because the end user want more spill than a TIR optic gives. Naturally, this comes at the expense of throw and overall optical efficiency (65-70% for a reflector, 90-95% for a TIR optic). And in some but not all cases TIR optics give a beam pattern with artifacts which the user finds unappealing.


----------



## mudman cj (Jan 4, 2009)

Here ya go Lux - this is from a last gen KL1 head:







Notice that the side facing the camera has a pocket in which fits the LED. This allows for light to be collected from all angles. And this is the feature that most optics lack.


----------



## asdalton (Jan 4, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> LOL! Well yeah, I guess that is what I am saying. I cannot imagine someone of Milky's reputation "trashing" a remarkably superior piece of LED reflector/optics technology in lieu of an older standard reflector setup.
> 
> In the absence of seeing a technical discussion of what "magic" is behind the curtain in the Land of Oz, how it is working, and/or see it spreading like wildfire as the new de-facto standard in LED improvements, rather than being ripped out...this remains my default position....and I'm sticking to it (for now).



Some people have gotten so accustomed to the bright sidespill of reflectored LEDs (a higher spill-to-hotspot ratio than incandescents) that nothing else will satisfy them. And never underestimate the influence of white-wall hunting in people's judgments of a "perfect" beam. *But above all, the fact that these optics can be replaced doesn't mean that everyone is rushing to do this.* I'm not.

The latest generation of Surefire TIR optics give a similar beam to the E-series incandescents, except that the cone of sidespill is not as wide. My E1B and KL1-R (Luxeon III KL1 w/ McR-20 reflector) have similar beams except for 1) a much brighter hotspot with the E1B, and 2) some modest artifacts with the E1B that will not matter if you're not stalking white walls.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 4, 2009)

*Marduke*, thanks but I think I would rather see a quality presentation to see how it works...including one made with optical glass. So it has no metalized reflector, just glass refraction?

*jtr1962 *that makes sense as to why...but as you and I have discussed previously, I prefer the throw/focus type lights, so hearing about this optics system is interesting. I'm also a fan of aspheric lenses with LED in some applications...notably coyotee prophylaxis.



mudman cj said:


> Here ya go Lux - this is from a last gen KL1 head:
> 
> Notice that the side facing the camera has a pocket in which fits the LED. This allows for light to be collected from all angles. And this is the feature that most optics lack.



Thanks! Any chance of seeing side and front views just to get a better idea of the whole package concept?

Have people done beamshots that highlight the features of this TIR setup? 

*asdalton *Do you know which of the SF using TIR is considered the best quality?


----------



## Marduke (Jan 4, 2009)

From post #34's link:





All TIR optics work basically like the top figure shows. As the light is emitted, it is completely contained within the glass until it is emitted out of the front.

Good luck finding one made out of optical glass, no one makes them commercially because they are $$$. Even Surefire uses acrylic.


----------



## baterija (Jan 4, 2009)

Lux first thanks for the post. Even reading a lot of the color/CRI threads I learned some new things.:thumbsup: That said it seemed like you were trying to sell me on LED's once I actually read them. 



LuxLuthor said:


> Your Minolta program images demonstrate spectral radiation intensity which is accurate, but not necessarily useful when examining human perception of light.


It is useful when comparing to the primary light source our eyes evolved to see under - sunlight. The nearest comparison I see in his charts shows the Nichia 083 as being the only one remotely similar to sunlight's distribution.



LuxLuthor said:


> My above statements were along the lines of incan being a fuller, broader spectrum of visible light which must be constrained within the parameters of how the human eye visualizes lighting, namely using photopic & scotopic perception. This is another resource that discusses LED design for human perception in roadway lighting.


If anything the way our eyes perceive light tend to argue more towards incan being less effective as a light source. To quote from your first link 


> Recent studies now demonstrate unequivocally and in an objective manner that rod photoreceptors are active not only in dim light but also at typical interior light levels as well (see The Technical Data below). Vision scientists have known that the rods are more sensitive than cones to bluish-white light sources which is a characteristic found in higher color temperature light sources. This explains why environments using warm white (3000K) and even cool white (4100K) fluorescent lighting appear less bright than the same environment lit by lamps of a higher color temperature, 5000K or above.


Guess where midday sunlight falls in CCT...around 5000-6000k. It's not surprising that our eyes see more light when we get to a color temp closer to the primary light source we have had for our existence as a species. Even in the second link where they consider only photopic lumens for crossings, on the assumption it's all central vision, LED's end up being about twice as efficient as high pressure sodium at providing the light our eye is using.

One other quote from your first link:


> Additional studies over the past 15 years have concluded that general lighting with high scotopic to photopic ratios (S/P), characterized by high color temperature lamps, provide better visual acuity. As detailed further below, lamps with high S/P ratios can result in faster reading time, reduced visual fatigue, reduced glare, a reduction in task orientated errors, and improved human performance.


It's LED's that demonstrate that higher CCT and high S/P ratio. In fact if you read on it compares a 4000k flourescent to a 7500K flourescent, and that to get the same perceived brightness you need 52% more photopic lumens from the 4000k. Photopic lumens are just the typical definition of lumens. Admittedly it doesn't include comparisons with LED light sources at the same temps but different CRI's...it's still interesting that the color temp of what is usually consider a cool WC binned Cree is still warmer than the flourescent light they used. The low temp lamp is still at a higher temp than most incans too.


LuxLuthor said:


> While I agree the Nichia 83 & several others have higher "Color Rendering Index" values (Incands are considered "black body" sources and given a top CRI value of 100); they must be framed not only with their SPD (Spectral Power Distribution), but also actual human eye scotopic/photopic perception scales.


 CRI can only really be compared for sources at the same CCT. The sun and incans are both black body radiators and CRI is defined by black body radiators. By definition the incan has high CRI. Does that matter though? If I were comparing a 7A binned Cree I would say yes. It's in the scotopic/photopic ratio that the LED's seem to shine in when considering the links you posted. Spectral distribution needs some improvement in most LED's, but the incan looks less strong there than I would have thought before reading your post.



LuxLuthor said:


> No question that advances are being made in the area of LED color rendition....but is it soup yet? I don't think so.


If anything I think some of the recent trend around here is pushing us backwards. WD,WJ, and 3A bin crees are along the black body line and mostly between 5000k and 6000k. Pushing up into 5A and lower CCT's take us closer to incan's in CCT but is the point looking like an incan or seeing. Why should I sacrifice both photopic and scotopic lumens by going with a lower output binned LED just to get it more "incan-like."

There's room for improvement in CRI within the sunlight band of bins but they are already warm enough. In the absence of other data, it makes sense to me to aim for a sunlight like CCT and then as high a CRI as possible (which for now probably means a bin along the black body line). In some cases what to me is less accurate color rendition, like incans outdoors, is more useful because of the contrast it gives. In other cases, like Babydoc's medical practice, an eye is long since trained to see things based on incan coloring and CRI. Incans still rule the roost for maximum light output. Because of person to person differences in light perception they may be a smart individual choice if not the best choice en masse. 

There are plenty of reasons why an incan might be the best fit still. Your links made me think LED's are closer to catching Incan's than I would have thought before reading them. I still have the urge to build a retina scorching IMR though. :naughty:


----------



## asdalton (Jan 4, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> *asdalton *Do you know which of the SF using TIR is considered the best quality?



The latest generation of Surefire Cree models (E1L, E2L, L1, E1B, E2DL) all use the same optic. The early Cree versions released in late 2007 used a slightly frosted lens that gave a softer hotspot, while the currently available versions give up some smoothness to get more throw.

Despite the differences in labeling, my E2L, L1, and E1B all seem to put out 80 lumens on high.

If you want the "wow" factor, then you need to get the E2DL. It's labeled as 120 lumens, but it probably has the most underrated output of any Surefire light. Mine has the same ceiling bounce output as my 6P/M60, which means that it's around 200 lumens.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 5, 2009)

baterija said:


> It is useful when comparing to the primary light source our eyes evolved to see under - sunlight. The nearest comparison I see in his charts shows the Nichia 083 as being the only one remotely similar to sunlight's distribution.
> 
> ...
> 
> If anything I think some of the recent trend around here is pushing us backwards. WD,WJ, and 3A bin crees are along the black body line and mostly between 5000k and 6000k. Pushing up into 5A and lower CCT's take us closer to incan's in CCT but is the point looking like an incan or seeing. Why should I sacrifice both photopic and scotopic lumens by going with a lower output binned LED just to get it more "incan-like."


Well, I believe one of the reasons for the popular shift toward warmer bins, is because of the way LEDs work, the lower CCT bins also happen to have spectra that are closer to the blackbody line -- in other words phosphor white LEDs happen to have higher CRI at the lower color temps inherently. 

Here is spectrum of a WC Cree:






The 5A Cree spectrum for example is here:






The spectral power distrubtion of this LED more closely resembles a blacbody spectrum, because the lower ratio of the the blue "spike" to the phospor emissions. Once you get to the warm white LEDs, they actually start to have a pinkish/brownish off-white hue because of the lack of cyan. Cool white LEDs on the other hand lack BOTH cyan and red. Which means they will often look more "white" on a white wall (as cyan and red are complements to each other, take away both and the perceived color doesn't really change). However, it's actually worse at rendering colors. 




> It's not surprising that our eyes see more light when we get to a color temp closer to the primary light source we have had for our existence as a species. Even in the second link where they consider only photopic lumens for crossings, on the assumption it's all central vision, LED's end up being about twice as efficient as high pressure sodium at providing the light our eye is using.


Perceiving more light, and visual acuity (being able to detect obstacles on the raod, etc.) are not necessarily the same thing. Very cool white light sources, such as my 6500k LEDs _appear_ brighter to my eyes than my 4000k neutral white LEDs. However, I find the neutral white is more effective lumen for lumen at providing useful contrast in most scenarios, particularly outdoors. 

It is true, our mesopic/scoptopic vision is more sensitive to light that is biased in the blue part of the spectrum. This actually means that for colors to appear the same at low intensity as the do in daylight, you have to _compensate_ for your heightened sensitivity to the blue by using a light source with LESS blue in it than daylight. This is why high CCT sources at low illuminance cause everything to look dreary blue/gray.

For scoptopic/moonlight level situations, I also prefer 4000k. For this scenario, I've tried LEDs from 7000k to 2700k, and like 4000k the best (coincidentally, the Moon has CCT of roughly 4000k) For example, when camping my main light is a Liteflux LF2x, modded with a 5A LED, run at 0.2% output.. After my eyes adapt to the dark I find I can night-hike with 1/3rd lumen without difficulty. 

I believe the reason for this is as follows -- at intensity this low, our cones see very little action -- we can't really distinguish color at all. However, the 4000k light -- which has its peak wavelength in the green portion of the spectrum -- provies the most useful contrast when reflecting off of objects.

For example, a purely blue light woudln't be very useful outdoors, as almost everything outdoors absorbs blue light completely. Likewise, a purely red light woudln't help much either, as a great deal of things (such as most plants) also absorb red completely. Light that is predominately yellow-green, on the other hand, will reflect off of almost everything in nature to differing degrees, thus providing more useful contrast.


----------



## yellow (Jan 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor, I am not really getting it :thinking:
when I read Your lastest posts here, I get the intention You now consider BOTH reflectors and optics are bad? 


PS: I am still the reflector guy (but only the better ones, SS an such)
as long as I dont get an optic (or be shown a pic of one working) where the area at the back of the optic, around the led, is not illuminated, I dont swallow these "optics are more efficient"-sayings.
Imho - out of both - the better ones are the same efficiency.
Optics still waste light that escapes at the sides/back, reflector might not reflect everything ... 
What to use lies within the taste of the user, or the space available, or ...


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 5, 2009)

baterija said:


> Lux first thanks for the post. Even reading a lot of the color/CRI threads I learned some new things.:thumbsup: That said it seemed like you were trying to sell me on LED's once I actually read them. ....
> 
> There are plenty of reasons why an incan might be the best fit still. Your links made me think LED's are closer to catching Incan's than I would have thought before reading them. I still have the urge to build a retina scorching IMR though. :naughty:


 
First, my very sincere compliments on actually reading some of the more detailed resources and thinking about their implications. I mainly grabbed those two in a quick google minute to underscore:1) The broad spectrum nature of incans gives a benefit without having to reproduce the same radiation intensity at all noon sunlight visible frequencies. 

2) Night vision with directional flashlights use *rods *(& cones) that are not a significant factor during daylight. So the eye perceptions at night must also be used as an important factor when choosing a directional light source. It is true that rods are more sensitive to blue, so you would want a light source with less blue wavelength energy so as to not overwhelm them.​2xTrinity gave a brilliant answer that explains many of the optimal concepts regarding human perception of lighted objects and colors.



2xTrinity said:


> ...Perceiving more light, and visual acuity (being able to detect obstacles on the raod, etc.) are not necessarily the same thing. Very cool white light sources, such as my 6500k LEDs _appear_ brighter to my eyes



Because the rods are kicking @ss working like a banche in that frequency range at night. The daytime cones would yawn at the ineffective 6500K light source.



2xTrinity said:


> than my 4000k neutral white LEDs. However, I find the neutral white is more effective lumen for lumen at providing useful contrast in most scenarios, particularly outdoors.
> 
> It is true, our mesopic/scoptopic vision is more sensitive to light that is biased in the blue part of the spectrum. This actually means that for colors to appear the same at low intensity as the do in daylight, you have to _compensate_ for your heightened sensitivity to the blue by using a light source with LESS blue in it than daylight. This is why high CCT sources at low illuminance cause everything to look dreary blue/gray.



This is the brilliant part. The Rods don't see colors, but have 100 times more sensitivity to light than cones.  The rods are in the peripheral aspects of the retina, so they don't do well when the center of your retina focusses on an object. You now need more light energy in warmer frequencies to enable the less sensitive central cones to discern colors, shadows, textures that are being focussed on.



2xTrinity said:


> For scoptopic/moonlight level situations, I also prefer 4000k. For this scenario, I've tried LEDs from 7000k to 2700k, and like 4000k the best (coincidentally, the Moon has CCT of roughly 4000k) For example, when camping my main light is a Liteflux LF2x, modded with a 5A LED, run at 0.2% output.. After my eyes adapt to the dark I find I can night-hike with 1/3rd lumen without difficulty.
> 
> I believe the reason for this is as follows -- at intensity this low, our cones see very little action -- we can't really distinguish color at all. However, the 4000k light -- which has its peak wavelength in the green portion of the spectrum -- provies the most useful contrast when reflecting off of objects.
> 
> ...



Agree, but the challenge for a light source is the proper distribution of energy at the various visible spectrum to provide both optimal scotopic illumination (via rods) and photopic illumination for accurate colors, object recognition, contrast (via cones). The game is not just picking the best CCT main color summary, but having a full spectrum that allows all the parts of the eye to utilize photopic/mesopic/scoptopic perception. Incans are still doing this best, but LED's are closing in.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 5, 2009)

yellow said:


> LuxLuthor, I am not really getting it :thinking:
> when I read Your lastest posts here, I get the intention You now consider BOTH reflectors and optics are bad?
> 
> 
> ...



I am just starting to get an idea of these TIR since Bernie promoted them as being "Heaven sent." That piqued my interest until I heard that Milky was ripping them out. Now that I am seeing that they are fitting around the LED, and made out of acrylic, I'm not as enthused without seeing detailed shots of other sides, and how well they actually present a beam.

My whole point on this subject of LED reflectors is that their flat planar bases are not the same as a tubular/spherical incan bulb that can be pushed into a reflector and really work with the focal length to give a premium throw.

I mostly see the small, textured reflectors for LED's designed to eliminate artifacts, and producing a flood output which I don't like in many outdoor scenarios....like looking far ahead to avoid coyotees.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor -

I've got a couple of beamshots up of an inexpensive smoothie throwing a Cree. Don't tell any of the LED jockies I posted it. Check it out.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 5, 2009)

*Have LED's really caught up with incans?*

PydePiper –

You may or may not remember that I was an early adopter of LED lights. Lamdas, dat2zips, Mr. Bulk VIP BBH, W.J. 30mm Blasters, McLux, the first 10,000 lu LED mod by Elektrolumens in 2003, Tri-Stars and on and on. Still use them and just about anything else that looks like it will light things up and this includes Hotwires or overdriven incandescent torches.

I think I know what information you are looking for. For your purposes and your question I’ll say that in some limited operational areas LEDs have caught incandescents. Lux from a 2 cell, specifically primary CR123 driven flashlight would be one of those areas. A Malkoff Devices M60 Cree XRE LED drop-in emits a similar level of intensity as a Surefire P91 lamp, which is designed for 3 primary cells. This is just one of many examples.

I have a newly purchased light running a Cree XRE in a very deep and wide reflector that seems to have a terrific parabolic calculation to design the curve. It could be the throw King of single emitter, reflectored LED lights right now as it handles 1.24 - 1.30 Amps. It will compete with but not beat one of those One Million CP spotlights. It’s a little surprising to see it put a column out to 100 yds. Ernie measured it above 22,000 lu.

I prefer incandescent light for most purposes but use the best tool for the task at hand. If that’s LED then that’s what I use. Spotting evidence of mice in a home or business? That’s going to be a NUV LED. Spotting moose in the woods? That’s going to be something incandescent above 500 lu.

What you probably have noticed is that an LED vs incan discussion will usually become energetic. There’s much to consider. I enjoy these discussions and usually learn something from them. One thing that surfaces each time is that personal preference is the ruling factor. Occasionally I’ll post a little test that emphasizes this. It’s important, I think, to consider others’ perspectives as valid.

One thing that you may not have noticed yet is a microcosmic tribal infusion of intolerance to incandescent lighting. I’m not talking about posts where intelligent members point out pros of LED lights possibly backing up their point with empirical evidence, scientific theory or fact or maybe just a descriptive anecdotal story or two. Those are great. Those posts challenge the reader to engage and learn.

No, I’m talking about a different breed of postings. This group seems to be on a mission. This group will enter posts that indicate a severe lack of understanding of even what incandescent means. This group will say things like heat is an entity or a quantity, that they feel radiometric thermal energy in the beam of their new LED light and that caloric energy can only exist in a candy bar or a Little Debbie snack cake, that color has no baring on depth perception, and that all photons are exactly alike except that some are different colors and if we had a powerful enough microscope we could see that a beam of light really looks like someone knocked over a gumball machine and that sunlight looks like Skittles falling from the sky. 

This group will tell you that professional SAR/FAR organizations have all moved away from incandescent lights. This group of posts points to the comparatively low activity level in the incandescent forum as an indicator that nobody uses them any more. Yet month after month someone asks for a good incan for a family member that does not like the color of LEDs. Cops come back to incans for their jobs. Doctors, Dentists, artists…the list goes on. Lots of “back to incandescent” threads as people notice and experience the importance of rendition. It doesn’t occur to this LED ONLY group that the Mod forum isn’t that busy either. Both sub-forums tend to have more high quality discussions than, “what’s the brightest recommend me a light” threads. This group of posts insists that no one that likes incandescent lights are fair in their comparisons and that nobody has ever posted photos of similar lux incandescent to LED comparison shots. This group insists that I must only compare my AAA incans to LEDs and that if we are to race I must sell my Top Fuel dragster and buy a Scion to make it fair.

This group will tell you that high end food stores, high end clothing stores, high jewelry stores and high end automobile stores use all those incandescent halogens because they just don’t know no better.

This group will wax poetically, extolling the virtues of their latest LED wonder-light. As I read along I know what is to happen next. Yet again the big exciting activity will be to toss a ghostly membrane of light onto the scene only to have it loftily settle about like a hastily discarded woman’s pale-blue chiffon wrap. As I read further into the prattle I can feel my left brow furl. My face squirrels up and my head tilts a little to one side. I imagine this would be much like how Wagner would react whilst being forced to endure listening to a chorus set forth by a trio of pre-pubescent boys competitively belching out the tune to _The Ride of the Valkyrie_. He senses something familiar but he knows it’s not quite right. And still he listens because it’s his song. The facial tic should eventually subside.

Then I wonder, sometimes out loud, why this group of incan haters gets so bent out of shape when I blaze up a light that commands a full orchestra of colors sending back to my eyes a pleasant banquet of information to help me quickly determine what I’m looking at so I can decide if I should go or I should stay. For the LED only crew…

*Have LED flashlights really caught up with the incandescent flashlights?*

*Not hardly:*






Here are a couple of images that seem to benefit from incandescent lighting. I took one of the photos and enhanced the lighting with an incandescent flashlight. Look away if the images abrade your vision.


----------



## carrot (Jan 5, 2009)

Icebreak,
An excellent, thoughtful and well-composed post. You make me ashamed for shelving most of my incans. However, I am currently in the middle of pricing out an upgrade to my M3T that according to LumensFactory, would make it a 1000 lumen beast. I am sure once I have that I will regain more interest in incans again since we are talking about a hefty amount of guilt-free lumens. The LED crowd is often guilty of dubbing incandescent as inferior but this is clearly not the case as there are still many applications (as you point out) where incandescent simply reigns supreme. I think it is pretty interesting how the two are converging from different sides-- incan has great rendition but poor efficiency, and efficiency has been improving as of late... and LED has great efficiency but poor rendition... and well look at the Sundrop and Nichia 083.

I admit I have been drawn away from incans, due to the allure of the long LED runtimes. Just a few years ago I would have called BS if someone told me I would be carrying a flashlight that ran on 1x123, ran for 3 hours, and could light up the side of a building or an entire hallway, to the point where night-adjusted eyes weren't necessary to see everything. LED's really excel in the smaller lights but when it comes to the larger more powerful ones the comparison gets weaker. LED's of course are making steady advances, but incans still win for sheer power... unless, oh say... you have a bank of 70 Crees behind lenses.

As to the subject of TIR, I think TIR is far more interesting than reflectors and a lot of great things can be done with them. They are younger in the world of flashlights but when you see what can be done with them it's hard not to be pleased. Aspheric lenses, for instance, create ridiculous throw by doing what no reflector can, and TIR has the effect of making dimmer lights much more "capable" as far as throw is concerned. 

Try a 220-lumen modded E1L (with TIR intact, mind you) and tell me it isn't insanely impressive. It's not quite on the level of a 2D Malkoff Mag for instance but the fact that I can even begin to compare them... well that's saying a lot. 

With TIR it is possible to cast photons further than you can chuck the light, and to me this is really impressive, despite being less useful for EDC. Surefire is gearing up to prove that TIR is capable of more than just throw, with the UA2 and I'm sure we will all be impressed.


----------



## yellow (Jan 5, 2009)

carrot said:


> Icebreak,
> An excellent, thoughtful and well-composed post.


i feel it more at being near a week off, 
f.e. where are these constant posts of a "certain group" of ignorant ppl?
The whole 2nd half of this large post deals with the topic, so there must be hundreds of them, flooding the first pages of every under-forum, when it has to be mentionned this often and detail within a single post
:thinking:


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 5, 2009)

Not to go starting anything but I have missed all the posts referring to incan as inferior to led's, although there seems no shortage of postings to the contrary. I like incan best too and firmly am in the camp of belief that whatever choice you make, there are compromises, which are up for each of us to choose.

As for Icebreak's skilfully written post, methinks he doth protesteth overly much.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 5, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> Yet month after month someone asks for a good incan for a family member that does not like the color of LEDs. Cops come back to incans for their jobs. Doctors, Dentists, artists…the list goes on. Lots of “back to incandescent” threads as people notice and experience the importance of rendition.


In some cases this simply has to do with what you're used to. For example, if a doctor or dentist has been trained to look at tissue under incandescent light then they have no frame of reference using anything else. And most LEDs are deficient in red, making looking at tissue harder. Others just need raw throw or output. Again, for now LEDs can't match incandescent or HID although they get closer each year.



> This group will tell you that high end food stores, high end clothing stores, high jewelry stores and high end automobile stores use all those incandescent halogens because they just don’t know no better.


This may have more to do with wanting to throw a focused beam of light to emphasize a product, or in the case of gemstones to make them sparkle, than it does with the SPD of the light source. Fluorescents just can't do those things. While LEDs can, they've only recently become viable for such general lighting uses, and they're still much more expensive than halogen. Remember that for now all types of artificial lighting represent a compromise. LEDs can duplicate the apparent CCT of the sun but not the SPD. Incandescents may have a broad spectrum but the CCT is way off as far as representing anything human eyes are designed to easily deal with (I get horrible headaches under typical household incandescents within a few minutes due to the lack of a white point). An overdriven hotwire right at the point of melting has a (barely) acceptable CCT, but the halogens used in high-end stores certainly don't. I'm sure if they had a focusable 4000K or 5000K light with a fairly decent color rendition it would be greatly preferred over halogen as it would make objects appear more natural, without the depressing yellow pallor of incandescent lighting. But such a light source doesn't really exist yet outside of filtered incandescent (and I've actually seen that used in a fair number of high-end stores). LED certainly has its drawbacks for now, and I for one won't mindlessly defend it under all circumstances. However, it's a game-changing technology which I feel in time will do whatever any other artificial light source can do, and more.



> Then I wonder, sometimes out loud, why this group of incan haters gets so bent out of shape when I blaze up a light that commands a full orchestra of colors sending back to my eyes a pleasant banquet of information to help me quickly determine what I’m looking at so I can decide if I should go or I should stay. For the LED only crew…


In all honestly and IMO incan doesn't do any justice in those pictures without color correction of some sort. For example, here is my admittedly crude attempt at color correction of your motorcycle picture:






It looks SO much better now without the yellow tint, and the colors just pop out. I guess the advantage of incandescent is that you CAN at least correct the CCT to something reasonable without losing any color information. You can't do that with a light source with large gaps like fluorescent. That being said, it would be so much better to have a fairly broad spectrum light source not needing correction. LED isn't there yet but we're making progress. High CRI fluorescent can approach this ideal but of course it can't really be focused. It's ideal for general lighting but not in situations where you're aiming for dramatic effect by focusing a beam of light to emphasize an object.

While I don't consider myself an incandescent hater as they still have some uses, most of my objections to incandescent have more to do with practicality than with the SPD (the CCT of incan is too low but borderline acceptable if you overdrive a filament to near the point of destruction). In the practicality department, overdriven incan lasts a handful of hours, and the lamps aren't exactly cheap. They require 2 to 3 times the power for a given luminous flux compared to LEDs, which in turn means a larger battery pack or carrying lots of spares. Once you start getting into general lighting the practical issues against using incan are even more compelling. Efficiency is 1/4 to 1/10 that of alternatives, with the lower wattage lamps doing the worst. The large amount of heat can cause problems, including fires. Lifetime at perhaps 750 hours for a standard household incandescent isn't that great compared to 24,000 to 35,000 hours for linear fluorescent. Fluorescent of course has its own set of disadvantages, although for me and quite a few others the practical issues of using them trump these disadvantages. I'll continue to hold out hope that LED will end up being as close to an ideal light source as is possible, although I know they're not there yet, nor will I pretend that they are.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 5, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> In some cases this simply has to do with what you're used to. For example, if a doctor or dentist has been trained to look at tissue under incandescent light then they have no frame of reference using anything else. And most LEDs are deficient in red, making looking at tissue harder. Others just need raw throw or output. Again, for now LEDs can't match incandescent or HID although they get closer each year.


this is aslo a case of contrast-enhancement. Insider a patients mouth, a dentist or doctor is trying to discriminate between red and maybe yellow hues only. So a light that is low CCT will enhance contrast between these hues. 



> This may have more to do with wanting to throw a focused beam of light to emphasize a product, or in the case of gemstones to make them sparkle, than it does with the SPD of the light source. Fluorescents just can't do those things. While LEDs can, they've only recently become viable for such general lighting uses, and they're still much more expensive than halogen. Remember that for now all types of artificial lighting represent a compromise.


I have actually seen some grocery stores and retail stores etc. using small HID lamps as opposed to halogens, to get both high CCT and a point-like source. Of course, SPD isn't terrific on an HID, but the overall presentation still looked a lot better because the color from the HID matched the overhead fluorescents, rather than an out-of-place looking clash between a 4200k fluoro overhead, and 3000k incan on the displays. In the case of the store I believe there was an added benefit that the HID didn't throw as much waste heat into the refrigerated section.



> I guess the advantage of incandescent is that you CAN at least correct the CCT to something reasonable without losing any color information. You can't do that with a light source with large gaps like fluorescent. That being said, it would be so much better to have a fairly broad spectrum light source not needing correction. LED isn't there yet but we're making progress. High CRI fluorescent can approach this ideal but of course it can't really be focused. It's ideal for general lighting but not in situations where you're aiming for dramatic effect by focusing a beam of light to emphasize an object.


If you use color mixing optics, this can be done now by using an LED in the 3x - 5x range from Cree, and include a cyan (to fill the "gap" in the spectrum), and red LED (to counterbalance the cyan). SPD of the emitters combined is essentially dead on compared to blackbody. Of course, good luck trying to make a thrower using a scheme like this...


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 5, 2009)

Icebreak, your waxing poetic eloquence is beguiling!

I noticed that JTR did not dare adjust Eva Green in his demonstration! It is important to remember that most camera shots, unless taken by experienced professionals do not represent what the human eye is seeing. In any case, it is obvious to me that JTR suffers from an altered perception of reality. I have not heard of anyone else getting headaches in the presence of incan lighting, nor having to describe incans in terms such as "...the depressing yellow pallor of incandescent lighting."

While I agree the original 2 images are not properly color balanced, I am also sure that this is a camera setting problem, and not how it appears in person. I am 100% certain that JTR's perversely altered museum image does not correlate to reality. I know wood floors should be wood colored. Chrome should be chrome colored, rather than some shade of Navy blue. Use the dropper in Painshop/Photoshop to verify what I am saying. In any case IMHO, JTR's altered version is hideous, unnatural, and makes my case about what makes an LED Jockey (term used with endearing affection) unique. He actually believes his alteration is nice looking!!!

Unless professional color samples, light meters, and standardization of lighting is observed, it is really not all that useful to use photos to try and make a point about proper colorization by lights. Eva Green's photo is a better example of accurate photography.

There is something internally inconsistent with the start and ending of this JTR paragraph:



> While I don't consider myself an incandescent hater as they still have some uses, most of my objections to incandescent have more to do with practicality than with the SPD (the CCT of incan is too low but borderline acceptable if you overdrive a filament to near the point of destruction). In the practicality department, overdriven incan lasts a handful of hours, and the lamps aren't exactly cheap. They require 2 to 3 times the power for a given luminous flux compared to LEDs, which in turn means a larger battery pack or carrying lots of spares. Once you start getting into general lighting the practical issues against using incan are even more compelling. Efficiency is 1/4 to 1/10 that of alternatives, with the lower wattage lamps doing the worst. The large amount of heat can cause problems, including fires.



It is not accurate to imply that overdriven incans last a handful of hours...which would be 5 or less hours. I can't think of any of my many overdriven incan lights that have lasted less than 15 hours. I have said this before, but I do not reach for a light with the thought "let's see...which of these lights have the best efficiency?" I pick up a light that will do the job I need it to do. If that means I may have to buy $3-5 extra bulbs on occasion, or recharge its batteries more often, so be it. Having the light you want trumps all of the intellectual efficiency arguements. I have no problem with those who prefer the attributes of LED's, and have 20-25 of them myself that I use in many scenarios.

I have yet to go out for a walk and use any light continuously. I have only needed to carry spare incan batteries on one occasion. If I am going out for many hours or days, then I would bring an LED, and live with the compromises in color/throw/lumen output. Most of my incans are 1D or 2D Mag sizes, and I have no problem being able to charge them as needed.

On and on it goes...

One benefit of this thread that has made a contribution however, is finding out about the TIR concept which I have not discarded.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 5, 2009)

Hey guys !
No one touches Eva Green, right? No one!  :nana:

I see incan as a lightsource that is as far from the truth than LED is, only more inefficient and less long lasting. But incan is beautiful and a very comfortable light, which LED is not yet. Except for the 083 that I have. 

And ... incan has some other advantages that LEDs can't match yet ... like IR filter use and fog penetration, for example.

Either way ... whatever we may or may not agree upon, incan is doomed. Which is sad.

bernie


P.S.: Lux ... you wanna see a nice throwing LED beam in a small package that destroys incan throw of the same size ... check the SF TIR out. Color rendition forgotten for a while


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> In any case, it is obvious to me that JTR suffers from an altered perception of reality. I have not heard of anyone else getting headaches in the presence of incan lighting, nor having to describe incans in terms such as "...the depressing yellow pallor of incandescent lighting."


Maybe not in so many words, but quite a few people here have mentioned that they consider 4000K to 5000K to be the sweet spot for lighting which they prefer. No surprise, either, as this is the type of light we evolved under. As for my headaches under incan, I'm sure I'm not the only one. I attribute it to my brain trying to autocolorbalance but being unable to do so when the light is too yellow. For what it's worth I find purple-tinted LEDs just as obnoxious as yellow-tinted incandescents. I'm an equal-opportunity hater of poor light sources.



> While I agree the original 2 images are not properly color balanced, I am also sure that this is a camera setting problem, and not how it appears in person. I am 100% certain that JTR's perversely altered museum image does not correlate to reality. I know wood floors should be wood colored. Chrome should be chrome colored, rather than some shade of Navy blue. Use the dropper in Painshop/Photoshop to verify what I am saying. In any case IMHO, JTR's altered version is hideous, unnatural, and makes my case about what makes an LED Jockey (term used with endearing affection) unique. He actually believes his alteration is nice looking!!!


I don't really have the software to properly color balance. I simply subtracted red and added blue. I'm sure it's not that simple. I'd like to see what the image would look like if it were properly color balanced. The original reminds me of looking at the world through those blue-blocker sun glasses. Yet, it's pretty close to how I personally perceive a scene in person lit with incandescents. But in general you're right-an image tells us little. All of our monitors are adjusted differently. The chrome in the adjusted image has only a hint of blue on my monitor just as it would under a light source approximating sunlight. Maybe the color temp on your monitor is adjusted too high, exaggerating the blues? In any case, without standardization looking at images is a pointless exercise.



> It is not accurate to imply that overdriven incans last a handful of hours...which would be 5 or less hours. I can't think of any of my many overdriven incan lights that have lasted less than 15 hours. I have said this before, but I do not reach for a light with the thought "let's see...which of these lights have the best efficiency?" I pick up a light that will do the job I need it to do. If that means I may have to buy $3-5 extra bulbs on occasion, or recharge its batteries more often, so be it. Having the light you want trumps all of the intellectual efficiency arguements. I have no problem with those who prefer the attributes of LED's, and have 20-25 of them myself that I use in many scenarios.


15 hours or even 5 hours is an eternity for a light you only switch on or off occasionally as most of your uses seem to be. I'm thinking of my own uses which are usually continuous and last an hour or more. For example, a bike light with a 15 hour lamp life is useless to me. I can do that amount of riding in 2 weeks, and I've no guarantee the lamp won't fail right in the middle of a ride. On my budget I can't afford $5 replacement lamps even once a month. And any incan giving a decent amount of light would require an inordinate amount of heavy batteries to last for a 2 or 3 hour ride. So even if I considered incan superior in terms of light quality, it would be a nonstarter for me due to the practicality issues.

General lighting makes for an even more interesting comparison. Take the light in our kitchen. It's a 4x32W linear fixture putting out maybe 10,000 lumens and using about 107 watts. It's on roughly 12 hours per day. Suppose I wanted to use incan to generate the same amount of light. Now I need about 6 100 watt bulbs. At our electric rates that's about $550 more in electrical costs per year. Let's play devil's advocate and suppose I couldn't care less about efficiency or power cost. There is still the enormous practical issue of constant lamp replacement. 12 hours times 6 lamps equals 72 lamp-hours per day. With a rated lifetime of 750 hours typical for household incandescents that means on average I'll need to replace one lamp every 10 or so days. That's about 36 new lamps per year. I don't consider this an even remotely acceptable situation having to keep a fairly large stock of replacement lamps and replenish it regularly. With the tubes I've yet to replace one, and I purchased them in July 2003.

I guess my point in both cases is that I want light sources which serve me rather than vice versa. You may not consider it a big deal to change out a lamp, but perhaps with your usage patterns you rarely do. I know I've had so many incans fail on me, especially back in my days modeling HO trains, that I won't touch them any more. It quickly becomes tiresome when you have to disassemble scale models and replace 2 dozen lamps. The annual ritual of lamp replacement after every Christmas season when my fingers hurt from pulling out dead bulbs was equally tedious. It got so bad I stopped putting lights outside until I went all LED in 2007. If any of my posts in these threads seem at all biased towards LED, then perhaps that is mainly due to me own personal years of bad experience with incandescent. After saying for a long time that there has to be something better, I'm glad there finally is with LEDs. Not perfect of course, but much better.

There is some truth to what Bernie said. It seems whatever real or perceived advantages incan has it is doomed due to the practical issues of lamp life and efficiency.


----------



## mudman cj (Jan 5, 2009)

Some of the topics under discussion have been addressed at some length in this thread. It demonstrates pretty handily that a photograph taken by a cool white light source can be manipulated by computer to appear as though it were illuminated by a 'balanced' light source. And the members discussed what conclusions we can reliably draw from photographs and the type of useful comparisons that can be made between light sources.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 5, 2009)

Bernie, I'm pretty sure I will get one of those SF TIR lights...just need to figure out which would be best, and searching out if any have been reviewed yet.

I would give quite a bit to "touch" Eva Green, but in the meantime, I agree her photo is delicious just the way it is.

I respect your opinion that incan is 'doomed,' but I don't agree. At least not in my lifetime. There are too many who love using them.

JTR, I know that types of lighting and colors affect people differently...so I'm not disrespecting your reality, but I don't feel it should be extrapolated into the general population. I agree that 4000K to 4300K is a pretty nice sweet spot, but I don't see the incans I use giving "a depressing yellow pallor." It would be interesting to examine your retinal accuracy vis-a-vis color perception and distribution of rods & cones. 

I don't hate the colors of most LED's even if it is the original blue spike generation. It is rather a matter of missing proper color/contrast/depth/detail rendering which is more cone mediated. I do find the illegal car HID blue tinted headlights obnoxious, because they overwhelm the 10 times more sensitive rods at night, and temporarily displace the functional rhodopsin mediated night vision.

I use a CRT (NEC FP2141SB) monitor that I periodically calibrate with Display Mate, so I'm confident of my colors being accurate. I blew up your motorcycle version to show the blue chrome perversion. You should be able to use the dropper and get the RGB color values as well. It is just not at all an accurate rendering.







I agree with an application like a continuously on bike light, that I would also be using an LED. I'm more talking about hand held flashlights when taking walks.

Your discussion of kitchen lighting is just not applicable to my life. When I go in the kitchen, I turn on the various banks of recessed incan 100W bulbs. There are 3 sets of 4 bulbs. Sometimes I only turn on the set over the sink, other times the set over the stove. In any case, when I'm done with my time in the kitchen, I turn them off. I would estimate any one light in the kitchen is on no more than 1-2 hours per day. I use bulbs that are 750 to 1200 hours, so a bulb lasts about a year. Novel idea, those "off" switches, huh?

For small models, that are toys and decorative novelties, I would have no problem using LED's. My discussions have always been about practical flashlight uses, and to a lesser degree home/office lighting.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 6, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> One benefit of this thread that has made a contribution however, is finding out about the TIR concept which I have not discarded.


Off-topic, but if you are interested in TIR you might like to look at this thread by Ra. He is very knowledgeable on the subject, and his input in other threads such as this one is very interesting indeed.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 6, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> In some cases this simply has to do with what you're used to. For example, if a doctor or dentist has been trained to look at tissue under incandescent light then they have no frame of reference using anything else. And most LEDs are deficient in red, making looking at tissue harder.



I'm unsure what to do with a challenge statement that is in diametric opposition of itself. It makes no sequential sense. Training is the problem but missing reds is the problem so training isn't the problem but training is the problem.

Individuals that prefer incandescent light for some tasks don't have the preference because they are stuck in a rut or lack training or don't know any better. It's their preference and it's valid. If the frequency isn't in the light the color will not be revealed. If Grandma Goodcookie doesn't like the light from LEDs because it appears to be harsh to her then that's that. She doesn't need to be trained or educated. She just needs someone to bring her a good incandescent light. They'll be rewarded with some wonderful baked goods and a kind smile. How hard is that? 

I'm no Shelby Chan . The white balance was not perfect on the bike but it was close. It is a beautiful piece of work. With the entire spectrum of reds, oranges and yellows present in the lighting, the awesome paint becomes eye candy. I've got a few other shots of it. When I find time I'll post them in a thread. In the mean time I've managed to completely screw up some interesting shots by giffing them too big.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 6, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> I'm unsure what to do with a challenge statement that is in diametric opposition of itself. It makes no sequential sense. Training is the problem but missing reds is the problem so training isn't the problem but training is the problem.


Actually, no. The information is still there with LEDs, but the end result just looks different and perhaps more subtle. If you've gotten used to looking at tissue samples under LED light, then you could probably pick up the same things as under incandescent. Maybe you would just need to increase the intensity of the light to make up for the relative lack of reds (the frequencies are still there, just not in abundance). Remember that LEDs have a continuous spectrum, just that the colors are in different proportions than a black body. The brain is great at compensating in cases like this. Fluorescents on the other hand are discontinuous sources. In many cases certain frequencies just aren't there, period, and that's where you have a problem.



> Individuals that prefer incandescent light for some tasks don't have the preference because they are stuck in a rut or lack training or don't know any better. It's their preference and it's valid. If the frequency isn't in the light the color will not be revealed. If Grandma Goodcookie doesn't like the light from LEDs because it appears to be harsh to her then that's that. She doesn't need to be trained or educated. She just needs someone to bring her a good incandescent light. They'll be rewarded with some wonderful baked goods and a kind smile. How hard is that?


I've found it's about 90% force of habit and 10% need. In most cases an incan doesn't reveal any additional _necessary_ information over any other type of decent light sources. Hence the "need" part doesn't exist. It's simply a matter of "I'm used to the room looking this way at night" or something similar. However, in quite a few cases when I've shown people higher CCT lighting options with decent color rendering they actually end up preferring it over incandescent. I'll get comments such as "that looks so much more natural, more like how the room looks under daylight" and "it's nice not having to compromise colors because before the room looked different at night compared to the day". The thing is, unless I showed them the difference, most never would have even tried it. Many had the reflexive "fluorescent is harsh" or it flickers or some other nonsensical reason for not even trying something new. This is especially true of older people who spent most of their lives in a world with no real alternatives to incandescent light in their homes. Of course, some tried higher CCT lighting and just don't like it and that's fine. I have no problem with preferences and consider any preference valid _if you've tried all the reasonable alternatives_. However, anyone who says they prefer incandescent without having even tried lighting with other color temperatures is going purely by force of habit. Same with LED versus incandescent flashlights. I respect Lux Luthor's opinion that incan is better because he owns and uses LED lights. At least he tried the alternative before coming to his conclusion. That's really all I ask. Try it and live with it a while. If you don't like it after a week or two chances are you never will. I have tried incan both for home lighting and flashlights. I simply can't live with it as it's just too yellow compared to sunlight. Back when I was a kid and the house was lit with incan everywhere except the kitchen I found myself spending the most time there. Granted, the flickering, crappy cool-white fluorescent of the time was hardly an example of a great light source, but just the fact that it made whites look somewhat white was a plus. By comparison, today's cool-white LEDs, although admittedly still lacking, are a quantum leap compared to those old halophosphor fluorescents.

Regarding my attempt at white balancing, remember that I have no frame of reference for what is a white object in the picture. I assumed that the background in the picture frames is white. If in reality it's an off-white, even in sunlight, then that means I subtracted too much red and added too much blue. The best way would have been if the camera taking the picture had its white balance set to incandescent.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 6, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> In most cases an incan doesn't reveal any additional _necessary_ information over any other type of decent light sources. Hence the "need" part doesn't exist.



We disagree on this. I can give you thousands of examples. Remember we are talking flashlights here, not train sets or a bat cave in the basement. It could be something to do with lifestyle. If knowing the temperature of an Angus fillet is_ unnecessary_ information, if knowing that snake on water's edge is poisonous is _unnecessary_ information, if knowing that Eva just blushed is _unnecessary_ information; we have different lifestyles.

If LEDs work best for you that's fine and thoroughly acceptable but don't try to explain to me why I'm wrong about why Incandescent flashlights work best for some of my purposes. I'm right. It's my preference. And don't try to explain to Grandma Goodcookie that she's wrong either. She's right. It's her preference.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 6, 2009)

I think people like warm lights best. We had the cold energy saving lamps ... we had those cold and flickering neon tubes ... and basically, they're gone, except maybe in metro stations.
People had plenty of time to adapt, but they didn't. It is the lighting industry that adapted ... producing low color temperature energy saving lamps and warm white LEDs and what not. 
IMHO the question is not what kind of light the people want, that has long been answered. The question is what will produce this warm light ... and the averge citizen couldn't care less if it was a LED or a CFL or an incan ... as long as it is cheap and meets the criteria.

And I wanna see Eva blush. Really. 

A lightsource for a flashlight is a different thing though I think. Color temperature is less important to most people and to most tasks, as long as the main problem is solved ... the power of the flashlight. Since we now have basically solved the power and runtime requirements, the talk about CRI and CCT begins, which is good. 

bernie


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 6, 2009)

I just want to point out that in Japan and many other Asian countries 5000K is the preferred type of light for residential. It's as much as cultural thing as it is personal preference. And warm is a relative term. The 3500K and 4100K lamps which seem to be preferred now as opposed to 6500K are certainly warmer than daylight but cooler than 2700K household incandescent. I'll even admit unless you light a room very brightly it looks eerie with 6500K. But even here in the US, I look in people's windows and see more and more high CCT lights than a few years ago. They have the same choices anyone else does yet they're avoiding the very warm incandescent-type lighting.

And to say people have had time to adapt but didn't, that's not true at all in regards to residential lighting. Many people have not even tried anything other than incandescent lamps. No idea if they'll prefer 3500K or 5000K instead until they try it. Based on what I read in these forums, the low 4000s seems to be a sweet spot for people in the know. In offices and workplaces where fluorescents have been used for years the majority of places seem to have shifted to 3500K or 4100K. Evidently that's what people who work there prefer, not 2700K or 6500K. A local grocery store actually got rid of their 3000K tubes as it made the place look dreary. The strange thing is they replaced them with 6500K. The store is bright enough so it doesn't look strange, but that's sort of moving from one extreme to the other. If anything I'd say neutral white LEDs are what is going to be big, and they'll catch on in residential lighting.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 6, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> We disagree on this. I can give you thousands of examples. Remember we are talking flashlights here, not train sets or a bat cave in the basement. It could be something to do with lifestyle. If knowing the temperature of an Angus fillet is_ unnecessary_ information, if knowing that snake on water's edge is poisonous is _unnecessary_ information, if knowing that Eva just blushed is _unnecessary_ information; we have different lifestyles.
> 
> If LEDs work best for you that's fine and thoroughly acceptable but don't try to explain to me why I'm wrong about why Incandescent flashlights work best for some of my purposes. I'm right. It's my preference. And don't try to explain to Grandma Goodcookie that she's wrong either. She's right. It's her preference.


If they work for you then wonderful. My comment about the need part is exactly that. A doctor examining tissue may need a light source biased towards red (or a much brighter light source without red bias) to be able to shine enough red photons at tissue to discern subtle differences. Same for you cooking steak or examining a snake. That's exactly what I meant about need and thanks for giving those examples. Many (most?) really have no such needs. I know I don't. I don't need to examine tissue, I don't really care for red meat (and would use a thermometer, not a flashlight, to determine temperature if I did), I don't go where poisonous snakes exist, and I doubt I'll ever meet Eva in person much less need to see her blush. My only real need is to see white that looks like white and to have a light source which doesn't fatigue me or give me headaches. If it has good color rendering it's merely a bonus, not a necessity. Point of fact I'd say the majority have no real need to distinguish subtle degradations of color at either end of the spectrum, so pretty much any light source will do, and people generally buy based on initial purchase price. That's their real preference. No surprise then incandescent is widely used. If LED bulbs cost 25 cents that's probably what you would see in every house. Generally people will only avoid using a light source if it's really, really awful, such as a very green fluorescent, a very purple LED, or a sodium vapor lamp. Other than that they don't seem to care one way or another so long as things look more or less normal. Most won't even notice the difference between a CRI 82 CFL and an incandescent even if the CCTs aren't close. Only a few people have ever picked up that we have 5000K CFLs in the table lamps in the living room. Most don't even notice the difference, or if they do it isn't enough to comment on. That shows how adaptable people are to different light sources. Those who have really specific needs for lighting know it and buy accordingly. Everyone else it's either force of habit or just buying whatever is cheapest. I wouldn't call such behavoir a preference.


----------



## baterija (Jan 6, 2009)

Lux and trinity thanks for following up to my post. Even having read a lot of the color threads before, Lux made me have some "aha" moments which continued and continue as I think about it all. Some of what you two have thrown in added to things that popped to mind as I processed more...not with as much clarity as you two gave though. Especially flashlight beams and peripheral vision came to my mind.

I do know this. I have repeatedly been annoyed with incandescent house lighting during my life. They always seemed hazy and dirty if I stopped to really look. By hazy I literally mean it looks like a haze hanging in the room with me. It was while reading one of Lux's links that I finally made the realization. The haze and my annoyance with it usually gets noticed first with my peripheral vision. That's where the rods aren't getting the blue that would accompany indirect daylight at that lumen level. Hmmmm :thinking:

Interesting to see where it goes. More than any of the other color threads this has sparked more thought. Luckily I was already leaning forward in the saddle to experiment and see what works for me.

I've got one of the Q2 5A dropins on the way. I've got a neutral SSC P4 SV0 (~5000-5500k) on the way to upgrade a rayovac sportsman. I've got my LF3XT that has a WC. I've got my SF weaponlight with P60, and I have my PT Quad with it's bluish Nichias. I'm going to have to put in some peripheral vision experiments for myself now. Maybe hang some various color objects off clothes lines to the side. Thanks CPF for making me look crazier. :twothumbs

It will be interesting later this year when (if) cree brings new emitters with their announced trenching for phosphors that they imply will, among other benefits, give them more control over emission wavelengths.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 6, 2009)

baterija said:


> I do know this. I have repeatedly been annoyed with incandescent house lighting during my life. They always seemed hazy and dirty if I stopped to really look. By hazy I literally mean it looks like a haze hanging in the room with me. It was while reading one of Lux's links that I finally made the realization. The haze and my annoyance with it usually gets noticed first with my peripheral vision. That's where the rods aren't getting the blue that would accompany indirect daylight at that lumen level. Hmmmm :thinking:


Wow, that's _exactly_ the same way I've felt, even as a child, long before I knew anything about CCTs or CRI (actually that metric didn't exist back then) or spectra. In your case, has it been bad enough that you've actually gotten headaches like me? And to add to what you wrote, the lack of blue in your peripheral vision is what accounts for the well known tunnel vision effect of driving on a street lit with sodium vapor lights. While lack of blue light is merely an annoyance indoors, it's actually downright dangerous while driving. Do you find the effect you described to be even worse under sodium streetlights? I know I do. It's a shame that knowledge of how we see was limited when these lights were foisted on us in the 1970s. Besides the tunnel vision, the much lower S/P ratio meant these lights appeared dimmer than the mercury vapor they replaced, even though the photopic lumens and efficiency were higher on paper.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 7, 2009)

Oh great, just what we need in this topic, baterija reinforcing JTR's beliefs to make a majority of two!!!  baterija....even if you noticed getting headaches from incan lights, please lie and say "no," or this will get written into the Old Testament somehow. :green:

I really think some of these preferences are anatomical rather than cultural, or a matter of adaptation. We have not even talked about the % distribution of the 3 types of cones (red/green/blue) which can also have variability from person to person. 

In reality, 99.9% of the population notice very little about their environment, let alone how colors on walls or a lighting source/spectrum affects them. 

Many experiments have been done to verify that environmental colors and even colored lighting has effects on people in different ways. I seriously doubt there are very many people who *objectively *get consistent headaches from incandescent lights. Recognizing the uniqueness of that (headache) occurrance, JTR, IMHO, I think you should be extra careful not to project that kind of reaction as a widespread guideline or common phenomonen.

I'm also 99.9% sure I could have 10 people over for dinner 7 nights in a row, and use a totally different source and color of lighting, and none of them would notice anything....or if they did notice something, they would not be able to have enough conscious awareness of something like lighting to bring it up as a conversational topic. If they felt different, they would ascribe it to the food, company, conversation, etc.

A better experiment would be to have a group of people separately go into a series of identically shaped and painted rooms, but each with their own unique type of lighting, and ask them to pay attention to how the various lighting sources and colors makes them feel.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 7, 2009)

DM51 said:


> Off-topic, but if you are interested in TIR you might like to look at this thread by Ra. He is very knowledgeable on the subject, and his input in other threads such as this one is very interesting indeed.



Thank you sir! Very interesting to read those links!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 7, 2009)

PS) I just spent 40 minutes looking at various Eva Green photos. LOL! A lot more interesting than flashlights.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 7, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> The E2DL is a real puncher in the night with just 120 (SF) lumens. IMHO this optic is a small revolution. They really got it right this time.
> 
> bernie



Bernie, is this the one you are talking about ? Is there a better version coming out, or have people modded this one?


----------



## Long RunTime (Jan 7, 2009)

Very interesting discussion.


----------



## baterija (Jan 7, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Oh great, just what we need in this topic, baterija reinforcing JTR's beliefs to make a majority of two!!!  baterija....even if you noticed getting headaches from incan lights, please lie and say "no," or this will get written into the Old Testament somehow. :green:



I don't even need to lie. No I haven't noticed a correlation between incan and headaches for me. 

It's hard to say for sure since until a couple years ago home was all incan for my whole life. Honestly for most of that time I would say I strongly preferred incan to the bad flourescent of the time. Most of the time my brain just adapts. It was just every so often I would notice, get really annoyed, turn on more lights to try and overpower the haze, and then give up and ignore it. The worst part of this thread is I have spent pretty much 2 days in constant notice mode because I am thinking about it. Months worth of haze annoyance in two days.



> I really think some of these preferences are anatomical rather than cultural, or a matter of adaptation.


Exactly. There's value in discussing the the center of the bell curve for public lighting (assuming it is a standard distribution). In flashlights I am predominantly worried about ME...which is why I am waiting for a couple shipments to test what works best for me. I do know the old 5mm bluish LED's annoy me as much or more that the light from a P60 LA without some it's contrast benefits.



> In reality, 99.9% of the population notice very little about their environment, let alone how colors on walls or a lighting source/spectrum affects them.


Lighting...the world around them...whether they are walking in front of traffic... 



> Many experiments have been done to verify that environmental colors and even colored lighting has effects on people in different ways.


Yes. I in fact was surprised by some of the studies mentioned in your links pointing towards a higher color temp being preferable. I expected the opposite. Those studies either covered just color temp (with flourescent) or compared two low CRI source (high pressure sodium vs LED) so they aren't directly applicable. They just put the whole discussion in a "new light" for me. <cues the drummer for the rimshot> 



> I seriously doubt there are very many people who *objectively *get consistent headaches from incandescent lights. Recognizing the uniqueness of that (headache) occurrance, JTR, IMHO, I think you should be extra careful not to project that kind of reaction as a widespread guideline or common phenomonen.


As a kid I had two pairs of corduroy pants that I HATED wearing. (Those pants are a couple orders of magnitude worse in my memory than all of my incan haze annoyance combined.) I swear it felt like the fabric sucked all moisture from my skin and the noise made me hate moving. I was perfectly oblivious to the horror of them being bell bottoms and the big collared, loud patterned, plaid polyester shirts I was normally forced to wear with them. I wouldn't argue that people shouldn't wear similar fabrics. Their might be some parallels to this discussion.  

And I still have the urge to build an eye scorching IMR. :devil:


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 7, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Bernie, is this the one you are talking about ? Is there a better version coming out, or have people modded this one?




Yes, this is the brightes of the lot that uses the new TIR. There's also the L1, E1L, E2L and the E1B with the same TIR. Or you can buy the KX2C head that produces the same oomph as the E2DL but is one level only and sports no teeth. It costs the same as the whole E2DL though :green:

bernie


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 7, 2009)

Trying not to sound mean spirited here, JTR, but it’s doubtful I’ll be able to hang with you much longer on this exchange. Frankly, your sequential structure and logical structure are just too muddy. One thing bleeds into another. One thing morphs into another. Everything drifts back to your personal world in the role of the universal benchmark. It’s actually beginning to give me a headache reading it. The subject is about a performance trend in LED hand held lighting and how that trend compares to incandescent hand held lighting performance. The subject is not about what jtr1962 thinks society needs. The subject is not about your displeasure with your city’s lighting choices.



jtr1962 said:


> If they work for you then wonderful. My comment about the need part is exactly that. A doctor examining tissue may need a light source biased towards red (or a much brighter light source without red bias) to be able to shine enough red photons at tissue to discern subtle differences. Same for you cooking steak or examining a snake. That's exactly what I meant about need and thanks for giving those examples. Many (most?) really have no such needs.


 
See what I’m talking about? Before it was all about what people are used to, their habits. Then you admit and concede incan’s superiority. But then you turn around and discount the need. Just a flippant blow-off…no such needs exists. It continues…



jtr1962 said:


> Point of fact I'd say the majority have no real need to distinguish subtle degradations of color at either end of the spectrum, so pretty much any light source will do, and people generally buy based on initial purchase price. That's their real preference


 
Here you’ve discounted my reference to light source preference as not being the “real” preference. You’ve also decided to rule that any light source will do for the general populace. Awesome that you have decided most humans don’t qualify to have valid preferences. Wow.



jtr1962 said:


> Those who have really specific needs for lighting know it and buy accordingly. Everyone else it's either force of habit or just buying whatever is cheapest. I wouldn't call such behavoir a preference.


And this is some real clear-as-mud cognitive processing. You just now used cost to discount light source preference as not being the “real” preference. You make cost the “real” preference. Now you say cost is not a preference. Nothing is a preference. I’ll challenge that not even the author can follow that reasoning.



jtr1962 said:


> I don't really care for red meat (and would use a thermometer, not a flashlight, to determine temperature if I did),


 
It doesn’t matter that you don’t like steak. Other people do. Some of us prefer our recipes to Capriccio’s. The temperature of a steak is determined by color not Fahrenheit. color...light...yes?



jtr1962 said:


> I doubt I'll ever meet Eva in person much less need to see her blush.



Eva is not the only beautiful woman in this world that may cross your path. They are everywhere. And beautiful women are not the only bio-form that will give important visual ques. Outside in the real world, in the woods, in the city, on the ocean, in the mountains, in the air, there are important visual ques available for observation. Some are so important they could be the difference between life and death.



jtr1962 said:


> My only real need is to see white that looks like white and to have a light source which doesn't fatigue me or give me headaches.



That's a very narrow need with a highly specialized criteria. Judging what everyone else needs based on what you need is not clear thinking. You say you understand that some people may prefer different light sources but you annoyingly dribble right back to why it's not valid, or important based on your own experience. Simply put, it's really not all about you.



jtr1962 said:


> The information is still there with LEDs, but the end result just looks different



Just looks different? JUST - LOOKS - DIFFERENT? :candle: 

And you do remember what we are talking about right? :laughing:

Well, you got part of it right. If the frequency is undetectable by the human eye it has no value. The end result is that the target illuminated by a deficient source will look different than a target illuminated by a source that is fully potent across the photometric grid. The latter is what many people prefer whether you think it's valid, important, reasonable or not.

Here's something you might try that could help you to see a different perspective. Get outside at night, way outside. Bring a couple of flashlights. Pop up a tent. Start a fire. Cook a simple meal on said fire. Share a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon. Pinch a pretty girl on the butt.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 7, 2009)

baterija said:


> Yes. I in fact was surprised by some of the studies mentioned in your links pointing towards a higher color temp being preferable. I expected the opposite. Those studies either covered just color temp (with flourescent) or compared two low CRI source (high pressure sodium vs LED) so they aren't directly applicable. They just put the whole discussion in a "new light" for me. <cues the drummer for the rimshot>


I'm not surprised at all. We evolved under a 5500K light source. Also, those studies don't use low CRI sources. The 7500K scotopically enhanced source has a CRI of 91. Even regular white LED isn't a low CRI source. It's middle of the road, around 80, comparable to CFLs or the lower grade of triphosphor T8 tubes, both of which are considered acceptable light sources for non-color critical application. The cool-whites used in industry for years had a much worse CRI of around 62. Sodium vapor (HPS) and mercury vapor are far worse. LPS has no color rendering at all as it's a single wavelength.



> As a kid I had two pairs of corduroy pants that I HATED wearing. (Those pants are a couple orders of magnitude worse in my memory than all of my incan haze annoyance combined.) I swear it felt like the fabric sucked all moisture from my skin and the noise made me hate moving. I was perfectly oblivious to the horror of them being bell bottoms and the big collared, loud patterned, plaid polyester shirts I was normally forced to wear with them. I wouldn't argue that people shouldn't wear similar fabrics. Their might be some parallels to this discussion.


I can easily argue for nobody wearing fabrics like that. Those 1970s styles and colors were tacky and an assault on the eyes. Wouldn't surprise me if the designers were high on LSD.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 7, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> The subject is about a performance trend in LED hand held lighting and how that trend compares to incandescent hand held lighting performance. The subject is not about what jtr1962 thinks society needs. The subject is not about your displeasure with your city’s lighting choices.


And thank people like LuxLuthor and you for the tangent we're on here because the thread went from talking about mainly LED output and throw relative to incandescent to how incandescent is a superior type of light which LED can't match, or other really subjective comments based on both of _your personal preferences._ The problem is both of you make it out to be some kind of absolute, as if there's something wrong with anyone who doesn't prefer incandescent light. And you expect not to be challenged? Are my preferences not equally valid?

You go on and give a few valid example where indeed the red-biased light of incandescent might be better for the task at hand. I countered by stating that most people don't have such specific needs. Pretty much any halfway decent light source is "good enough". That's not a blow-off, it's a fact. Even LuxLuthor stated as much when he said he was 99.9% sure most people won't even notice if he changed the light sources in his house while having them over for dinner several nights in a row. Sad to say most people are not very aware of their environment.

My statement about cost not being a preference needs a little clarification. When you mention preference for a given light source I'm assuming that the reason for preferring it has to do with the spectrum, to put things in the broadest possible terms. This is why when I say when people buy light sources based mainly on cost it is NOT a preference for a given type of light because the decision to buy it is not based on the type of light emanating from the lamp. Rather it is a preference to save money, or rather initial purchase price. In other words, the fact that many still use incandescents doesn't necessarily mean there's any special preference for that type of light because the low cost is likely the primary driving factor. If on the other hand, people will still buy incandescents in a world where they cost as much or more than alternatives, then this is telling me they have a strong preference for this type of light. Using myself as an example, I did and do pay more for the harder to find 5000K full-spectrum tubes I use because I prefer their light over the alternatives. Yeah , I need to distinguish subtle colors when doing electronics work but beyond that most of my lighting needs are simply as I initially stated. Granted, I muddied things up a bit the way I initially stated them. I hope I'm clear now.



> Eva is not the only beautiful woman in this world that may cross your path. They are everywhere. And beautiful women are not the only bio-form that will give important visual ques. Outside in the real world, in the woods, in the city, on the ocean, in the mountains, in the air, there are important visual ques available for observation. Some are so important they could be the difference between life and death.


Granted but to me anyway it seems you think only incandescent light can pick up these cues. If you need to distinguish between subtle shades of blue or purple or even green your incans may not be of much use unless you really ramp up the intensity. They're as deficient on that end of the spectrum as LEDs are on the other end. The spectra shown earlier in this thread vividly illustrate that. They even show that incandescent is nothing at all like the primary light source we evolved under-sunlight. They're both blackbody curves but the similarity ends there.




> Just looks different? JUST - LOOKS - DIFFERENT? :candle:
> 
> And you do remember what we are talking about right? :laughing:
> 
> Well, you got part of it right. If the frequency is undetectable by the human eye it has no value. The end result is that the target illuminated by a deficient source will look different than a target illuminated by a source that is fully potent across the photometric grid. The difference is what many people prefer whether you think it's valid, important, reasonable or not.


And what is this source which is fully potent across the photometric grid? The only one I can think of offhand is sunlight, although LEDs like the Nichia 083 are getting close. The problem is you don't want to admit that an object illuminated with incandescent is going to look way different than it would illuminated with sunlight. You had to train yourself to pick out the necessary information under this different type of light. I submit that this is no different than training yourself to pick out the same information under LED light, or for that matter any other fairly decent light source not having huge spectral gaps. Remember that an LED spectrum is continuous even though it has peaks and valleys. The photons are there. To get more info on the red end you might need to increase the intensity relative to incan, but I submit you can cook a steak or do anything else you currently do just fine given enough training. Now if there was no red in the spectrum at all that's another story. Of course, you have no real _need_ to do this as you can just pull out your incan, but my point is you can if you wanted to.



> Here's something you might try that could help you to see a different perspective. Get outside at night, way outside. Bring a couple of flashlights. Pop up a tent. Start a fire. Cook a simple meal on said fire. Share a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon. Pinch a pretty girl on the butt.


I'm not really into the whole outdoor thing. Outside of the wine and pinching the girl, nothing on your list appeals to me. That's my preference. It's as equally valid as your preference for doing those things.

Unless you have anything to add I think we're pretty much done here. I'm starting to get a headache, too, and my CTS is acting up.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 7, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> I'm not really into the whole outdoor thing. Outside of the wine and pinching the girl, nothing on your list appeals to me. That's my preference. It's as equally valid as your preference for doing those things.
> 
> Unless you have anything to add I think we're pretty much done here. I'm starting to get a headache, too, and my CTS is acting up.



Agreed. Wine and girls.

Really, I think the most important thing we've learned in this thread is that everyone likes Eva. 

Take care of yourself.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 7, 2009)

So ... we can at least agree on this version of Eva then?


----------



## baterija (Jan 7, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> In your case, has it been bad enough that you've actually gotten headaches like me?


Just to reinforce what I said to Lux, so he can stop worrying about a sample size of 2 becoming "common knowledge"...no. (Breathe Lux...breathe. ) It's just the occasional "this sucks" realization followed by a couple minutes of grumpy light fiddling. Once I realize I am wasting time and force my self to move on my brain gradually goes back to auto-correcting.



> And to add to what you wrote, the lack of blue in your peripheral vision is what accounts for the well known tunnel vision effect of driving on a street lit with sodium vapor lights. While lack of blue light is merely an annoyance indoors, it's actually downright dangerous while driving. Do you find the effect you described to be even worse under sodium streetlights? I know I do. It's a shame that knowledge of how we see was limited when these lights were foisted on us in the 1970s. Besides the tunnel vision, the much lower S/P ratio meant these lights appeared dimmer than the mercury vapor they replaced, even though the photopic lumens and efficiency were higher on paper.


Not really... take a look at my avatar a second. I have experience moving vehicles in far more adverse lighting conditions than sodium lamps. Sodium lighting sucks at just about everything but efficiency, and LED's have caught up there, but I don't really notice it except when I am not driving. Given my frames of reference I think I trained my brain into being happy it can see past the front of the vehicle when it's in motion. 

Here hold this and stand with your head out of my sunroof while we drive to the store :candle: Driver move out!

...and I liked the first picture of Eva better. :naughty:


----------



## asdalton (Jan 7, 2009)

Back to the subject of optics versus reflectors ...

Here is a beamshot comparing the Surefire TIR against a reflector.





Left: Surefire KL1-R (older KL1 Luxeon III w/ McR-20 reflector); Right: Surefire L1 (2008 Cree version)

Two things that the photo doesn't show quite correctly:
1. The hotspot of the L1 is about 4x as bright as that of the KL1-R.
2. The outer sidespill of the L1 is about the same diameter as that of the KL1-R.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 7, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> Trying not to sound mean spirited here, JTR, but it’s doubtful I’ll be able to hang with you much longer on this exchange. Frankly, your sequential structure and logical structure are just too muddy. One thing bleeds into another. One thing morphs into another. Everything drifts back to your personal world in the role of the universal benchmark. It’s actually beginning to give me a headache reading it.


Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 8, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Yes, this is the brightes of the lot that uses the new TIR. There's also the L1, E1L, E2L and the E1B with the same TIR. Or you can buy the KX2C head that produces the same oomph as the E2DL but is one level only and sports no teeth. It costs the same as the whole E2DL though :green:
> 
> bernie



I just ordered this E2DL, and some SF batteries, so when I get it, I'll come back and give you my honest opinions on this TIR feature. It's always good to be open to new improvements. Thanks! :thumbsup:

PS) I can't enjoy that B&W version of Eva....partly the cig...can't ever imagine kissing an ashtray...and she somehow looks suicidally depressed. LOL! Isn't it so funny how different we all are? I really enjoyed this thread, because it makes you think about why you like what you like...which in some cases is not really as valid as you started out thinking it was. * Baterija*, your posts were really wonderful to read--I admire people who can convey what they want in such a manner. Seriously.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 8, 2009)

kaichu -

Gesundheit.

Where are my manners?

Let me be of some assistance. Yes. You have an internet connection. Yes. Your keyboard is operational.

Will there be anything else? How about a short story to break up the monotony? Yes? OK.

Petey was the strange little local Chihuahua. The children wished him no harm, they just wouldn't play with him. Petey, continuously confused by the aroma that remained after the lead dogs had been at work, became so excited he rendered himself incontinent. He piddled out some dribbles of pee pee. Happy with his contribution, he ran about in a tight circle but then stepped in his own puddle. With a worried look on his face, he shook his paw then galloped off to find some other stupid thing to do; all the while thinking to himself, "I'm a big dog, I'm a big dog".

Hope you liked the story.

Will there be anything else today sir?

Oh, wait. I almost forgot. Could you do us all a big solid? Yeah, um, when you're doing reviews of cheap flashlights on Amazon could you not refer to the CPF membership as "flashlight fanatics" in your failed attempts to make yourself feel better about that cheap, cat-urine green, China light you got? Yeah, that'd be great. Thanks.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 8, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> kaichu -
> 
> Gesundheit.
> 
> ...


Your last tasteless post had nothing to do with this thread, but neither has a good percentage of your other posts. 


Icebreak said:


> Trying not to sound mean spirited here, JTR, but it’s doubtful I’ll be able to hang with you much longer on this exchange. Frankly, your sequential structure and logical structure are just too muddy. One thing bleeds into another. One thing morphs into another. Everything drifts back to your personal world in the role of the universal benchmark. It’s actually beginning to give me a headache reading it.
> 
> Judging what everyone else needs based on what you need is not clear thinking. You say you understand that some people may prefer different light sources but you annoyingly dribble right back to why it's not valid, or important based on your own experience. Simply put, it's really not all about you.


You should read some of your own posts and realize how they reflect on you more than the people you've aimed them at from your keyboard war room.

Yes, "it's really not all about you". Bring it back to incans & led's and quit picking bar fights on the internet.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 8, 2009)

Reality check. Another member and I completed an exchange in a friendly way. You thought you'd stick your nose into it after the fact. There's always one of _those guys_ at a bar. Often they are named Petey.

See if you can contribute some knowledge to this thread. If you are unable to, then do us all a favor and try to make amends for insulting this community in another highly public format.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 8, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I can't enjoy that B&W version of Eva....partly the cig...can't ever imagine kissing an ashtray...and she somehow looks suicidally depressed. LOL!


Same here. No matter how attractive someone might be, the minute I see a cigarette in their mouth forget it-instant turn off.  I picture them in a cancer ward with no hair and with all sorts of tubes sticking out.



> Isn't it so funny how different we all are? I really enjoyed this thread, because it makes you think about why you like what you like...which in some cases is not really as valid as you started out thinking it was.


Yep, and it's interesting reading about how we all see the world differently. I really think you're on to something regarding anatomical differences being as important as cultural ones. For example, I made an earlier comment about 5000K being used a lot in Japan and other Asian countries but attributed that to mostly cultural differences. Now I wonder if the distribution of rods and cones of Asian races on average is somehow a little different than those of Caucasian, perhaps enough to account for this preference? And furthermore, I wonder if my own distribution is closer to that than to those of most Caucasians? Although I'm of Italian background I'm sure the full range of rod and cone distribution types is represented in every race. Interestingly, to add a little weight to this theory, most of my friends back in school tended to be Asian as I felt most comfortable with them, and I absolutely adore Asian females (not to take anything away from Eva however  ). So maybe the similaraties go beyond rod and cone distribution. Anyway, very interesting discussion here.

Almost forget to mention-one thing I absolutely HATE about LEDs is the tint lottery. I'll give incan points here for always giving the same color light at any given drive level. LED still has a long way to go in that regard. And hopefully that takes the discussion back to the original purpose of this thread.


----------



## js (Jan 8, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I just ordered this E2DL, and some SF batteries, so when I get it, I'll come back and give you my honest opinions on this TIR feature. It's always good to be open to new improvements. Thanks! :thumbsup:
> 
> PS) I can't enjoy that B&W version of Eva....partly the cig...can't ever imagine kissing an ashtray...and she somehow looks suicidally depressed. LOL! Isn't it so funny how different we all are? I really enjoyed this thread, because it makes you think about why you like what you like...which in some cases is not really as valid as you started out thinking it was. * Baterija*, your posts were really wonderful to read--I admire people who can convey what they want in such a manner. Seriously.



Lux,

I'll be really interested to see how you like the TIR. As one incan guy to another, I can tell you that my SF L1 Cree is _awesome_. It has the tightest beam of any flashlight I own--although I'm really not a throw fanatic, so maybe that's not saying much, and the throw from a stock magcharger focused down to its tightest beam is probably just as tight or tighter.

But, in any case, I find that the combination of the Cree and the TIR does really really well outdoors. Not as good as a good incan, in my personal experience, but pretty damned good.

As for milkyspit throwing TIR's away, I think there are two main reasons for this, neither of which is a comment on the quality or performance of TIR's:

1. He and his customers prefer a wider beam with more spill, and also an aesthetically smoother, more appealing beam. TIR's do have some ringy-ness to them, and some texture in various regions. I find it to be a total non-issue, but if you place a high premium on beam aesthetics, you won't like it.

2. He is a _modder_ and wants to change things up, and the TIR in a TIR light isn't really as amenable to that as a reflector, from what I can see. But I'm no expert on TIR's.

Anyway, I look forward to your impressions.


----------



## js (Jan 8, 2009)

Everyone,

<MODERATOR HAT ON>

The tone of this thread is getting a little bit worrisome to me. Please let's not go down that train-wreck path here, OK? There have been some great contributions by many, so far.

So, _please respect the opinions of others_, or rather respect the others in this thread, even as you disagree with their opinions. There is no need to get nasty, OK?

Thank you. Please return to your regularly scheduled conversation.

<MODERATOR HAT OFF>


----------



## Stereodude (Jan 8, 2009)

In terms of output they're getting there...

M*g 2D-->6AA ROP:




Epsilon ED-P72 (SSC P7):





Color is getting closer too...

Dereelight CL1HV3 w/ Q3 "warm" pill:




Dereelight CL1HV3 w/ Q5 "cool" pill:




Baseline/control:


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 8, 2009)

***Improper posting deleted by js*** 

On topic once again, I see far more comments about the superiority of incan than the reverse, and up till recently have been inclined to agree, but am gradually leaning towards the newer warmer tints being released. I guess it's this type of thread that allows a wide variety of views to come together, sometimes in a harsh manner, that allows all of us to learn a little more, but I sure wish it could consistently be done in a less abrasive manner. :sigh:


----------



## js (Jan 8, 2009)

kaichu_dento,

I warned everyone to *STOP* with the personal attacks. EVERYONE was warned, including you, including Icebreak, including jtr.

The bell has been rung. The fisticuffs are at an end.

Make one more post along these lines and you will find yourself with a week off from CPF.

I trust I've made myself clear.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 8, 2009)

Stereodude said:


> In terms of output they're getting there...
> 
> M*g 2D-->6AA ROP:
> 
> ...


Both nice and warm, but I'm tending to lean more towards the Q3 here.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 8, 2009)

js said:


> kaichu_dento,
> 
> I warned everyone to *STOP* with the personal attacks. EVERYONE was warned, including you, including Icebreak, including jtr.
> 
> ...


JS, I really enjoy reading your posts and am sorry to all for the disruption. I really do try to come in a peaceful manner and will continue to do so. :wave:


----------



## js (Jan 8, 2009)

kaichu_dento,

No worries mate!

I'm just trying to stop what I felt would be a derailment to this fine thread, and I appreciate your closing comments in post #97 above. Let's just get back on track here, which you've already done. Thank you! I hope others will do so as well.

I figured this thread would be just yet another of the many LED vs. incan threads, but it's not, it's something more, --good stuff here and good posts here-- so why not all let's focus on the good and let the negative fall by the way side.

Thanks in advance everyone.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 8, 2009)

js said:


> Let's just get back on track here, which you've already done. Thank you! I hope others will do so as well.


No problems with that on my end. Icebreak and I already ended our exchange in a peaceful manner yesterday.



> I figured this thread would be just yet another of the many LED vs. incan threads, but it's not, it's something more, --good stuff here and good posts here-- so why not all let's focus on the good and let the negative fall by the way side.


Agreed. I for one would like to hear more comments on LuxLuthor's theory regarding anatomical differences and light preference, in a separate thread if need be in the event it's considered too OT for this one. As far as I can recall, that's _never_ been discussed up until now. IMO it would make a great research project if one had access to instrumentation to measure rod and cone distribution.


----------



## js (Jan 8, 2009)

jtr,

You know, I did hear once, from a somewhat questionable source, that asian peoples have more cones (and thus possibly fewer rods?) that allowed them to have superior color vision. This came up in regards to those hundreds of color coded little electrical wires in a multi-wire cable, and how difficult it was to discern some wires from others (they were all two-color coded).

I have no idea whether or not this is true. But certainly, there are differences from person to person, as has already been pointed out. Even more interestingly, there are actually tetrachromats, who have four color receptors in their eyes, the fourth one being at a shorter frequency than the normal three, thus allowing for very good resolution of fine shades of blue.

Here is the normal (i.e. "average") schema of cones, with "S", "M", "L", standing for short wavelength, medium and long wavelength, and with the bottom scale being nm wavelength, and the vertical scale being normalized sensitivities, with each cone normalized to itself only:


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 8, 2009)

> In terms of output they're getting there...
> 
> M*g 2D-->6AA ROP:
> 
> ...



Thanx for posting this. I am sorry for quoting the whole post, but I need to talk about the pics  ... even though there's no Eva. 

If I had to choose one ... it would be the Dereelight "warm pill". It is the only one that manages to reproduce the bluish and the reddish colors in an adequate manner, and it looks pleasant.

Of course one might say that the camera white balance kills the pics and they look different in real life than in the pics. But still ... there is a difference in color reproduction that is significant, and I personally don't think it favours the incan in those pics. 

For all those interested in CRI, CCT and color perception ... you must read js's thread here:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/214932

... as well as Don's thread here:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/199054


bernie


----------



## Yoda4561 (Jan 8, 2009)

FWIW, I've got a malkoff in similar tints and a surefire P60, the colors in the pictures are very close to what I see in real life regarding colors and contrast. Richer yellow-red colors, darker greens, just a hair less cyan/blue than I think is ideal, resulting in a slightly pink warm hue. My particular Q2 5A has no yellow tint to it, the tint lottery is probably there though, with some having more or less yellow than others. If my eyes are dark adapted though, and it's been a few minutes since I've been in a more blue rich light area it appears a pure but umm... "soft" white, as opposed to the glaringly snowblind white Q5.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 9, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> Agreed. I for one would like to hear more comments on LuxLuthor's theory regarding anatomical differences and light preference, in a separate thread if need be in the event it's considered too OT for this one. As far as I can recall, that's _never_ been discussed up until now. IMO it would make a great research project if one had access to instrumentation to measure rod and cone distribution.



JTR, there is no question that there are significant variations between people regarding the anatomical distribution of rods and cones...in addition to the well known variations in color blindness. There is also learning and adaptation that makes it hard to quantify differences more precisely. I would suspect that research has been done to document variations of color perception on a number of bases, but it appears to be a fairly complex subject. I don't have the interest to delve into this more than to explore some cursory searches:Some PDF files of full articles downloadable from here.

Goes back to the basics of crayon colors in cultural color perception variations.

Listing of synopses from a number of articles addressing our topic enough to know it is a real phenonomen.

Brief synopsis of a study (did not list sources--so can only regard as opinion based on this) leaning towards learned adaption of color perception.

 Synopsis of another study verifying adaptation, and persisting altered perception for 1-2 weeks after color filter they used was removed.

 Interesting segments from a book titled "Color in Three-Dimensional Design." Backing up to the Table of Contents makes this book almost look interesting enough to buy.

Overwhelming 1500 page "Bible" titled "The Visual Neurosciences" that looks to address many aspects of our discussion.​Another important thing to emphasize is that the camera and settings can have a profound impact on how a light's performance is perceived. Click on this thumbnail to see the effect on my just changing the "White Balance" setting option on my Canon Powershot S45. Otherwise the shots were all identical of a SF M4 (MN-61 Incan) with exposure of 5 sec & 4.5 F-stop.

 _ (Larger GIF file is 875K)_​

None of these images looked like what it did in person.




.
No


----------



## js (Jan 9, 2009)

As was mentioned in an earlier post (apparently unnoticed), my thread Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering contains a lot of discussion about white balance and visual perception, largely thanks to orcinus.

Your eyes and brain will adjust to the CCT of the illumination being used in a similar (but far from identical) way to the way that a camera (or software program like photoshop) can adjust color balance via the white balance setting. _This is the reason_ for the white balance setting. If you set the WB for "daylight" or even more extreme "cloudy daylight" and then take a picture of something illuminated under a standard household lamp, it will look impossibly yellow in the picture. It will not look like what it did in person. Conversely, setting the WB to "tungsten" and then taking a picture outdoors on a cloudy day will make everything look impossibly blue.

This on-the-fly adjustment that the brain makes is the reason why CRI is defined as 100 for any blackbody, any incandescent, regardless of its CCT. (Not that I agree with this, mind you).

However, the CCT of illumination _is_ noticed by people, nonetheless, and not just .1 percent of people. It's noticed by the majority of people, and by "notice" I mean _consciously_ noticed. So, the eyes and brain do not so fully compensate for things that objects under candle light are seen as just the same as under a Cree LED of the same brightness.

So, a camera set to a white balance that is totally wrong for the actual light will capture an image that looks way off from what you actually saw. But the camera can also be set to a white balance that makes objects illuminated under candle light look as if they were illuminated under nice white light. There is an intermediate setting that will compensate, but not over-compensate, for the white-balance in such a way as to render as faithful an image as possible _to what you saw in person_.

But this is only the white balance, and doesn't even begin to touch other, more important differences between the eye and the camera, at the top of which list is dynamic range.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 9, 2009)

js said:


> As was mentioned in an earlier post (apparently unnoticed), my thread Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering contains a lot of discussion about white balance and visual perception, largely thanks to orcinus.
> 
> Your eyes and brain will adjust to the CCT of the illumination being used in a similar (but far from identical) way to the way that a camera (or software program like photoshop) can adjust color balance via the white balance setting. _This is the reason_ for the white balance setting. If you set the WB for "daylight" or even more extreme "cloudy daylight" and then take a picture of something illuminated under a standard household lamp, it will look impossibly yellow in the picture. It will not look like what it did in person. Conversely, setting the WB to "tungsten" and then taking a picture outdoors on a cloudy day will make everything look impossibly blue.
> 
> ...



The way the eyes compensate is actually rather simple. The eyes have receptors for short, medium, and long-wave. Every time these cones absorb photons of light, a chemical reaction actually "bleaches out" the receptor, making it unable to absorb more light until some period of time has passed.

Let's say you're outside on a cloudy day -- there will be a preponderence of blue light, and thus the blue photoreceptors will tend to get bleched out faster than the other colors. BECAUSE they are being bleached out at a faster rate, there will then be less of the blue receptors at a given time -- and sensitivity to blue will go down, resulting in equilibrium.

Same goes with being outside near sundown with only direct sunlight (about 3500k color temp). In both cases however, total illuminance will be on the order of tens of thousands of lux. So there' for example still a substantial of energy in the red, even if the only light source is "blue" diffuse sky light. 

With artifical lighting however, particularly flashlgihts, there really isnt' enough energy in the beam for this white balancing due to bleaching effect to really work at all.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 9, 2009)

M*g 2D-->6AA ROP:




Dereelight CL1HV3 w/ Q3 "warm" pill:






Kiessling said:


> If I had to choose one ... it would be the Dereelight "warm pill". It is the only one that manages to reproduce the bluish and the reddish colors in an adequate manner, and it looks pleasant.
> 
> ... there is a difference in color reproduction that is significant, and I personally don't think it favours the incan in those pics.
> 
> bernie


I'd tend to agree and I also have an idea that may or may not apply to all. Comparing the incan shot to the 5A for accuracy purposes, the 5A looks better to me too, but the incan feels more nostalgic, and that in itself is capable of 'coloring' ones perceptions in a way that goes beyond which is verfiably more accurate.

I think I'll be owning more 5A's but I'll never tire of the pleasant warmth of incan...


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 9, 2009)

2xTrinity said:


> The way the eyes compensate is actually rather simple. The eyes have receptors for short, medium, and long-wave. Every time these cones absorb photons of light, a chemical reaction actually "bleaches out" the receptor, making it unable to absorb more light until some period of time has passed.
> 
> Let's say you're outside on a cloudy day -- there will be a preponderence of blue light, and thus the blue photoreceptors will tend to get bleched out faster than the other colors. BECAUSE they are being bleached out at a faster rate, there will then be less of the blue receptors at a given time -- and sensitivity to blue will go down, resulting in equilibrium.
> 
> ...




I think this is oversimplified and reduces the explanation of the adaptive resonse of human physiology to the receptor level. IMHO the main correction and adaption happens later in the optical pathways, more in the Corpus geniculatum and beyond, the optical cortex and the associative cortex in the occipito-parietal regions. However, I have no proof right at hand and I don't have the time looking for one, sorry. This is just a logical theory IMHO.

bernie


----------



## DM51 (Jan 9, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> the adaptive response of ... the Corpus geniculatum


Hey, steady there, Bernie - this is a family forum, you know. LOL :nana:


----------



## js (Jan 9, 2009)

2xTrinity,

Thanks for your post! Very interesting. However, it is my experience--my long experience--that the white-balance correction effect also happens with lower intensity light situations as well, so I suspect that bernie is correct in suggesting that there is something more to it than the explanation you posted.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 9, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> I think this is oversimplified and reduces the explanation of the adaptive resonse of human physiology to the receptor level. IMHO the main correction and adaption happens later in the optical pathways, more in the Corpus geniculatum and beyond, the optical cortex and the associative cortex in the occipito-parietal regions. However, I have no proof right at hand and I don't have the time looking for one, sorry. This is just a logical theory IMHO.
> 
> bernie



You are correct.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 9, 2009)

js said:


> As was mentioned in an earlier post (apparently unnoticed), my thread Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering contains a lot of discussion about white balance and visual perception, largely thanks to orcinus.


Not unnoticed at all. I totally missed that thread on account of having the flu, but next time I have a few hours I'll be reading through it. Great stuff just by my quick browsing!



> However, the CCT of illumination _is_ noticed by people, nonetheless, and not just .1 percent of people. It's noticed by the majority of people, and by "notice" I mean _consciously_ noticed. So, the eyes and brain do not so fully compensate for things that objects under candle light are seen as just the same as under a Cree LED of the same brightness.


Yes! And the way we compensate varies from individual to individual, which is why I think there exist strong preferences for this type of light or that type. At the extremes of the CCT range nobody can compensate. This is why objects illuminated by candlelight appear strongly biased towards orange no matter how long you stay under it. Ditto for a very purple LED except now the bias is on the other end of the spectrum. The interesting part is CCT ranges where _some_ people can more or less fully compensate but others just can't. A good example the CCT range typical of incandescent. On the really low end (say 2400K) typical of low-wattage lamps I imagine a few can fully compensate but to most the light will always appear orange or yellow. Now if you move to 2700K-2900K standard bulbs a greater percentage will find the light "white" if they're under it a while but others like me won't. As you approach perhaps 3500K nearly everyone will be able to compensate, even myself. So 3500K is about the lower extreme of my own personal range. On the other end it might be as high as 7500K because I know 6500K lighting loses its slight blue bias if I'm under it long enough. For someone who prefers warmer light to the same extreme I prefer cooler light their compensation range might be 2500K to perhaps as low as 5000K. They're utterly incapable of adjusting to a 6500K LED, and in fact their sweet spot for "white" lighting might fall in the low 3000s compared to perhaps the mid 5000s for someone like me. I really believe there is this much variability among individuals due to mostly anatomical reasons. Just as some cameras can compensate better under certain types of light, so it is with individuals.



> You know, I did hear once, from a somewhat questionable source, that asian peoples have more cones (and thus possibly fewer rods?) that allowed them to have superior color vision. This came up in regards to those hundreds of color coded little electrical wires in a multi-wire cable, and how difficult it was to discern some wires from others (they were all two-color coded).
> 
> I have no idea whether or not this is true. But certainly, there are differences from person to person, as has already been pointed out. Even more interestingly, there are actually tetrachromats, who have four color receptors in their eyes, the fourth one being at a shorter frequency than the normal three, thus allowing for very good resolution of fine shades of blue.


Indeed, and if true that may also explain why some people are more tolerant to light sources with spectral deficiencies so long as they're happy with the color temperature. If you have superior color vision, then you may be able to discern colors even under a fairly poor CRI source. The color difference between two similar but not indentical colors might still be there under a poor light, but it wouldn't be enough for someone with average color vision to notice. But with good color vision, the small differences will be noticeable. Again, so it seems to be with me. The poor color of those old school fluorescents didn't really both me as much as others. I found I could still discern colors fairly well, and preferred this light simply because the white point was closer to my ideal. Now of course with today's high CRI flourescents I see how bad those tubes really were.

BTW, I actually started a thread once on tetrachromatic vision.


----------



## copperfox (Jan 12, 2009)

I would like to echo an earlier post which questioned the move to such warm-white LEDs such as the 5A tinted Crees. In my limited experience with SX0, SW0, and the SR (the so-called "high CRI SSC") tint bin Seoul P4s, I find myself wanting something right in the middle...say, SUN bin. Likewise for the Cree XR-E, I find myself wondering what a 3A bin looks like. 

Compared to a generously overdriven hotwire (ROP-HI on 2x fully charged "C" li-ions with all resistance fixes done), I find the "high CRI" SSC to be a little bit too warm. To me, the two problems with this bin of the SSC are the 1) tint variation from hotspot to corona, and 2) color temp being at least 500k too low. If SSC could fix these two problems (and match the efficiency of the cool white bin), we'd have a real winner on our hands that would make me seriously consider abandoning my incandescent flashlights.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 12, 2009)

Agreed. We are stumbling in a direction going "make LEDs warm" instead of "make LEDs High CRI" on CPF, because most members think that warm=color rendition.
bernie


----------



## lctorana (Jan 12, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Agreed. We are stumbling in a direction going "make LEDs warm" instead of "make LEDs High CRI" on CPF, because most members think that warm=color rendition.
> bernie


You've just reminded me of something. I've found the white LumiLED colour bin nicknamed "puke green" to be the best LED I own for colour rendition. Maybe it's just my eyes. Strange but true.


----------



## KiwiMark (Jan 12, 2009)

There is a lot of discussion in this thread about CRI & tint. But in my experience it doesn't make much difference for most 'real world' uses of flashlights - you just want some light so you can see stuff.

LEDs definitely outperform Incans by a wide margin, at least in efficiency. For a small 1 x AA EDC torch I can get a bright little sucker with 3 modes that will give a pretty decent run time (50 hours on low, less on full) by going with an LED. LEDs can produce a lot of light from less power while generating less heat (it is because more power makes light and less makes heat that they are more efficient). Generally for small EDC you are better off going with LED, regardless of limited CRI or cool tint.

For sheer brightness & WOW factor incans have the higher upper limit. I have some Maglites that I am going to mod (Hotwire, ROP Low, ROP Hi) that will give me a fantastic amount of light, but limited run time. Although I should be able to get a ROP Low up to 2 hours off Li-ion D-Cells, which is pretty good considering the output.

The solution is obvious to any flashaholic - own both types of torch. :twothumbs


I have LEDs running from:
1 x AAA
1 x AA
2 x AA
1 x 16340
2 x 16340
1 x 18670
4 x D Cell NiMH
I will have incans running from D sized Li-ions and maybe 6 x D NiMH or NiCd.
With this sort of variety it is easy to find the best torch for any job. The best being - LED . . . or incan . . . it depends!


----------



## baterija (Jan 12, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> I think this is oversimplified and reduces the explanation of the adaptive resonse of human physiology to the receptor level. IMHO the main correction and adaption happens later in the optical pathways, more in the Corpus geniculatum and beyond, the optical cortex and the associative cortex in the occipito-parietal regions. However, I have no proof right at hand and I don't have the time looking for one, sorry. This is just a logical theory IMHO.



Interesting talk about the opponent color theory here. It is related to the color pathways between the sense receptors in the eye and the brain - the neural pathways carrying visual information to the brain. The theory has support in testing although I couldn't find specific physiological explanations behind it. In effect it's like preprocessing the data for transmission along 3 channels.

Here's a link about a study showing how quickly the brain adapts to a loss of sight (due to blindfolding). While not directly related to the processing of sight information it shows rapid adaptation at the brain level to perceive touch data differently. The same input data from the ears gets processed differently resulting in different perceptions. 

Some interesting bits in the color vision wikipedia entry - especially in the "color in the human brain" section.

While none of this is a specific to the question at hand together it seems to point to the notion that just looking at sensor level adaptation (the physiology of rods and cones) neglects how that data is forwarded to the brain and how it is processed into perceptions by the brain. Given the complexity of the system it seems to make sense to not look at only one portion of the system...

and dinner is about ready so it's time for me to wander off to the kitchen to finish and eat instead of googling about color vision adaptation.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes. Then there's not only "perception by the brain" but also the complex state of "consciousness" and "awareness" as well as older learning experiences and emotional byproducts infused via the limbic system of the brain.

"Perception" is not only receptors and processing by the brain, it is also experience, emotion and awareness.

bernie

P.S.: if we forget for one second that everythnig happens in the fat organic tissue we call brain


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 12, 2009)

Perhaps, but a case can also be made for a larger "cosmic" consciousness that we just tap into without having direct past experience to explain a perception or awareness. You have to be able to explain that small verified percentage of child prodigies, ESP-paranormal perceptions, etc. where someone knows something that is not possible for them to have known.

How's that for the ultimate in off-topic hijacking?


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 12, 2009)

I was more aiming at the implications of said learning experiences and consciousness-traits. Like why we might like incan light (--> warmth, safety, company) or whatnot else. 


bk


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 12, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> I was more aiming at the implications of said learning experiences and consciousness-traits. Like why we might like incan light (--> warmth, safety, company) or whatnot else.
> 
> 
> bk



So you ruled out wanting an ultra-bright incan because you were buried alive in a past life?  :candle: oo: :devil:


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 13, 2009)

Nope. I ruled it out because it needs rechargeable batteries :nana:


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 13, 2009)

copperfox said:


> I would like to echo an earlier post which questioned the move to such warm-white LEDs such as the 5A tinted Crees. In my limited experience with SX0, SW0, and the SR (the so-called "high CRI SSC") tint bin Seoul P4s, I find myself wanting something right in the middle...say, SUN bin. Likewise for the Cree XR-E, I find myself wondering what a 3A bin looks like.


See this thread - 1st post - for a comparison picture of Cree WC to 3A (and incan). I bought one of those lights (see below).
SSC SUN and SUM seem to overlap the Cree neutral 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 4A & 4B so they do look very interesting, though they have 'cool' tint (not high CRI) phosphor, and we just can't find any of those LEDs other than a Seoul tint comparison board someone had late 2007. Photonfanatic has been trying to source some for a group buy for over a month. I had a "want to buy" thread for them many months ago based on that tint board. They are worth a try. 
I just got a Cree 3A light Friday and I like it a lot compared to even very white cool tints. I would prefer a 3B, 3C, 4B,or 4C (above the Planckian Black Body Line rather than below it) as the more yellow & green tints always seem to work better outdoors for me rather than the red-pink below the PBB line (also see below).




copperfox said:


> Compared to a generously overdriven hotwire ...I find the "high CRI" SSC to be a little bit too warm. To me, the two problems with this bin of the SSC are the 1) tint variation from hotspot to corona, and 2) color temp being at least 500k too low. If SSC could fix these two problems (and match the efficiency of the cool white bin), we'd have a real winner on our hands that would make me seriously consider abandoning my incandescent flashlights.


Though I agree with your position on neutral LEDs, I don't think the arguments that the color temp are "too low" or the tint is "too warm" are reasons to say they are better or worse than any other as far as CRI or differently*, depth perception (*meaning depth perception is possibly/probably not directly related to CRI) for highly demanding outdoor activities like hiking over rough terrain or fast trail (mountain bike) riding that I need them for. That is the same argument as those who say "warmer must be better" - just in the opposite direction. What will work best in those applications will work best even if it appears too warm or too cool to an individual's taste. While I think neutral tints will work best for those (and look better to me  individually), I could be wrong as I have not had the opportunity to try any real high CRI or Warm White LEDs yet, just my Cree 3A. 



lctorana said:


> You've just reminded me of something. I've found the white LumiLED colour bin nicknamed "puke green" to be the best LED I own for colour rendition. Maybe it's just my eyes. Strange but true.


 Not so strange. Green was discussed a couple of years ago. I had two Nuwai, one with V1 tint (very warm), and another with a green tinted X1 that both worked well getting rid of the pale cast of cooler LEDs I had on grass and dirt. That is why many people consider(ed) green to be a warm tint (it is on the north side of the PBBL along with yellow). Others noted that green is a major component of foliage, so expected it to light it up very well compared to blue tints, which agreed with my findings.


----------



## copperfox (Jan 13, 2009)

Blindasabat said:


> See this thread - 1st post - for a comparison picture of Cree WC to 3A (and incan). I bought one of those lights (see below).



I know, I posted in that thread. Unfortunately, the WC and 3A in that beamshot are not driven at the same current, and the backdrop is less than uniform. Anyway, I didn't have the money to buy one. I might just buy the bare emitter from Cutter to see it for myself.



Blindasabat said:


> SSC SUN and SUM seem to overlap the Cree neutral 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 4A & 4B so they do look very interesting, though they have 'cool' tint (not high CRI) phosphor, and we just can't find any of those LEDs other than a Seoul tint comparison board someone had late 2007. Photonfanatic has been trying to source some for a group buy for over a month. I had a "want to buy" thread for them many months ago based on that tint board. They are worth a try.



I know, I posted in that thread. Apparently SSC doesn't have P4s in the SUN bin available yet, they deserves a thwack 




Blindasabat said:


> I just got a Cree 3A light Friday and I like it a lot compared to even very white cool tints. I would prefer a 3B, 3C, 4B,or 4C (above the Planckian Black Body Line rather than below it) as the more yellow & green tints always seem to work better outdoors for me rather than the red-pink below the PBB line (also see below).




Hmmm. Interesting. I had a Malkoff M60 which was slightly greenish, but I didn't care for it.
 


Blindasabat said:


> Though I agree with your position on neutral LEDs, I don't think the arguments that the color temp are "too low" or the tint is "too warm" are reasons to say they are better or worse than any other as far as CRI or differently*, depth perception (*meaning depth perception is possibly/probably not directly related to CRI) for highly demanding outdoor activities like hiking over rough terrain or fast trail (mountain bike) riding that I need them for. That is the same argument as those who say "warmer must be better" - just in the opposite direction. What will work best in those applications will work best even if it appears too warm or too cool to an individual's taste. While I think neutral tints will work best for those (and look better to me  individually), I could be wrong as I have not had the opportunity to try any real high CRI or Warm White LEDs yet, just my Cree 3A.
> Not so strange. Green was discussed a couple of years ago. I had two Nuwai, one with V1 tint (very warm), and another with a green tinted X1 that both worked well getting rid of the pale cast of cooler LEDs I had on grass and dirt. That is why many people consider(ed) green to be a warm tint (it is on the north side of the PBBL along with yellow). Others noted that green is a major component of foliage, so expected it to light it up very well compared to blue tints, which agreed with my findings.



You kinda lost me in that paragraph. I know CCT and CRI aren't the same, but they do tend to appear in inversely proportional amounts, in the SSC P4 at least. The warmer (CCT, i.e. 3700K) tint bin has a much higher CRI, while the higher CCT tint bin has a lower CRI. I can't wait for the day when LEDs are available in a (uniformly dispersed) neutral tint with high CRI and excellent efficiency (150+lm/w at 1a).


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 14, 2009)

With a very deep, wide, smooth reflector and driving an XRE very hard at ~1.25A an LED can compete with the intensity level of a common, yet venerable HotWire in the form of a Mag85 with a beam fattening HOP reflector.











Has this LED really caught up with this incan?















For this dangerous ridge line I'd say no. Watch your step! 
















Watch your step!


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 14, 2009)

Well ... let's talk after you incan has used up the batteries and my LED still goes on for hours :nana:

Or after you show a comparison where I see only apples, not oranges. 

bernie


----------



## yellow (Jan 14, 2009)

finally, the tread takes the usual route:

brutally bright, big, heavy, extremely short running superlights,
compared to a small, light, backpacking-perfect, 2 hour 200 lm led-light (even when the single led is overdriven) 

understand that picture of comparing apples to oranges? 






Why dont You compare a Solitaire to an E01, f.e. (brighter and 5 times runtime)
or a 6P to any single-led (brighter and double runtime)   
but hold Your breath, there will soon be better quad-leds out, (than the actual crap)


----------



## KiwiMark (Jan 14, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> With a very deep, wide, smooth reflector and driving an XRE very hard at ~1.25A an LED can compete with the intensity level of a common, yet venerable HotWire in the form of a Mag85 with a beam fattening HOP reflector.
> 
> Has this LED really caught up with this incan?



The answer would have to depend on which factors you compare.

Max output - Incan
Tint - Incan
Size (where smaller is better) - LED
Run time - LED
Heat (where less is better) - LED
Battery requirements - LED
Bulb/LED life - LED

Of the seven things I thought of off the top of my head - LED wins 5 of them, but sometimes the Incan's 2 wins could make it your choice. It would depend on how you weight your priorities for the task required. 

Any real flashaholic would own multiple lights and choose the best one for the task required. This would mean that even while holding a ROP or Hotwire Mag I would have an LED (probably more than 1) in my pocket that I could switch to when the Hotwire batteries are sucked dry. I currently have about 10 good LED lights and am planning on building up to five Mag Mod Incans (ROP Hi, ROP Lo, Mag11, Mag85, Mag623).

If we only look at Lumens and ignore all other important characteristics then the 6000 Lumen Incan I am planning on building will win against any LED I have ever heard of - but with ~14.8V & ~10A it will be lucky to run for 20 minutes before the batteries are dead, I will probably stop at 15 minutes to reduce the risk of damaging the batteries. My bulb life will not be high, somewhere around 90 hours before 

If the question is "what 1 torch is the best" then the obvious answer is "no 1 torch is ever the best, MANY torches are the best!". The bottom line for what is better between LED & Incan: It depends! Anyone that tries to proclaim a clear winner is WRONG!


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 14, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Well ... let's talk after you incan has used up the batteries and my LED still goes on for hours :nana:
> 
> Or after you show a comparison where I see only apples, not oranges.
> 
> bernie


:mecry:


Using just your LED I'm afeared you'da rundid off the side of yonder mountain and gone kersplatski. I'da found you though. With all that light I can stand in one place and do a lot of search and rescue. I'da hauled you to hospital too. Then I'da brought you a fruit basket basket with apples and oranges and maybe a proper flashlight. :nana: The badass Mag85 runs 1 hour and 10 minutes. Remind me again how long an LED @ 1.25 Amps runs on 2 X CR123. I know you don't do rechargeables.




yellow said:


> finally, the tread takes the usual route:
> 
> brutally bright, big, heavy, extremely short running superlights,
> compared to a small, light, backpacking-perfect, 2 hour 200 lm led-light (even when the single led is overdriven)



Oh my. There is just no pleasing that can be done sometimes. I find an LED, overdriven to 1.29 Amps, that holds its own with the super throwers, Tiablo and A10 and all, comes close to the intensity at the spot as a common HotWire and still the comparison is unfair. Wow. Maybe if I got something from Gerber that would do.

And I gotta say, I really have no difficulty toting a flashlight with me through the woods. I'd be concerned if I did.

I wonder. :thinking: Is it the sheer awesomeness or is it the brutality that is so intimidating?


----------



## woodrow (Jan 14, 2009)

This thread has made me dust off my hid (after a few months of non use) and be amazed by it again. It puts out more light (for 90 non dimming minutes in a 4+ lb lantern) than all my led lights put together..at a nice 4300k temp. So have leds caught up with hid's or the cool lithium ion halogen spotlights that Magnalight sells....NO!

But, when we get away from spotlights or hid's, I think they have more than surpassed incans. Because in 1 - 2x123a (or 18650)....or 2xAA for that matter... light, I can have over 200 lumens that is not all spot, but also has a bright spill. I also have in the same light, the capability to have less output for 6-12, or 70-200 hours. 

My favorite incan lights...the M3 w/HO bulb and gpz p61 combo could put out less light (when I got home late from work and did not want to wake up everyone in the house) but it involved covering the bezel most of the way with my hand (this got WARM very quickly) and I would still have to grab my e2e with the 15 lm bulb for making a midnight snack.

So, for lighting up a field, incans still rule.... but for everyday use and versitility, leds HAVE overtaken incans..by a huge margin. As for being pleasing to the eye, that varies from person to person. I like the new R2 tints more than the cool white of Q5 leds and more than the yellow orange of incans... others would (strongly) disagree


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 14, 2009)

Hey Ice ... I have undebatable, certain and perfect proof that in 2005, LEDs have killed incan 

SF A2, 2xCR123:





McGizmo HD45, 2xCR123:






I have even better proof in older scientific test contacted in my specialized laboratory, meaning my backyard:

Maglight Clone on 2xAA:





MR-X LED on (way more)xAA lithiums:






Anybody dare challenge these studies? :nana:


But I thank you for the virtual rescue and the food. You cna always get me with food 

bernie


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 14, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> The answer would have to depend on which factors you compare.
> 
> Max output - Incan
> Tint - Incan
> ...



That is the most objective post, and why I have 20+ LED's in addition to many more incans. I would add one more feature to your list:

*Adjustable Throw/Beam Shape - Incan *

What many of us who appreciate the strengths of incans object to is the repeated (ignorant) assertions that LED's are superior or have caught up to incans--in an absolute, total sense. 

They have exceeded incans in certain aspects and applications, but not in others. Same is true with HID/Laser/Fluorescent vs. incan or vs. LED. 

Saying that incans are doomed is as ignorant as saying a match or candle is doomed.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 14, 2009)

Always wanted a MR - X.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 14, 2009)

It is outdated now, unfortunately. Only of historical value. Not that this doesn't count, but as far as lightoutput goes, there's more.




LL said:


> Saying that incans are doomed is as ignorant as saying a match or candle is doomed.



No. It is like saying incan household lightbulbs are doomed. Which they are. Not that this is a pleasant statement as I very much like incan light. But I still think incan days are numbered. Not now. But soon.

bernie


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 14, 2009)

Also +1 for KiwiMark's post. More of a true flashaholic, with only three months as a CPF member, than some members with years of membership. That attitude is truly what CPF is really about.

Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 14, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Saying that incans are doomed is as ignorant as saying a match or candle is doomed.


They're not doomed as in won't exist at all anymore in a few years, but by any reasonable definition they'll be considered obsolete in the not too distant future. Like vinyl records, which also share that label, they'll probably still be made in limited numbers for people like yourself. If there's a demand, someone will obviously fill it. But the days of mass-produced incandescents are coming to an end, probably within a decade, if not a few years earlier. Why? Two reasons are paramount-efficiency and longevity. Neither of these are terribly important for some portable lighting uses where output or throw is the main goal. However, for the other 99% of lighting needs they are, and that's really what drives the markets.

Should be interesting to redo this discussion is another 5 years, and see what, if any, advantages incandescents hold by then. If the answer is zero, then they really will be obsolete.

Icebreak:

Obviously the incan in your pictures kicks the behind of the LED in terms of raw output. However, one reason I personally won't touch incans anymore is their perchant for failure (especially true for incan bike lights which seem to fail at any large pothole). If the lamp instaflashes when you're on that ridge you're toast. Not saying LEDs don't fail, either, just that the odds are far, far lower unless you buy cheap junk. Yeah, I know any flashaholic worth his salt carries more than one light anyway, but field failures can still be a royal PITA. I could imagine a light failing wouldn't be a fun thing if you're hanging off a cliff at the time, maybe with no hands free to change a lamp, or get a spare light.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 14, 2009)

I think when you compare apples to apples LED's can stomp incans. Here's a good example of a comparison I just did. 

I have two P60 hosts, a Dereelight CL1H and a Surefire 6P. Both lights running two 3.7v lithium ion cells. R123's in the CL1H, 2xIMR16340's in the SF 6P. The Surefire 6P is loaded with the just released IMR-9 bulb from lumens factory, which as I understand it, should give the most lumens out of a 2 cell p60 host.

The Dereelight CL1H has the new Dereelight MC-E drop in running at 2.4A (note the LED isn't being pushed to max capacity). The MC-E stomps the IMR-9 in total output. In my light box it was roughly a value of 800lux for the MC-E and 530lux for the IMR-9. 

As far as lumens, it's anyones guess, but if we assume the MC-E has about 50% more output, the IMR-9 maybe around 250-300 out the front lumens, the MC-E is probably around 400-450 out the front lumens. 

Although some have tested the MC-E in the Dereelight to be around 500 lumens, so if that is the case the IMR-9 maybe closer to 350 out the front lumens. 

To add insult to injury for the incan my little single cell Dereelight C2H with a Cree R2 WH wasn't far behind in the light box.  

It incan may win in throw (with the MC-E in the CL1H, but not if I move it into the DBS), I didn't take 1 meter lux readings yet. I'll try and post some beam shots.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 14, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> No. It is like saying incan household lightbulbs are doomed. Which they are. Not that this is a pleasant statement as I very much like incan light. But I still think incan days are numbered. Not now. But soon.
> 
> bernie



I'm fully in agreement that they have their limitations, but I don't buy the word "doomed." That implies outlawed, as happened to cherry bombs, M-80's, and most firecrackers (in all but a few US states). I would not use the word "soon" which implies to most people something in a matter of months to a year.

I also make a clear difference between someone *making *an ignorant statement vs. *being *ignorant which I do not mean to imply. :wave:



jtr1962 said:


> They're not doomed as in won't exist at all anymore in a few years, but by any reasonable definition they'll be considered obsolete in the not too distant future. Like vinyl records, which also share that label, they'll probably still be made in limited numbers for people like yourself. If there's a demand, someone will obviously fill it. But the days of mass-produced incandescents are coming to an end, probably within a decade, if not a few years earlier. Why? Two reasons are paramount-efficiency and longevity. Neither of these are terribly important for some portable lighting uses where output or throw is the main goal. However, for the other 99% of lighting needs they are, and that's really what drives the markets.
> 
> Should be interesting to redo this discussion is another 5 years, and see what, if any, advantages incandescents hold by then. If the answer is zero, then they really will be obsolete.



Perhaps within several decades they will not be "mass produced" for most people, but I don't know what that means. If you mean that they will no longer be the primary source of indoor illumination for the majority of the first world nations, I could agree with that. 

For something to be "mass produced" just means they are produced by some mechanized system, vs. an individual hand-blowing glass bulb tubes. I will bet you $100 that in 5 years incan bulbs will still be produced for indoor lighting uses, and available for the public to purchase. Mark this post...and I will even adjust the $100 upwards for inflation in 5 years if you take the bet.

Your vinyl album analogy is a bad one, and also exhibits ignorance of the facts. If they were obsolete, you would not be seeing a dramatic % increase growth.

Perhaps a better example of obsolete technology is Sony's Betamax, 8-Track tapes, or HD-DVD since Sony bought out their patent rights to shove Blu-Ray down everyone's throats.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 14, 2009)

Here are some beamshots, same exposures, white balance set to incan for the incan, daylight for the LED. These shots are a bit under exposed so the hot spots don't wash out, so the spill is pretty dark.

Here is the Surefire 6P with the new Lumens Factory IMR-9 bulb running on 2xAWIMR16340's:




Here is the Dereelight CL1H V4 with the new Dereelight MC-E 2.4A running on 2xAWR123's:




Here is the Dereelight C2H 4SD (4 stage digital pill) RU (ramp up, low, medium, high, burst) R2 (efficiency bin) WH (tint bin) running on 1 AW IMR16340:




As you can see, the 6P with the incan probably has the brightest hot spot, but just barely. However, both the MC-E and XR-E beat the incan in the spill department with brighter spill. The incan and MC-E are very close as far as the size of the hot spot, and hot spot intensity, but the MC-E has way brighter spill and in total is putting out more lumens than the incan. The C2H holds its own very well against both of them, but it has a smaller hot spot and dimmer spill than the MC-E, but brighter spill than the incan.

Also note the incan is the whitest in the pictures, but this can be deceiving because the camera was white balanced for incan. The LED's don't have a custom LED white balance, I used daylight, so you will see any variation away from daylight. The incan won't show much of a variation away from the incan white balance. Here is what the incan looks like when the camera is still set to daylight:





Adding pictures of the lights:

SF 6P, Dereelight CL1H V4, Dereelight C2H:


----------



## SureAddicted (Jan 14, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> Like vinyl records, which also share that label, they'll probably still be made in limited numbers for people like yourself.



Vinyls are still big business, most if not all dj's still use them, so do music aficionado's. A lot of new stuff still comes out on vinyl.



LuxLuthor said:


> For something to be "mass produced" just means they are produced by some mechanized system, vs. an individual hand-blowing glass bulb tubes. I will bet you $100 that in 5 years incan bulbs will still be produced for indoor lighting uses, and available for the public to purchase.



Could not agree with you more. The production might slow down in a decade or so, but far from obsolete. 

I like both LED and incan, and as a person who uses lights as tools, at the present time incan offers more to me than LED. I'm not after runtime, it's the least of my concerns plus I always carry spare cells. Heat does not bother me one bit. There are a couple more points which I'm not going to get into. I will still use and edc LED's, thats becuase I use them as tools, it's not a hobby for me.


----------



## js (Jan 14, 2009)

You know, over at www.head-fi.org there are a lot of audiophiles who are heavily into vinyl, and many of them maintain that the sound is better, but the more interesting point that was made by someone who had a lot invested in LP's and turntable and tonearm and cartridge and record cleaner is that _many recordings are just not available on CD_. And why would you limit yourself to just one medium if it limited the range of recordings you could listen to?

And I think the notion is even _more_ applicable to LED vs. incan vs. HID.

Why limit yourself? Why not allow yourself the full experience? Lights are so wonderful--all of them--so why cut yourself off from one whole category of lights? The answer, of course, is that you really shouldn't!

The problem comes, I think, because people are prone to partisanship. They get identified and attached and with this comes a need to _put what is 'other' down as a way of affirming their own group_. It's a natural human inclination, unfortunately.

As someone who appreciate incans, what bothered me about the whole LED vs. incan vs. HID _thing_ was that it wasn't just about liking LED's over incans, and it was about putting incans down. Even the thread titles would occasionally be something along the lines of (or imply that) "what kind of idiot would own an incan these days?" or "why haven't incans just effing DIED yet? Can't they just DIE already?"

And that would always upset me. There's no call for it. Incandescent lights are part of any mature flashaholics experience. If you haven't experienced a 100 watt incan then you've missed something special! And incans are good for more than just that, as well.

As was discussed at length in the High CRI thread in the McGizmo forum, fog and rain are such that blue light is scattered and knocked about a lot, whereas yellow and red light, not so much. So in those conditions, incans are fairly useful. Add to that that maybe some people just naturally prefer a warmer tint, a lower white-balance. It's not wrong, it's just a preference.

I've always loved both LED's and incans, and at some point I look forward to owning a high powered HID--which I have yet to really experience, in point of fact.

There's no need to talk about which is "*BETTER*"--categorically. I used to EDC a SureFire A2, which most consider an incan, and now I EDC a LunaSol 20, which is decidedly an LED light, and I think it's the better EDC, but I don't feel the need to make a statement about which _type_ of lighting is better overall.

It all depends on the situation and person!

And yes, both vinyl and incans will continue to be available. DJ's almost always use vinyl still, for various reasons, and there is a whole contingent of audiophiles who prefer vinyl, and there will be a whole contingent of people who seek out incandescent household lighting, one way or another, no matter what laws are passed or what the economics of the thing become.

Heck, there are still vacuum tubes hanging around, right? (How cool --or rather HOT-- is that?)


----------



## etc (Jan 14, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> They're not doomed as in won't exist at all anymore in a few years, but by any reasonable definition they'll be considered obsolete in the not too distant future.



I agree. There are no improvements made to incans. LEDs are constantly improved. Just look at the changes over the last couple of years.


----------



## js (Jan 14, 2009)

etc said:


> I agree. There are no improvements made to incans. LEDs are constantly improved. Just look at the changes over the last couple of years.



This isn't true, actually. IRC (Infra-Red Coating) has improved incan technology only just recently (relatively speaking), and before that halogen fill did the same thing. And, there is talk of a much more dramatic improvement that might be expected on theoretical grounds. Can't remember much about it, but I did read a scientific article on it. So, you never know!

Absolute statements such as this are dangerous to make, etc.

Still . . . even so, it is highly likely that LED's will soon come to dominate the lighting scene, and they are indeed constantly improving and will continue to do so.


----------



## etc (Jan 14, 2009)

I have absolute trust in the Malkoff M60, that it won't break, burn out.. simple idiot proof interface with SF 9P.

Don't want anything 'digital' and don't want to change the modules every xx hours.


----------



## js (Jan 14, 2009)

etc said:


> I have absolute trust in the Malkoff M60, that it won't break, burn out.. simple idiot proof interface with SF 9P.
> 
> Don't want anything 'digital' and don't want to change the modules every xx hours.



Good to know, etc. Must be quite the piece of equipment to inspire absolute trust!


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 15, 2009)

js said:


> Still . . . even so, it is highly likely that LED's will soon come to dominate the lighting scene, and they are indeed constantly improving and will continue to do so.


I think statements like this based on likelihood are indeed the best kind to make. I agree that it is highly likely LEDs and other forms of solid state lighting will dominate the lighting scene soon BUT I've lived long enough to know that this isn't a given until it passes. Yes, there may be some totally unforeseen serendipitous development right out of left field which gives incan a new lease on life. It probably isn't IRC as that still won't get efficiency much past about 1.5 times what it is now, and it does little for increasing lifetime (not important in flashlights but relevant everywhere else). However, maybe in the course of trying to solve some other problem, someone will stumble across a material which conducts electricity, and remains solid at temperatures far higher than tungsten, and lasts for 50,000 hours even running at 6000K. Maybe they might be trying to find new materials to protect a spacecraft during reentry, or perhaps to line a fusion reactor chamber. Regardless of how it happens, someone might realize this could also make a great lamp filament. Sure, research specifically directed towards advancing incan is pretty much dead at this point, but the breakthrough could come from a totally unrelated field. In fact, this is how technology usually advances. And if LED efficiency plateaus for some unforeseen reason, this could give a new lease on life to other lighting technologies which it is slated to replace such as HID and fluorescent.

In the final analysis though, when one looks at what is _most likely_, then I'd say it's reasonable to assume technologies which have matured and show no likelihood of further improvement usually disappear when something better in every way, or most ways, comes along. Some examples right off the top of my head which appear very likely to me:

1) Replacement of magnetic disks by solid state storage. Magnetic disks have more or less plateaued in terms of density, power consumption, and most importantly performance. Their sole advantage compared to SSDs remains cost, but that should disappear within 5 years by my estimates.

2) Replacement of internal combustion engines in transportation. With the virtual plethora of new battery types which solve the range and recharge time issues, one or more are bound to succeed. Indeed, a modern design EV is already good enough for a very high percentage of users even using current battery technology. The cost issues would be solved by mass production. The simplicity and other characteristics of EVs make them just plain better suited for transportation than internal combustion engines. IMO we're less than a decade away from the end of production ICE vehicles, except for some niche uses where one might be in the bush for weeks with no access to the grid.

3) This is the longest range prediction of all, but with recent advances in thermoelectric materials we're probably 10-20 years away from seeing the disappearance of compressor-based cooling. As in the previous 2 examples, solid-state cooling is better in every way than what it replaces. The stumbling block in this case is efficiency, but this looks likely to be solved.

Note however that in all three cases here some breakthrough from left field could result in my predictions being wrong. Perhaps some unforeseen huge increase in storage density of magnetic disks will keep them viable for way longer than I think. Or maybe we won't be able to translate the lab improvements in thermoelectrics to the production floor, keeping compressors with us for much longer. And as for EVs, although of all my predictions this looks to be the most certain, an extended economic downturn lasting a decade or more might give investors cold feet for starting an EV production line.

As for my example of vinyl records as an obsolete technology, I see now it was a bad choice because I'm ignorant of the facts. As mentioned in other threads I just don't listen to music, and so don't really keep up with any trends. I think 8-track tapes or maybe steam locomotives would have been far better examples of obsolete technology. Note that obsolete doesn't always equal boring. Steam locomotives for example are interesting, living beasts. It's just that their maintenance requirements and poor fuel economy doomed them. I guess in a way this is a great analogy for incandescents. Steam locomotives are still run by enthusiasts even 50 years after they stopped running in revenue service. I'm sure we'll still have loads of incan enthusiasts even in 2100. A technology can be obsolete but not forgetten. Indeed, many times after a technology disappears from everyday use it develops a large following just by virtue of the fact that it's different.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jan 15, 2009)

What the hell happened to buying both?


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Perhaps within several decades they will not be "mass produced" for most people, but I don't know what that means. If you mean that they will no longer be the primary source of indoor illumination for the majority of the first world nations, I could agree with that.
> 
> For something to be "mass produced" just means they are produced by some mechanized system, vs. an individual hand-blowing glass bulb tubes. I will bet you $100 that in 5 years incan bulbs will still be produced for indoor lighting uses, and available for the public to purchase. Mark this post...and I will even adjust the $100 upwards for inflation in 5 years if you take the bet.


By mass produced I mean made in large numbers and available pretty much everywhere at fairly low cost. If the time comes that incan is no longer used for indoor illumination in most first world nations, which is something we can both agree will happen eventually, then it will by definition no longer need to be mass produced.

Sure, in 5 years incan bulbs will still be produced and available to the public, but not anywhere near the scale they are today. It'll be more like you'll have to go into a specialty lighting store to even find them, and the prices will probably be much higher than nowadays. Further down the road (10 years??), with the efficiency regulations already passed (and likely to be tightened if/when LEDs prove themselves up to the task), household incandescents will likely end up being a black market item where the small customer base willing to pay the higher price isn't enough to make the risk worthwhile for the seller. That may be when they really disappear from the scene, at least on the general lighting front.

I'd love to bet on this, but the problem is I don't know what my financial situation will be 5 or 10 years from now. I might not be able to pay you if I lose! As it is due to the market setback I'm already having to delay any chance of retiring from my planned 2040 to at least 2060, perhaps even later.


----------



## SureAddicted (Jan 15, 2009)

js said:


> As someone who appreciate incans, what bothered me about the whole LED vs. incan vs. HID _thing_ was that it wasn't just about liking LED's over incans, and it was about putting incans down. Even the thread titles would occasionally be something along the lines of (or imply that) "what kind of idiot would own an incan these days?" or "why haven't incans just effing DIED yet? Can't they just DIE already?"



You hit the nail on the head. I often wonder that to, and it will never end. Here at CPF, it's all about providing as much accurate information as possible, without prejudice.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 15, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> What the hell happened to buying both?


Nothing. Lots of people in this thread do in fact own both, me included. In my case however my sole incan is one of those $10 1 million CP spotlights. It finds occasional use spotting raccoons from my bedroom window at night (none of my LEDs can throw well enough for that). Other than for this somewhat frivolous use, I just don't need the throw or output incan offers, so I'm basically an LED guy.


----------



## hopkins (Jan 15, 2009)

my 1 million cp spotlight had enough room inside to add 2 white 5mm LED's and a
switch w resistor to limit current from the 6volt SLA battery

. I was just messing around but they make an ok 'walking around the house in the dark' light, or as a night-light during power failures which will last many nights.

Not an original idea to put both ican and led in the same flashlight.


----------



## yellow (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm convinced, I am going to switch to another light ...
but to this one here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/92396&highlight=tank+light
following the line of arguments, this must be the "perfect" light. Smokes anything, be it mentionned here, or not ...
(does it still count as "handheld"?) 


all these typing makes no sense, because with any lighting source there are tradeoffs to consider,
(size, weight, runtime, color rendering, throw, cost, ...) 
depends on the individual user what is important to her/him and what not


----------



## fieldops (Jan 15, 2009)

I think js is right on. There has never been a better time to be a flashaholic than today. More types of illumination technology exist today than ever before. This means our choices are better than ever before. A time like this may never come again. I say get in there and have fun with as much of it as you can afford. I'm a big LED guy, but I still like my SF incans, even if I have fewer of them than in the past. There truly is a light for almost any occasion today.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 15, 2009)

I should add as far as a compact and bright incan, I am very happy with the Lumens Factory IMR-E2 in my SF E2e running 2xIMR16340's. It's rated at 350 bulb lumens. It put new life into my E2e which had a Lumens Factory 150 lumen bulb in it prior. For a small 2 cell incan, it really puts out some light! At this size it would take a MC-E or P7 to beat it, but I haven't seen one in a set up as small as the E2e yet.


----------



## js (Jan 15, 2009)

yellow said:


> I'm convinced, I am going to switch to another light ...
> but to this one here:
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/92396&highlight=tank+light
> following the line of arguments, this must be the "perfect" light. Smokes anything, be it mentionned here, or not ...
> ...



yellow,

What "line of arguments" are you talking about? Your post makes no sense to me! The mention of high powered incans by some in this thread _wasn't to convince anyone to "SWITCH" to incans!_ The point is that you can have both, and be richer flashlight-wise for it. If there is any "line of argument" in this thread at this point, it is exactly that "with any lighting source there are tradeoffs to consider" and that it depends on the individual and specific situation.

jtr,

Been think about the genetic better vs. worse color rendering thing a bit, and it seems to me that those people with _better_ color vision would be _more_ picky about CCT and CRI than those with worse color vision, and not the other way around. Just as those with fine ears would be more picky about sound reproduction quality than those with tin ears.

Or so it seems to me.

By the way, been appreciating all of your posts here in this thread and I look forward to any posts you might make in my Sundrop thread.

As for Eva with cig picture, I have to say that I'd take up smoking myself if it meant I could date _her_. Hell yeah. What's a little lung cancer later in life compared to that? Totally worth it! Besides, chances are you'd break up anyway and then you could just quit smoking and have the best of both worlds. I imagine smoking might be quite enjoyable once you acquired the habit. LOL!


----------



## mudman cj (Jan 15, 2009)

WadeF said:


> I should add as far as a compact and bright incan, I am very happy with the Lumens Factory IMR-E2 in my SF E2e running 2xIMR16340's. It's rated at 350 bulb lumens. It put new life into my E2e which had a Lumens Factory 150 lumen bulb in it prior. For a small 2 cell incan, it really puts out some light! At this size it would take a MC-E or P7 to beat it, but I haven't seen one in a set up as small as the E2e yet.



As with so many other examples in this thread, it depends on what you consider 'better'. I happen to have an E2E with a KL4 head running an MC-E, and since it is a 5A running on the stock driver it puts out about the same number of lumens out the front as the IMR-E2 bulb I have. I arrived at this conclusion by estimating output as well as by ceiling bounce testing using only the eyes (no lux meter). 

I have compared them side by side, and the IMR-E2 has more of a hotspot for more throw than the MC-E. This is to be expected because the small reflector of the KL4 cannot focus the large die of the MC-E effectively. I have not attempted to quantifiably compare the throw of these setups, so this statement is just based upon visually comparing hotspots. I see that I really need to get a lux meter.  The KL4 with MC-E produces a beautiful wall of light, but I wonder about the useful throw - can't wait to find out once it's warm enough to attempt such experiments. 

Runtime on the IMR-E2 is maybe 12-13 minutes estimated, whereas runtime on my KL4 is more like 1 hour. From that standpoint as well as potential damage to the Z57 clicky, the MC-E has the advantage. Otherwise, it depends how much you want to spend and what sort of beam profile you are after.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 15, 2009)

Mudman, I would expect the IMR-E2 to out throw the MC-E, even if the MC-E is beating the IMR-E2 in total output. I still need to take a lux reading with my E2e, maybe I'll go do that now. I'll test my MC-E in the CL1H as well, and if the E2e IMR-E2 set up can beat the CL1H MC-E, it would certain beat a MC-E in a E2e when it comes to throw. 

Well, the results were a bit different than I expected. My E2e with the IMR-E2 was around 3,500LUX at one meter, my CL1H with the MC-E was around 4,900LUX at one meter. I still think if the MC-E was in the E2e it probably wouldn't beat the IMR-E2, but it might be close.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 15, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> Icebreak:
> 
> Obviously the incan in your pictures kicks the behind of the LED in terms of raw output.



It is not just raw output. Yes, the HotWire has a larger spot and more spill but look carefully and the lux. Look carefully at the intensity. Almost the same. I would have thought LED fans would be hoopin' and hollarin' over the fact that Cree was just as intense as that badass Mag85.













There is another reason the incan is stomping the LED. Information. The incan is delivering a return image with more color in it. The LED just is not giving back all the colors from the scene. Where are the brown leaves? "It must be your camera, Icebreak." Nope. Look up the hill at Uncle Snuffy's lodge. Reds, browns and oranges are avialable in the photo just not much from that mean little Q3. Let's dial up the volumn on the photos. Maybe you can see what I'm talking about.
























jtr1962 said:


> However, one reason I personally won't touch incans anymore is their perchant for failure



Oh my. This excuse again. And this time you've got me tied up hanging upside down in Butcher's Hollar like Houdini. When your LED flashlight fails it's unlikely to be a field fix.

We can own an unending flow of negative thoughts. We can decided we can't do this or we can't do that. We can be afraid this won't work or that won't work. Won't try. Must stay home. I'm not going to ride a unicycle to work because it is less likely to fail than my automobile. I'm not looking for a flashlight to give me an apology. When I hit the button I expect it to light up what I need to see, not only without hesitation but with great authority. If my request is 4 lumens for the theatre that's what I expect. If it's 1000 lumens for the woods, that's what I expect.

This fellow did not stay home. He's using incandescent lights.


----------



## js (Jan 15, 2009)

Great post, Icebreak. I enjoyed every drop of it!


----------



## WadeF (Jan 15, 2009)

Icebreak, I have a problem with your pictures. It appears both were shot with the same white balance, you can tell by the house lighting. It appears they are both shot with a manual white balance, according to the image's information, and it looks like it's tungsten white balance (incan). This would make the light from the Sun look awful and blue, and it will do the same to LED's. How about you take the same shots with daylight white balance to compare the LED to the incan.


----------



## js (Jan 15, 2009)

WadeF,

Good point about the white balance. But I would say that Icebreak should adjust the white balance for each shot to the correct value to capture what is actually seen. Locking it at one K value will always skew either the incan or the LED (or both) away from what you actually see.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 15, 2009)

js said:


> WadeF,
> 
> Good point about the white balance. But I would say that Icebreak should adjust the white balance for each shot to the correct value to capture what is actually seen. Locking it at one K value will always skew either the incan or the LED (or both) away from what you actually see.



That's what I do. Daylight for LED's, which usually lets you see variations in tint, color temp, etc, and incan for incans.

Icebreak could just reshoot the LED with daylight WB, or he could shoot both with daylight WB and show all four results, etc.

Also if we aren't going to compare apples to apples, the Databank 70, which is 70 Cree LED's with aspheric lenses, would absolutely annihilate that Hotwire.  Are we to be impressed that a hotwire crammed full of batteries will out perform a single LED light with less battery power? 

Databank 70 LED's turning a field into daylight, and that tree line is about 1,200 feet away, and the Databank lit up the hill top at 2,500 feet:


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 15, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> I would have thought LED fans would be hoopin' and hollarin' over the fact that Cree was just as intense as that badass Mag85.


I call a spade a spade. The Cree may be just as intense in that tiny little hotspot, but without spill to light up the surrounding area you lose context. And fairly bright spill takes a lot of lumens. I've little doubt a multiple emitter LED could have matched the incan in terms of raw output, but not a single emitter.



> There is another reason the incan is stomping the LED. Information. The incan is delivering a return image with more color in it. The LED just is not giving back all the colors from the scene. Where are the brown leaves? "It must be your camera, Icebreak." Nope. Look up the hill at Uncle Snuffy's lodge. Reds, browns and oranges are avialable in the photo just not much from that mean little Q3.


I'd have to see it in person, and I think WadeF is right about the white balance. That's not how it would appear to the eye. The eye can deal with all kinds of light far better than a camera. Based on my own experience, the difference wouldn't be as bad in person, at least with my eyes. I actually like green foilage better under LED light as it looks closer to the way it appears under sunlight. Of course, autumn leaves look way different.



> Oh my. This excuse again. And this time you've got me tied up hanging upside down in Butcher's Hollar like Houdini. When your LED flashlight fails it's unlikely to be a field fix.


I've yet to have an LED light fail. Generally, there are two reasons why LED lights fail. One is when they're poorly designed, or modded to do things they really weren't meant to do. A good example might be trying to put a P7 in a single AA body. It just can't deal with the heat. The LED and driver board will fail. The second reason is shoddy construction. This is equally true for any type of light, however. Knowing what I do about electronics, failures occur in a bathtub curve. A small percentage of electronic items fail very early, most likely due to marginally passing specs. This is known as infant mortality. After that, failures increase with running time. For an LED flashlight this part of the failure curve is irrelevant. They just won't accumulate enough hours. Infant mortality ia generally dealt with by burning in electronic devices for a few hundred hours. If anyone is concerned about the reliability of their LED light then run it steady for a week or two with a power supply. If it doesn't fail during that time, chances are it never will.

Incandescents on the other hand eventually do fail by their very nature. A lamp rated at 15 hours will on average fail in 15 hours, but it could last 30 hours, or it could last 30 minutes. No way of knowing in advance. Sure, most failures are easily fixed in the field, but I for one don't want my light to make excuses, either. If I turn it on, I want light, not a bright flash and then darkness. It's the very unpredictability of incandescent failures which makes me stay away from them. If a 15 hour lamp always failed at 15 hours, perhaps plus or minus 30 minutes, then I could keep track of the running time, and replace the lamp in advance before it failed. Not a big problem. But it doesn't work that way. I've had brand new bulbs on bike headlights fail over potholes. It became so bad I just stopped bothering with lights on my bike until something better came along. Oh, besides the failed lamps, the rechargeables of time weren't that great (600 mAh for a AA). I think if I was lucky I might have gotten 45 or 50 minutes out of a set of 4 AAs, and this with a lamp giving a mere 30 lumens (enough to basically allow others to see me, never mind actually lighting the road ahead of me). This is not fear of avoiding something being afraid it might not work. Rather, it's avoiding something which was proven not to work at all in a given application. Unfortunately, that's been my sad experience with nearly any application I've tried using incandescents in. If I really had a need for a light with huge output like your Mag85, at this point I'd probably either build a multiemitter LED light with a small percentage of reds thrown in to fix the spectrum, or buy a nice HID light. Sad to say, my experience has made me that prejudiced against incandescents. Despite this, I'd probably be one of the first ones to try a new lamp made with some hypothetical material which lasts for 50,000 hours at 6000K. I'll admit the simplicity of incandescents (i.e. bulb + battery + switch = light ) makes them appealing if only the lifetime/efficiency problems could be solved.

BTW, that astronaut is using incan because it's all that existed at the time. IIRC the lights used either had several filaments, or more than one lamp, just in case of a failure, and probably cost more than most cars of the time. NASA grossly overengineers virtually everything going into space as field failure is not an option.


----------



## js (Jan 15, 2009)

Regarding incan failures, it's certainly a complex issue and will depend on a number of factors. In general, LED's are more reliable, overall, than incans, even taking field-changing of lamps into account.

But, the point about the astronaut using incan wasn't that it was chosen over LED's, but that it was used at all--indicating both a certain level of reliability within given bounds and conditions--but also indicating that the chance of failure didn't keep him or her at home in bed. This was Icebreak's point. That the chance of failure of incandescents, while having a point to make, isn't the same as saying that they can't perform in critical environments.

They can and do. In point of fact, I consider one of my most reliable light setups to be my SureFire M6 with spare lamp and spare batteries. Dead simple and rugged switch and circuit path, and in the event of a lamp failure I can drop in a new lamp. I'm not saying it's _more_ reliable than any other given LED light, just that it is pretty reliable in my opinion.

Further, in outdoor use incandescents are my _primary_ light of choice, with an LED backup (at least). Lumen for lumen, incans beat LED's in rain and fog, and the lower CCT is usually better for use in many outdoor landscapes. And bumping up the LED lumens often is counterproductive as you just get that much more light shining back at you, filling the fog all around you, ruining your vision, not getting to the source and back. The low CCT liability of incans turns into an asset in this case.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 15, 2009)

js said:


> But, the point about the astronaut using incan wasn't that it was chosen over LED's, but that it was used at all--indicating both a certain level of reliability within given bounds and conditions--but also indicating that the chance of failure didn't keep him or her at home in bed. This was Icebreak's point. That the chance of failure of incandescents, while having a point to make, isn't the same as saying that they can't perform in critical environments.


Obviously incandescents can be engineered to perform in critical environments. You can support the filament better for shock resistance, you can underdrive it if lifetime is more important than efficiency or CCT, you can have multiple filaments in case one fails. Not saying it can't be done when in fact it is done. And I've never said one should stay home in bed because something _might_ happen. Failed incandescents didn't keep me from cycling at night, they just caused me to ride without lights as the expense/inconvenience of keeping an incandescent setup running outweighed the benefits to me. As I was now essentially invisible to traffic, that meant I had to be that much more cautious, but I still rode. In general for most of us, field failures are more an inconvenience than a life or death situation. As such fear of them isn't going to keep most of us in bed. My whole point for even mentioning this was simply that we can now make a tradeoff of greater average reliability, perhaps at the expense of output and/or color rendering, by going the LED route. It's no longer necessary to jump through the hoops you had to in the past if reliability was crucial. A lot of those incandescent systems with very reliability have carried an equally high price tag. Now the average person can get similar reliability without the expense, albeit sometimes with tradeoffs. Hopefully at some time in the not too distant future you won't have to sacrifice color rendering or output, either, for the applications where they matter.

I guess my greater point here is that in general the appeal of LEDs to me comes mostly from their lack of need for any service beyond recharging dead cells. I don't like being a slave to my equipment. For example, I now use airless tires on my bike as I tired of fixing flats. This one move decreases the amount of time I spend servicing my bike by 95%. I won't own a motor vehicle (even if I could afford one which I currently can't) until such time as EVs are available. I've seen firsthand via other family members that internal combustion engines are too unreliable for my tastes. Even the routine preventive maintenance is more work than I'd care to get involved with. Like my bike, I'd want something I basically just get in and go, without worrying about oil changes, transmission fluid, broken belts, low fuel, etc. Until that level of reliability is available, I'd just as soon avoid the hassles of owning motorized transportation as they outweigh the benefits _to me_. For others who may like to tinker the reverse may be true.

This all ties in neatly with the main subject here-incandescent versus LED. To me the servicing needs of incandescents outweigh their benefits to me personally. And I can engineer LED to pretty much compete with incan anyway using multiple emitters should I want to if I really had the need. OK, so making a custom light is a lot of work. This seemingly goes against what I mentioned earlier about not liking to service my equipment. Yet I might build such a light anyway if I really wanted it on the premise that the total time spent building it might ultimately be less than the time I might spend servicing a heavily used incandescent. In fact, one of my next projects is a 4x Cree R2 bike light. I could probably get the same raw output with one 50 watt MR16 halogen. However, it would suck my batteries dry in 1/3 the time, meaning I need to keep 3 times the number of batteries in service. And it would likely fail enough times to make the replacement lamps (and the time spent to earn the money to purchase them) cost more than the LED setup. On top of all this, it really wouldn't offer any advantages to me to make the extra hassle worthwhile. If it did, then the tradeoff might be justified. But that's not the case. Raw output would be the same. For an urban environment with mostly neutral colors LED is actually better for seeing. The higher S/P ratio would make its apparent brightness higher, and would also aid my peripheral vision. We don't really have foggy conditions here, so any advantage incandescents may have in that area are lost. In short, it's well worth my while to spend a few nights building a nice LED bike light given everything it would offer (including multiple levels) even though I could get an equally bright incandescent light up and running in probably 30 minutes. I've built other equipment I use also on the theory that the time spent doing so is saved in the long haul by the time saved servicing inferior commercial equipment.


----------



## js (Jan 15, 2009)

jtr,

No arguments with what you've said, really, but I think maybe you're coming at this from a different place than I am. You're always the consummate engineer, it seems? In spirit, if not in avocation, anyway.

It seems to me that if you move into a different mental / emotional place, you might come to where you aren't "weighing" benefits and liabilities in such an overall, theoretical way. Obviously, for any particular task--for a practical situation--it is often very smart or even absolutely necessary, to do a cost/benefit/fitness analysis and come down categorically for one or another of multiple options. But, in terms of general ownership and experience--in terms of a HOBBY--there is absolutely no need to always be weighing things this way!

You could have an incan _just for the fun of it!!!_ Even if it isn't quite as reliable, and even if it does require a bit more maintenance.

No need to toss aside incans, even if they were quantitatively inferior in every way. Things are more than the sum of a parameterization set, after all.


----------



## xpea (Jan 15, 2009)

copperfox said:


> I would like to echo an earlier post which questioned the move to such warm-white LEDs such as the 5A tinted Crees. In my limited experience with SX0, SW0, and the SR (the so-called "high CRI SSC") tint bin Seoul P4s, I find myself wanting something right in the middle...say, SUN bin. Likewise for the Cree XR-E, I find myself wondering what a 3A bin looks like.





Blindasabat said:


> See this thread - 1st post - for a comparison picture of Cree WC to 3A (and incan). I bought one of those lights (see below).
> SSC SUN and SUM seem to overlap the Cree neutral 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 4A & 4B so they do look very interesting, though they have 'cool' tint (not high CRI) phosphor, and we just can't find any of those LEDs other than a Seoul tint comparison board someone had late 2007. Photonfanatic has been trying to source some for a group buy for over a month. I had a "want to buy" thread for them many months ago based on that tint board. They are worth a try.
> I just got a Cree 3A light Friday and I like it a lot compared to even very white cool tints. I would prefer a 3B, 3C, 4B,or 4C (above the Planckian Black Body Line rather than below it) as the more yellow & green tints always seem to work better outdoors for me rather than the red-pink below the PBB line (also see below).



Bingo ! I too find myself the 5A too yellowish for my taste. For years we were upset by incand yellow tint and now it's the new trend again ?:thinking:

Anyway, since last year I'm looking for 3B, 3C and 3D emitters as I believe they are the pure neutral "natural" white, but no success till now :mecry:

I've tried many WH (as it includes 3B) but I always got greenish tints...


----------



## es2qy (Jan 15, 2009)

LED's are ahead on the efficiency (lumens/watt) side whilst incans spectra is closer to the sun. For me there is room for both at the moment.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 15, 2009)

js said:


> But, in terms of general ownership and experience--in terms of a HOBBY--there is absolutely no need to always be weighing things this way!
> 
> You could have an incan _just for the fun of it!!!_ Even if it isn't quite as reliable, and even if it does require a bit more maintenance.
> 
> No need to toss aside incans, even if they were quantitatively inferior in every way. Things are more than the sum of a parameterization set, after all.


Absolutely it's a hobby, and I have a couple of drawers of incandescent lamps which I play around with occasionally just for the heck of it. My favorite is an 800 watt, 120V tubular halogen I found in someone's trash a while back. That thing must put out over 20,000 lumens! The heat radiating from it is unbelieveable, and absolutely something LEDs can't duplicate. :twothumbs


----------



## WadeF (Jan 15, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> Absolutely it's a hobby, and I have a couple of drawers of incandescent lamps which I play around with occasionally just for the heck of it. My favorite is an 800 watt, 120V tubular halogen I found in someone's trash a while back. That thing must put out over 20,000 lumens! The heat radiating from it is unbelieveable, and absolutely something LEDs can't duplicate. :twothumbs



You haven't experienced the Data Bank 70.  I think each Cree XR-E is driven around 1.8A, so they should all be around 300 lumens, for around 21,000 total lumens. Standing infront of it is quite warm I hear.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 16, 2009)

Sgt. LED said:


> What the hell happened to buying both?


H**L yeah. Look at the avatar. Appreciate it all.

I predict in twenty years, the then dominant Carbon Nanotube Filament Incans (CNFI) will be threatened by Gaseous Neuron Area Luminescence (GNAL - duh). A tiny charge initiator like an open flourescent ballast will charge up the sub-atomic particles of the very air around you with beautiful black body radiation like day light scatter, but better (less blue with higher CRI), and all current light sources will fade (not a pun meant solely for 10,000 hour aged LEDs or 1 million hour CNFI's).

On 'CPF Skynet' the debate will rage on the death of Carbon Nano-tube Incans, HIDs, LEDs, and candles in the face of this new technology. People will predict how one 'torch' will soon light up your entire home town (since nobody will have a distinguishable 'hometown' in the world megalopolis, only the old people will understand the archaic phrase anyway).

Speaking of 'torches' there will be a sticky in the General Light Forum on "the anchient legend of fire" and how torches were first named. 'Flashlights' will stand for the brilliant flash of plasma discharge from 4-dimensional camera 'flashes' being recorded on the streets for up-netting to 'Z-tube,' the new Skynet site that's all the rage with generation 'Beta.' So named because they are being set up to live under the impossible expectation of being the "second best generation ever" by Skynet General News Blogs.

It's late and I need sleep ...that is the only explanation I have for my behavior.

'nite John Boy, nite ROP, g'nite gramma-minimag, nite poppa-Lux.


----------



## etc (Jan 16, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> I've yet to have an LED light fail. Generally, there are two reasons why LED lights fail. One is when they're poorly designed, or modded to do things they really weren't meant to do. A good example might be trying to put a P7 in a single AA body. It just can't deal with the heat. The LED and driver board will fail. The second reason is shoddy construction. This is equally true for any type of light, however. Knowing what I do about electronics, failures occur in a bathtub curve. A small percentage of electronic items fail very early, most likely due to marginally passing specs. This is known as infant mortality. After that, failures increase with running time. For an LED flashlight this part of the failure curve is irrelevant. They just won't accumulate enough hours. Infant mortality ia generally dealt with by burning in electronic devices for a few hundred hours. If anyone is concerned about the reliability of their LED light then run it steady for a week or two with a power supply. If it doesn't fail during that time, chances are it never will.
> ............


 

Great post!


----------



## etc (Jan 16, 2009)

IMO, they not only caught up with icans but exceeded them. 

There is much more to a lite than pure lumens. Some of these ican mods are absolutely the brightest but only for 1/10 the time of incan run time. With leds, you get an increase in runtime of an order of magnitude, plus relaibility.


the only argument I hear in favor of incans is color rendition, but I love the tint of my Malkoff M60. It's as perfect as it gets IMO.


----------



## KiwiMark (Jan 16, 2009)

WadeF said:


> Also if we aren't going to compare apples to apples, the Databank 70, which is 70 Cree LED's with aspheric lenses, would absolutely annihilate that Hotwire.  Are we to be impressed that a hotwire crammed full of batteries will out perform a single LED light with less battery power?
> 
> Databank 70 LED's turning a field into daylight, and that tree line is about 1,200 feet away, and the Databank lit up the hill top at 2,500 feet:



Hmmm, at least a Mag623 is still a hand held torch that you can carry around easily. Admittedly it is not as pocketable as some very bright LED torches and the run time is only around 5 minutes to 20 minutes depending on the power source.
I doubt there is much in the LED torch world that can compete with 6000 bulb lumens in a hand held 2D sized torch.

I carry a Jetbeam Jet-I Pro V2 which runs on 1 x AA sized battery - I carry it because it is useful and versatile (2 - 225 Lumens). For the run time and the brightness in the small size, no Incan can beat it.

I am building a ROP High, a ROP Low and maybe 3 different hotwires - they wont be as practical as my LEDs, but they will be brighter. I don't really care which is better, there is a place in my world for both. But if I want to start a fire without matches or a lighter I will grab my MAG623 because it will do what a LED can't.

I don't think bringing a huge non-handheld LED into the fight is a good idea, there are incans that will blow that thing away several times over (which are also not hand held). I am comfortable with letting the incans have the brightness crown anyway - that isn't really the point of my LEDs. Generally the smaller size, greater efficiency, less heat, white light even at 1 or 2 Lumens and 50,000 hour emitter life puts the LED torch well ahead of the incans for 95% of practical applications. For the other 5% - plenty of us will have bright incans on hand for when we need their special abilities.

I have an LED torch that can run for 200 hours from a 18650 battery and the light isn't a sickly orange glow either. The same torch can put out over 200 Lumen to give plenty of light for most purposes. No incan can beat that torch in each of its important characteristics.

Once I build by MAG623 there will be no hand held LED as small as it that will be able to put out as much light or start fires.

These 2 lights can each be beaten on SOME of their characteristics by other lights of the opposing technology (LED vs Incan) but not all their characteristics. There is no way either technology will be the best choice in EVERY situation imaginable. I think now that LEDs are the best option in more situations than incans, but incans will still have their uses in another decade and beyond.


----------



## SureAddicted (Jan 16, 2009)

KiwiMark said:


> Hmmm, at least a Mag623 is still a hand held torch that you can carry around easily. Admittedly it is not as pocketable as some very bright LED torches and the run time is only around 5 minutes to 20 minutes depending on the power source..



Exactly, you beat me to it. Although impressive, it is a big a cumbersome unit, taking into account the batteries as well. Apples to watermelons comparison. I'd like to see that databank fit into a jacket pocket with the batteries.

On the subject of incan bulb failures. With my job I depend on lights with my life. Having not had a single bulb failure yet is a testament. I also keep a close eye on how many hrs I have put them through, If they have had many mileages then I will use a new bulb and keep the used for less critical situations. Its like going in to battle and only having 2 rounds in the magazine, I always use a fresh mag because I don't want to get caught in a compromising, do or die situation.

I've been in situations where I might find myself huddled behind barricades in the early hours of the morning where there is mist and fog. I also have found myself in situations where I was surrounded by fire, either evacuating or enaging in a FF. I do find myself in very high risk situations, so I need tools to match. If I was sitting in the comfort of my living room, LED's would suffice.

There is a reason I don't drive fuel effiecent/electric cars. I'm not into mileage/runtime, so it's a moot point. Plus there is always a sacrifice associated. 

As for heat, nothing produces more heat than my LED, by a huge margin. My 200 Lumen icans produce much less heat than my LED light, and I'm not the one that goes out and buys the lastest gear. A lot of thinking goes into my purchases because I put my lights through a lot more then what the average flashaholic would in their lifetime. My lights must pass a very stringent test, so the lastest and greatest equipment doesn't always meet my criteria.

Most of the time I will also have a LED light with me, some situations would call for the characteristics of an LED. But I'm not the one to disregard a light based upon what's coming out just around the corner.

I just have to thank Icebreak for illustrating the differences, especially in post 127, the last combined pic of the beamshots. good job mate.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 16, 2009)

This post was actually my round-about, narrative way of saying that there still could be a dramatic advance in any technology, including incans. You never know where the next advance will be. A new filament could be super efficient and tough as LEDs - we just don't know until it happens.
And with the mentioning of candles - that nothing is ever really obsolete. 
There was method to my madness.

The rest was just humor and Scifi stream of consciousness writing.


Blindasabat said:


> I predict in twenty years, the then dominant Carbon Nanotube Filament Incans (CNFI) will be threatened by Gaseous Neuron Area Luminescence (GNAL - duh). A tiny charge initiator like an open flourescent ballast will charge up the sub-atomic particles of the very air around you with beautiful black body radiation like day light scatter, but better (less blue with higher CRI), and all current light sources will fade (not a pun meant solely for 10,000 hour aged LEDs or 1 million hour CNFI's).
> 
> On 'CPF Skynet' the debate will rage on the death of Carbon Nano-tube Incans, HIDs, LEDs, and candles in the face of this new technology. People will predict how one 'torch' will soon light up your entire home town (since nobody will have a distinguishable 'hometown' in the world megalopolis, only the old people will understand the archaic phrase anyway).
> ...


----------



## HKJ (Jan 16, 2009)

Blindasabat said:


> This post was actually my round-about, narrative way of saying that there still could be a dramatic advance in any technology, including incans. You never know where the next advance will be. A new filament could be super efficient and tough as LEDs - we just don't know until it happens.



That is not really possible with our current knowledge of science, any hot item radiates in a specific way and this includes a lot of IR, preventing a good efficiency.
But maybe some advances could be made in capturing the IR(heat) inside the bulb and this way increase efficiency.

With leds we know what to expect (Better color rendering and a efficiency above 100 lumen/watt), but do not know the exact time frame. The technology is possibly in the lab., we just need to improve/invent the manufacturing methods.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 16, 2009)

Just wild speculation ... one could transform the IR into useful frequencies. Liek a phosphor transforms blue to white.


----------



## HKJ (Jan 16, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Just wild speculation ... one could transform the IR into useful frequencies. Liek a phosphor transforms blue to white.



That would not improve the filament, but the efficiency of the bulb would be better and the light quality would be worse (i.e. same complain as for leds: the CRI is to low).


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 16, 2009)

WadeF said:


> Icebreak, I have a problem with your pictures.



No kidding? As predicted.



WadeF said:


> It appears both were shot with the same white balance, you can tell by the house lighting.



Yeah, I know. That's why I pointed it out. It's a custom white balance that works well with incan and LED.



WadeF said:


> How about you take the same shots with daylight white balance to compare the LED to the incan.



MmmHmm. I've done that before and foul was cried out about those shots too. You do remember crying about these shots using Daylight settings don't you?











If you want to see that Throw Daddy LED light in Daylight you can find it in the Dorcy 220 thread. Blue beam in Daylight also.

How about _you_ take on a homework assignment from me and take some better shots of your IMR9 incan. The first one is lavender and the second one is umber. I texted all of my incandescent flashlights and apologized for even being in the vicinity of those beamshots. I mean, if you’re going to white wall hunt with an incan it least make it look like an incan.





Maybe take them outside, not in the basement/bat cave. Here's another homework assignment for you. _You_ take a photo of nature using one of your flashlights, outside, not in the bat cave and publish it.

We can all banter about how best to do comparative beamshots. I believe comparative shots are only comparative if they are bench-marked to a manual setting and yip yip yip heeeeeeeeeeere we go, ladies and gentlemen; boys and girls, down the insidious tangent of photography. Great googley moogley! Check this: The brain is interactive. A photo is not interactive unless Harry Potter sent it to you.

The point I was making is that the obviously intimidating awesomeness of that badass Mag85 HotWire is due largely to it's *spectral potency*. It would not matter how you took a beamshot of the Cree Q3 flashlight in nature. It absolutely, positively, most assuredly will not have the spectral quality of a hotwired incan. It absolutely, positively, most assuredly will not return the same quantity of colors in an image. Not yesterday, today or tomorrow. Not in your town, not in my town, not in Wassilla and not in Whoville. Not anywhere on earth and not anywhere on the moon. And it doesn't matter how well that point is presented...some folks refuse to accept it with an equal amount of vim and vigor as that used to present the truth of the matter.








jtr1962 said:


> BTW, that astronaut is using incan because it's all that existed at the time.


 
Oh, please. Now you’re just making stuff up. Seems the more powerful the evidence the more powerful the denial. 



jtr1962 said:


> I won't own a motor vehicle (even if I could afford one which I currently can't) until such time as EVs are available. I've seen firsthand via other family members that internal combustion engines are too unreliable for my tastes. Even the routine preventive maintenance is more work than I'd care to get involved with. Like my bike, I'd want something I basically just get in and go, without worrying about oil changes, transmission fluid, broken belts, low fuel, etc. Until that level of reliability is available, I'd just as soon avoid the hassles of owning motorized transportation as they outweigh the benefits _to me_. For others who may like to tinker the reverse may be true.


 
If your perspective is limited by your horizons and your horizons are limited by how far you can ride your bike from mom’s house; I don’t guess you’ll be showing up anytime soon to see my flashlights that you don’t believe are as good as the photos indicate. That’s a shame.

There’s a whole world out there to discover with your flashlight.






And incandescent light can be your best friend…


----------



## HKJ (Jan 16, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> Yeah, I know. That's why I pointed it out. It's a custom white balance that works well with incan and LED.



Please try to be a bit fair when your compare incan and led:

Our eyes are adapted for sunlight, i.e. daylight color balance, at least use that color balance for leds, using incan color balance for leds is cheating.

Use lights with the same output, I could take a minimag and a P7 led and guess which one would look best?



Leds does not have a full spectrum, but they have a CCT that is closer to the sun than incan. Which one looks best depends on the situation and the person looking.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 16, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> If your perspective is limited by your horizons and your horizons are limited by how far you can ride your bike from mom’s house; I don’t guess you’ll be showing up anytime soon to see my flashlights that you don’t believe are as good as the photos indicate.



Did anyone say the incan wasn't as good as your photos indicate? We only pointed out you used the same WB, which worked well with the incan, for the LED which made the LED look worse than it would in person once your eyes adjusted to it. If my eyes are adjusted to an LED and I fire up an incan it looks horribly orange. If my eyes adjust to an incan and I fire up an LED it may look horribly blue. If you set your camera's WB for the incan, the LED will look horribly blue. If you set your camera's WB for daylight the incan will look horribly orange. 

I didn't have much time to take beam shots of my IMR set ups, I work for a living and have kids (who have been sick all week), and it's 13F outside, snow, and just pretty crappy conditions for beam shots at the moment. 

On my monitor, my beam shot of the incan in my basement on the wall looks pure white, not lavender. Maybe your monitor needs adjustment, or maybe mine does. However, I set the digital camera to incan (tungsten) WB and I did not do any corrections to the image, so it shouldn't be lavender, it should be white, which leads me to believe your monitor needs adjustment if it's showing up lavender. Maybe your monitor is throwing off your other beam shots and we're not seeing what you are seeing.

I also agree the incans will return more colors and be a much better light source for outdoor photography. This topic wasn't about if LED's have caught up to incan's when it comes to CRI, although some LED's have, they just don't have a lot of output at the moment. CRI is just one of many factors to consider. To some people CRI is very important, to others, not so much. 

I think in certain size classes LED"s have caught up and surpassed incans, and in other size classes incans still rule. I own both LED's and incans and I'm not limiting myself to just LED's.

Also if you are implying I haven't experienced a hot wire Mag, etc, I have been to PF10 and PF11 at Milkyspit's house and have seen just about everything there is there. There were many high powered hot wires, HID's, etc. We took them outdoors, took a long walk to a quarry, etc. We got to compare all kinds of lights with each other.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 16, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> Oh, please. Now you’re just making stuff up. Seems the more powerful the evidence the more powerful the denial.


Well, then how come this new spacesuit is using LEDs? When all they had was incandescents, it was either that or no light at all, and you had to design appropriately to eliminate the consequences of lamp failure. Now that they have a choice of lighting technology, apparently NASA considers LEDs better suited to the task of spacesuit helmet lighting. And who are we to argue with NASA? 



> If your perspective is limited by your horizons and your horizons are limited by how far you can ride your bike from mom’s house; I don’t guess you’ll be showing up anytime soon to see my flashlights that you don’t believe are as good as the photos indicate. That’s a shame.


I can go anywhere you can via public transit combined with walking and cycling. It just takes longer. That being said, at heart I'm a city person. The city has everything I need. I rarely have any desire or need to travel outside city limits. The few times I do, lack of personal transportation has never been a problem for me. I'm sure if I had any great desire to see your lights in action I could get myself there without much fuss. But l really lack the time and money now to do much traveling.



> It would not matter how you took a beamshot of the Cree Q3 flashlight in nature. It absolutely, positively, most assuredly will not have the spectral quality of a hotwired incan.


If you really want to do a fair comparison you wouldn't stick solely to scenes with mostly reds or browns or yellows. Rather, try looking at some scenes with both warmer colors AND cooler colors like greens, blues, purples. I can guarantee you neither LED nor incandescent will be able to render all the colors in the scene well. In the end, it would probably be a draw. The only light sources which would do well (besides the sun) might be a Xenon arc lamp, or perhaps the best grades of 5000K-5500K flourescent tubes (i.e. those was a CRI of 98). Of course, the latter two choices aren't easily portable. They would make poor flashlights.

On another note, some here have said that a light which uses both incan and LED simulataneously is as good as it gets. Each offsets the weaknesses of the other.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 16, 2009)

HKJ said:


> That is not really possible with our current knowledge of science, any hot item radiates in a specific way and this includes a lot of IR, preventing a good efficiency.


We are not talking about "current knowledge" of science, are we?  What if it doesn't have to get so hot? Plus, I believe a small amount of IR is perceivable and may be helpful.
Like...


HKJ said:


> But maybe some advances could be made in capturing the IR(heat) inside the bulb and this way increase efficiency.


Now you are thinking. Say a "just warm enough to emit IR" pin or rod (not even a fragile 'wire') was used to activate a reaction of some sort?



HKJ said:


> With leds we know what to expect (Better color rendering and a efficiency above 100 lumen/watt), but do not know the exact time frame. The technology is possibly in the lab., we just need to improve/invent the manufacturing methods.


There have been higher efficiency incan tech demonstrated in the lab recently too. I'd list the thread if I had the time to find it.

What if a new envelope gas is used that absorbs IR & re-emits it as blue-ish light to balance out the incan output and raise the CCT to that of daylight?
What if a coating on the glass did it?
What if CFL's had a new leap in wide packaging and only needed a pinpoint of gas & an LED chip sized ballast? 
Anything can happen.

I don't favor any technology except what works for me (useful and maybe fun too), the environment (pollutes less), and the economy a tthe moment I am ready to buy it.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 16, 2009)

Did I just hear somebody say A2?


jtr1962 said:


> On another note, some here have said that a light which uses both incan and LED simulataneously is as good as it gets. Each offsets the weaknesses of the other.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 16, 2009)

HKJ said:


> Use lights with the same output, I could take a minimag and a P7 led and guess which one would look best?



Did you read my posts? About the intensity at the spot? Your P7, if you have one, will not be as intense as that 1.25 Amp cold Q3 in the big deep reflector. That a single emitter LED can compete, albeit in a small spot, with a 1,000lu single lamp HOP HotWire is phenomenal.

Wade –

You are responding to a quote from me talking to someone else. I’m aware of how eyes, brain photo processors and cameras work. Did you see those weed pics? The ones you complained about before? Daylight. Just like you said. It does not matter how you adjust the camera. The light from the XRE Q3 will not return the same amount of color information from the target as the incandescent light will. If you realize that what I’m saying is true then why the hell challenge photos? Of course they’re not perfect. Photos are only used to help the reader understand the words. 

Nice lights on the coffee table BTW. Oddly, I'm more interested in the little dude on the tripod than that sweet Mac I see.

JTR –

You are challenging the astronaut again? You just don’t get it. He didn’t stay home. He used an incandescent source in a more hostile environment than walking the ridge line leading up the hill to Snuffy’s house. You didn't want to use an incan walking up the hill for fear of failure. And at the time his suite was in use LEDs _were_ available. You wanna know where they were available? On his freaking suite! As freaking BACK UPS! Yeah. That’s right. He had the choice and was using incandescent lights. Upside down, sideways, 14,000 mph, -40 F, with a bigass goofy smile on his face. What do you think they use for mission critical work outside the Space Station and on the Shuttle? Next week’s Fenix?














jtr1962 said:


> I can guarantee you neither LED nor incandescent will be able to render all the colors in the scene well. In the end, it would probably be a draw.



A draw?


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 16, 2009)

Blindasabat and HKJ -

Is this of any interest to your exchange? Infrared Coated.



StefanFS said:


> 1. 4D Maglite with OSRAM 64440 IRC 50W radial bulb, KIU bipin adapter,
> FM cellholder, smooth alu reflector. Running on 12 Eneloop. The 50 W IRC
> Halostar equals a 75 W ordinary OSRAM halogen bulb.
> 
> ...


----------



## WadeF (Jan 16, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> Wade –
> 
> You are responding to a quote from me talking to someone else. I’m aware of how eyes, brain photo processors and cameras work. Did you see those weed pics? The ones you complained about before? Daylight. Just like you said. It does not matter how you adjust the camera. The light from the XRE Q3 will not return the same amount of color information from the target as the incandescent light will. If you realize that what I’m saying is true then why the hell challenge photos? Of course they’re not perfect. Photos are only used to help the reader understand the words.



I don't remember complaining about those pictures, but I certainly may have. If you have a link to that feel free to refresh my memory.  

I wasn't sure what you were trying to show in those images. It doesn't look like you explained what the light source was. Now I assume it was a LED. BTW, Q3 is just the efficiency bin. What is the tint bin? 5A I assume?


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 16, 2009)

WadeF said:


> I don't remember complaining about those pictures, but I certainly may have. If you have a link to that feel free to refresh my memory.
> 
> I wasn't sure what you were trying to show in those images. It doesn't look like you explained what the light source was. Now I assume it was a LED. BTW, Q3 is just the efficiency bin. What is the tint bin? 5A I assume?



Wade -

The weeds shot was a nice Q5 Malkoff. Don't know the tint. It wasn't the warm one everyone is talking about though. Just very nice. I'm sure I could figure it out if I researched it...WC maybe...I don't really know.

Aw, c'mon now. You know that Q3 isn't a 5A. The Q3 Dorcy 220 I'm thinking is about the opposite tint of 5A. Remember LuxIII TWAKs? About like that. Maybe even a tad bluer.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 16, 2009)

Sorry, all this Q3 talk has confused me.  There are a lot of people running around the forums who refer to a Q2 or Q3 5A bin LED as simply "The Q3" and they think Q3 means it's warm.  I saw that Dorcy at my local Sears Hardware but promptly passed on it. I'll stick with my DBS.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 16, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> You are challenging the astronaut again? You just don’t get it. He didn’t stay home. He used an incandescent source in a more hostile environment than walking the ridge line leading up the hill to Snuffy’s house. You didn't want to use an incan walking up the hill for fear of failure.


No, I stopped using incandescent because the investment in time/money to keep it working makes it not my while. It has nothing to do with the fair of failure you keep harping on. Remember that I gave incandescent bike lighting a fair try when that was the only thing available. Didn't work without an excessive amount of investment in time/money. Each $5 lamp that crapped out on me represented another hour of after tax wages. After about half a dozen bulbs, I said screw this, I'll just ride without lights until something better comes along. Same story with most of the other things I've tried to light with incandescent. Plain old didn't work for me. Some things just can't be made for easy lamp replacement. In others the heat caused huge problems. Sure, incandescent lamps are absolutely a blast to play around with, no arguing that. But when it comes to actually being practical for most of my needs, I've found them lacking. I'm thankful that alternatives exist. 

I think that's the big thing you fail to appreciate-namely the new world LEDs have opened up for a lot of people. I honestly don't understand why threads like this must always harp only on the negatives of LEDs while totally ignoring the positives, or dismissing them as unimportant. In many cases for me they've made lighting projects practical whereas before lighting was possible, but only with great difficulty. In many other cases they've enabled me to do things which plain weren't possible before with only incandescents. For example, how do you light an HO passenger car if you want to duplicate flourescent lighting, and also want to keep the lights on for a few minutes, even with no power to the track? Couldn't be done until LEDs. Blue-filtered incandescents might get you the right look, but the power consumption was so high that a tiny battery fitting in the model would only power them for a few seconds. And a string of lighted cars would overtax your power pack. Besides all that, you had heat melting plastic, plus lamps burning out. Now I can keep the lights on with a 3x1/2AA pack for about an hour, the current draw is like 1/30th of the incandescent equivalent, and no need to worry about replacing lamps.



> And at the time his suite was in use LEDs _were_ available. You wanna know where they were available? On his freaking suite! As freaking BACK UPS! Yeah. That’s right. He had the choice and was using incandescent lights. Upside down, sideways, 14,000 mph, -40 F, with a bigass goofy smile on his face. What do you think they use for mission critical work outside the Space Station and on the Shuttle? Next week’s Fenix?


And if that's the case (unable to find info one way or the other) I'm sure these systems are grossly overdesigned with either multiple filament lamps or spares which go on when the primary lamp fails. I'm not debating that you can get incan reliable enough to work in space. It's just that only NASA can afford the cost to do so. I bet that lighting system on the astronaut's helmet cost more than a Lexus. I know for a fact the entire suit costs a couple of million. You can pretty much get any light source reliable enough for space, even a candle, if you want to spend enough money on it. My point is that for the common person who doesn't have this kind of money, and for whom reliability is a big part of the equation, LED looks very attractive compared to the alternatives. And for a lot of uses (maybe not your own) the spectrum is not perfect but it's good enough. So I'd say for 95+% of _practical uses_ LED beats the pants off incandescent. For the other 5%, not yet but that number keeps growing smaller every year. In the final analysis, despite singing the praises of LED here I have no vested idiological interest in any particular light source like some of you hotwire guys seem to have. So long as it has a tint I find pleasing, decent color rendering, lasts at least 10,000 hours, preferably much longer, and has the long-term potential to convert most of its input power to light, I don't care how it works. So far only LED is coming close to these desires but it wouldn't matter to me if it was replaced by an exotic hotwire. Whatever works is fine with me. I won't get all nostalgic if LEDs disappear because something better replaces it, even if that something is a better hotwire.


----------



## Paul520 (Jan 16, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> MR-X LED on (way more)xAA lithiums:


This one looks like the 'gamma' is much higher.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 16, 2009)

What's "gamma"?
This one is very old and was shot with a very crappy digicam back then.


----------



## 43X16 (Jan 16, 2009)

photoshop gamma?
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WSC291F86A-9170-463e-B8AE-6EDDC4B296C4.html

screen gamma?
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html#Gammabox


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 16, 2009)

Nice website!
Not that I really got the depth of the gamma-thing ... but I think I'll order a print of this man


----------



## js (Jan 16, 2009)

Guys,

The whole point of IRC is to trap the heat inside the envelope and only let the visible light escape--well, it isn't 100 percent effective of course! But that's the goal you're striving for, anyway. Not only is there no need to operate the filament at a lower temperature, but it would be counter to the goal of increased efficiency. An IRC filament can operate at high temperatures, just as a normal one can, as test here at CPF have shown.

The electric current going through a filament is only used to _make and keep it hot_. It continually cools down because it emits energy, most of it in the IR region. We don't generally care about or want that energy, however, so why not keep it? If you could _only_ let the visible light through, and keep the IR inside, then the filament would stay at the same temperature _with a lower electrical power input_. This is the idea behind IRC:






You can use the efficiency increase to either extend the filament life _or_ to increase output, or both.

Incandescents are _awesome_. The SF A2 is awesome. My SF M6 is awesome. Outdoors, in the woods, I'll take an incan over any LED, any day of the week.

And if the maintenance and upkeep of incans are too much for you, well then you have a really LOW tolerance for such things! jtr, how hard can it be to keep an incan bike light running? Was it really so difficult?

But, that's OK, I'm not trying to do the whole PRO / CON of LED *vs* incan.

Why do we always have to come back to the same argument, over, and over,

and

over

again?

This thread was different (at the beginning) in that it wasn't so much about the whole

"NO! Incans are better!"

"What? That's stupid! LED's are better? No **** yellow here!"

"Can LED's do _this_"

"Actually they can!"

and on and on and on.

It's OK, I guess. I guess people like to have a "winner" and talk about "arguments for" (or against). I used to get defensive and try to show that there were still places where the choice of an incan was arguably a smart choice. I used to point out that many professionals (like LEO and S&R) told stories about trying to switch to LEDs for the main lights but had to go back to incans because LED's just couldn't reach out and touch something outdoors and in areas like parking lots with ambient lighting. And etc.

but now . . .

I don't care! I just go ahead and use my SF M6 with MN15 X-LOLA lamp assy and have fun with it.

If the "LED people" feel the need to get into a pro/con "arguments" discussion, so be it. Don't let me stop you!

Just keep it civil, please.

Thanks.


----------



## js (Jan 16, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> . . .
> 
> And incandescent light can be your best friend…



Damn Icebreak!

WHO IS THIS?


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 16, 2009)

Eva Green, js.
It is Eva who rules this thread when she appears.
We love her :kiss: 


What did you say btw? :nana:


----------



## WadeF (Jan 16, 2009)

What kinds of incans are you guys using in the woods? One time I was releasing a turtle or snake or something back into the woods and I carried it down to a creek. It was night time and dark. I used my LED, I think a Fenix P2D, to light my way. Worked fine. Once I got rid of the critter I decided to try my incan, a WF-500, putting out around 500 lumens. When I fired that thing up I couldn't see more than 5 feet infront of me because all the branches, leaves, etc (it was fairly dense on a thin twisty trail) were so bright it killed my night adapted eyes, not allowing me to see farther into the woods and farther down the path. I shut it off, let my eyes adjust and used the LED on a low to medium setting and quickly made my way down the trail and being able to see deeper into the woods in the process. 

In a situation like this I don't see how a high powered incan is a good thing. I'd rather have a head lamp set on low or medium. 

Now if I was out in an open field, or whatever, a powerful incan is fine.


----------



## KiwiMark (Jan 17, 2009)

WadeF said:


> In a situation like this I don't see how a high powered incan is a good thing. I'd rather have a head lamp set on low or medium.
> 
> Now if I was out in an open field, or whatever, a powerful incan is fine.



Yep, just like I said - have both types and use whatever is the most suitable for the situation you need them for.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 17, 2009)

js said:


> And if the maintenance and upkeep of incans are too much for you, well then you have a really LOW tolerance for such things! jtr, how hard can it be to keep an incan bike light running? Was it really so difficult?


The biggest problem was the expense and availability of lamps. Sometimes the local Radio Shack had them, other times no. Half the time the light didn't run on account of not being able to find lamps. And at about $5 a pop, which was over an hour's take-home wages at the time (this was the 1980s), it quickly got too expensive. $5 to buy a new lamp, and sometimes I'd ride 15 minutes, hit a pothole, and the lamp would die. Besides that, the batteries of the time just weren't up to the task. Best case I'd get an hour out of a set before they needed recharging. Most of my rides are longer than that. I just found it too flaky for my tastes. Living somewhere with good streetlights also meant I didn't really need a headlight. NYC streets are rough on all parts of a bike, not just headlights. In the last year I had two of those LED rear flashers fall off on account of the brackets cracking. I also had metal speedometer brackets crack (this was back in the days of dial-type speedometers). Don't even ask about the number of ruined wheels over the years. So far I've had great luck with LED headlights. The two I use are former halogens modded with 5mm LEDs. Both have accumulated hundreds of hours with no failures. I decided recently I want something with a lot more output. Hence my 4xCree R2 project. You have no idea of the doors LEDs have opened for me personally. They're really what led me to CPF in the first place. And I think it's the same for many others. I see lots of bikes with LED headlights when I ride. 10 years ago hardly anyone had lights. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried and gave up like I did.



> But, that's OK, I'm not trying to do the whole PRO / CON of LED *vs* incan.
> 
> Why do we always have to come back to the same argument, over, and over,
> 
> ...


I don't know. I'm trying to see both points of view here, and not putting down incan unfairly with silly statements like it just stinks. I try to back up anything negative I say with solid evidence. But in the end it seems these threads always go down the same path no matter who's participating. I guess it's the nature of the beast. It's sort of like arguing over who's the perfect female. None of the answers will be satisfy everyone but all will vehemently defend their choice.

I think I'll look at that other thread you mentioned earlier tomorrow. The whole subject of color rendering, color temperature, physiological and psychological reactions to light are very interesting to me personally. Hopefully I can add to the discussion.



> As for Eva with cig picture, I have to say that I'd take up smoking myself if it meant I could date her. Hell yeah. What's a little lung cancer later in life compared to that? Totally worth it! Besides, chances are you'd break up anyway and then you could just quit smoking and have the best of both worlds. I imagine smoking might be quite enjoyable once you acquired the habit. LOL!


A few puffs on one of my parent's cigarettes when I was about ten was all it took for me to realize there's no way I'd ever touch these things again.  I used to hate the smell of smoke but I figured, maybe it's better if it's first hand rather than second hand. Nope. :sick2: Even more disgusting first hand. My father quit after his first heart attack in 1989. My mom quit when her granddaughter was born in 1993. After being is a smoke-free environment for so long, I gag passing within 50 feet of smoker on the street. Car exhaust has an almost as bad effect. And I'm glad I react this way. These things are as bad for you as they smell. Not even a date with Eva would be worth it to me. Cancer is a funny thing. You might smoke and be fine. The longest-lived person on record smoked until she was 115 (she lived to 122). On the other hand, I could take up smoking and die at a relatively young age. No way of knowing, and definitely no pluses to it. Even my mom said it was a stupid habit she's glad to have gotten over.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 17, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> I honestly don't understand why threads like this must always harp only on the negatives of LEDs while totally ignoring the positives, or dismissing them as unimportant.



What is amazing is that what starts the conflict is LED Jockeys speaking about incans like this:



jtr1962 said:


> So I'd say for 95+% of _practical uses_ LED beats the pants off incandescent. For the other 5%, not yet but that number keeps growing smaller every year.



And then pretending like the Incan Jockeys started it.



jtr1962 said:


> In the final analysis, despite singing the praises of LED here I have no vested idiological interest in any particular light source like some of you hotwire guys seem to have.



In reality, almost every Incan Jockey has a number of LED's and enjoys using them for a number of purposes. We do not regularly go into LED promotional threads to assert overall incan superiority. Rather, we defend incans legitimate uses and specific superior features when false claims are made. The reverse scenario is rarely the case with LED Jockeys. Go back over the evolution of this thread, and the many that are started in the Incan section of the forum.



WadeF said:


> What kinds of incans are you guys using in the woods? One time I was releasing a turtle or snake or something back into the woods and I carried it down to a creek. It was night time and dark. I used my LED, I think a Fenix P2D, to light my way. Worked fine. Once I got rid of the critter I decided to try my incan, a WF-500, putting out around 500 lumens. When I fired that thing up I couldn't see more than 5 feet infront of me because all the branches, leaves, etc (it was fairly dense on a thin twisty trail) were so bright it killed my night adapted eyes, not allowing me to see farther into the woods and farther down the path. I shut it off, let my eyes adjust and used the LED on a low to medium setting and quickly made my way down the trail and being able to see deeper into the woods in the process.
> 
> In a situation like this I don't see how a high powered incan is a good thing. I'd rather have a head lamp set on low or medium.
> 
> Now if I was out in an open field, or whatever, a powerful incan is fine.



Wade, this is a perfectly legitimate scenario (heavily wooded) where a subdued lumen (<50 L) light source is going to work better. Going back in time, lighting was done with torches, then candle-lanterns, and for many decades--hand held low lumen incan flashlights. 

I usually carry a smaller LED light if I am using a 300+ Lumen incan outside. I intentionally sacrifice some of my night adapted vision for the preferred benefit of direct artificial illumination. An obvious comparison is night automobile driving, where night adapted vision alone is inadequate. Remember the night vision rods are in the periphery of the retina, and your central focus uses the cones which need additional light to work.

In reality, even 500L incans such as the SF-M6 do not wipe out all of your night vision. You can tell the difference when using a bright light, and an oncoming car's headlights truly wipes it out. This is also why I generally prefer reflectors that are not heavily textured, because in the quest for "No Lumpy Beams" (from the TV special on flashlights), their resulting flood properties takes away more of the night adapted vision. 

If you are in dense smoke, fog, snow, or thick foliaged forest, the reflection and scatter is going to limit your night vision. Your low lumen solution in a dense forest makes sense. However, in smoke & fog (i.e. firemen, S&R workers) a brighter lumens, narrow beam hotspot with little reflector scatter is going to work better. 

I have been using LED with aspherics (most notably, Saabluster's DEFT) a lot in my suburban settings over the last 3-4 months because I'm seeing increasingly hungry coyotees almost every other night, and I want as much advance notice as possible. Even still, my generally preferred light for outdoors is a focussed incan.


----------



## RyanA (Jan 17, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> In reality, almost every Incan Jockey has a number of LED's and enjoys using them for a number of purposes. We do not regularly go into LED promotional threads to assert overall incan superiority. Rather, we defend incans legitimate uses and specific superior features when false claims are made. The reverse scenario is rarely the case with LED Jockeys. Go back over the evolution of this thread, and the many that are started in the Incan section of the forum.



This is true. I've got a ton of LED lights. They're like the dowdy wife. Now high power incan on the other hand... more like the sultry mistress who's fun to play with yet slightly dangerous and occasionally threatens to burn down the house.


----------



## js (Jan 17, 2009)

WadeF said:


> What kinds of incans are you guys using in the woods? One time I was releasing a turtle or snake or something back into the woods and I carried it down to a creek. It was night time and dark. I used my LED, I think a Fenix P2D, to light my way. Worked fine. Once I got rid of the critter I decided to try my incan, a WF-500, putting out around 500 lumens. When I fired that thing up I couldn't see more than 5 feet infront of me because all the branches, leaves, etc (it was fairly dense on a thin twisty trail) were so bright it killed my night adapted eyes, not allowing me to see farther into the woods and farther down the path. I shut it off, let my eyes adjust and used the LED on a low to medium setting and quickly made my way down the trail and being able to see deeper into the woods in the process.
> 
> In a situation like this I don't see how a high powered incan is a good thing. I'd rather have a head lamp set on low or medium.
> 
> Now if I was out in an open field, or whatever, a powerful incan is fine.



WadeF,

As I mentioned, I use the SF M6 with the M3T MN15 lamp installed. It's about 200 lumens and runs for 2.5 hours in the SF M6 with 6 bats in the MN20. It's a tight beam and throws almost as far as the MN20 and MN21 despite the lower total lumens. I generally am very careful not to shine the thing right at my feet and then look right at the hotspot. In fact, I usually walk in the dark most of the time, and just flash the M6 when I need it, or I will use the spill to look at things close up if I need to. I also find that holding the light up high and to the right (or left if you're left handed) can really improve certain lighting tasks at close-medium distances.

So, I totally agree that sometimes LESS IS MORE!


----------



## js (Jan 17, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Eva Green, js.
> It is Eva who rules this thread when she appears.
> We love her :kiss:
> 
> ...



OHMAGOOD! WOW! She is a freaking Goddess!

Wow.

And I have no idea what I said, or even what this thread is even about. Blown right out of my mind. Doesn't matter. Zowie.


----------



## js (Jan 17, 2009)

Good post, Lux.


----------



## js (Jan 17, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> I don't know. I'm trying to see both points of view here, and not putting down incan unfairly with silly statements like it just stinks. I try to back up anything negative I say with solid evidence. But in the end it seems these threads always go down the same path no matter who's participating. I guess it's the nature of the beast. It's sort of like arguing over who's the perfect female. None of the answers will be satisfy everyone but all will vehemently defend their choice.



It is almost _exactly_ like that--arguing over who is the "perfect" female.

SO WHY DO IT?

(The example I was thinking of yesterday was the argument over who would kick whose ***, Spider Man or Bat Man. Or whose grandfather could kick whose grandfather's ***.

An examination of the nature and characteristics of incandescents and LED's is fine. I mean, it's fine to point out the efficiencies and lifetimes and talk about CCT and black body radiation and runtimes and all that. But, this all gets then folded into an overall assessment to find a "winner", with a concomitant need to put down the "loser".

Do we really have to marry just one technology, as if we would be "cheating" if we did otherwise? I mean, hello?, it's not your WIFE we're talking about here, right?

Just one guy talkin' here. YMMV.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 17, 2009)

What kind of lights did you own? They don't seem of good quality. I still have the original bulbs for both my Vistalite Nighstick headlights. I have used them extensively for mountainbiking including in winter for about a decade including many 12 hour races. I have had high speed crashes while wearing them. Never a problem. I also run them about one battery discharge between rides. 


jtr1962 said:


> The biggest problem was the expense and availability of lamps. ...$5 to buy a new lamp, and sometimes I'd ride 15 minutes, hit a pothole, and the lamp would die...


Nevertheless, I am currently trying a budget LED conversion of one of my Vistalites. I won't ignore the chance to get more runtime and possibly more output as long as I keep definition and depth percetion critical for my use.


----------



## SureAddicted (Jan 17, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> $5 to buy a new lamp, and sometimes I'd ride 15 minutes, hit a pothole, and the lamp would die. Besides that, the batteries of the time just weren't up to the task.



Well, as a person who used to compete in downhill racing for my local club, about 7 years ago now (anyone who knows what downhilling is about will know where I'm coming from) I've haven't had any failures using incans. Riding down the side of a mountain with no clear path, riding over logs and over big rocks as well as going off big drops (10-30ft) I didn't suffer any blown bulbs. If I took a big fall, the bulb would die, but that usually meant the lighting system was destroyed. A lot of members used to ride with less expensive lighting and they hardly had any bulb failures. 




jtr1962 said:


> So I'd say for 95+% of _practical uses_ LED beats the pants off incandescent. For the other 5%, not yet but that number keeps growing smaller every year.



Making a statement like that, you haven't taken everything into consideration. You forgot about soldiers who work in vast areas and conditions, climates and environments. Firefighters who work at night, athletes who train and compete at night with insufficient lighting, and the list goes on. I've would like to see you do my job with only an LED. LED's do have its advantages, but 95% is obsurd. That figure would stand correct if you were at home, but when you get out into the real world, things change.




jtr1962 said:


> I'm trying to see both points of view here, and not putting down incan unfairly with silly statements like it just stinks.


----------



## kongfuchicken (Jan 17, 2009)

WadeF said:


> What kinds of incans are you guys using in the woods? One time I was releasing a turtle or snake or something back into the woods and I carried it down to a creek. It was night time and dark. I used my LED, I think a Fenix P2D, to light my way. Worked fine. Once I got rid of the critter I decided to try my incan, a WF-500, putting out around 500 lumens. When I fired that thing up I couldn't see more than 5 feet infront of me because all the branches, leaves, etc (it was fairly dense on a thin twisty trail) were so bright it killed my night adapted eyes, not allowing me to see farther into the woods and farther down the path. I shut it off, let my eyes adjust and used the LED on a low to medium setting and quickly made my way down the trail and being able to see deeper into the woods in the process.
> 
> In a situation like this I don't see how a high powered incan is a good thing. I'd rather have a head lamp set on low or medium.
> 
> Now if I was out in an open field, or whatever, a powerful incan is fine.




I feel that some of the original arguments from page1 and 2 are getting lost in this discussion.

Most of the cpf'ers here think of large, powerful and short running setups when thinking of incans and the converse in more than one way when thinking of leds, the fair comparison between leds and incans would entail finding lights with the *same output and beam profile*, which so far hasn't really happened. To paraphrase what many in this threat have said, it's like comparing apples and taxes.

Now, one of the original issue that was discussed was the washed out looking beam effect from cool tint leds used in an outdoors environment; this discussion quickly attempted to pinpoint the cause and effects by going into color rendition, environmental parameters and even eyeball anatomy... In the end, the discussion had little relevance left to the topic at hand.

Going back a few steps, the problem was that some people (not everyone, that is perfectly clear) have a problem with cool leds outdoors; that includes me.
I have used a 100lumens cool led and a 100lumens incan, both with roughly the same beam profile and *I can see just perfectly the same with both outdoors BUT, my eyes get tired very quickly with the led*. This effect is quite hard to describe but prolonged use of cool leds outdoors where most of the background is brown/green/yellow has the effect of seemingly making my eyes work much harder to discern the same amount of details to the point, I actually have to close my eyes and rub off tears from discomfort. This doesn't happen at all with incans.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that sheer power from the incan superlights is a double edged sword with drawbacks that can potentially outweigh their strengths and the fact that leds have, in more than one area, overtaken incan lamps. However I personally can't stand what the cool leds are doing to my eyeballs and til they can fix that with the new warm/high cri offerings, I'm still going to use incans which, like it or not, stands as the anti-thesis to the incan obsolescence and led supremacy tone that is struggling here.

The lights I refer to are a ssc p4 led tower in a SF Kt2 and a sf mn15 in a KT2. Their beam profile is give or take the same and their output is give or take in the same tier. Both were used in the same environment, at the same time and in the same location with the same set of eyeballs.


----------



## waddup (Jan 17, 2009)

whats a flashlight for?


to give light where there is none.

if im in the dark,

i value a light that gives the most light (lumens and runtime preferably low/med/high) in a size i can carry easily, for the least amount of money, and reliable.

tint i dont care about.

for me leds win.

sure my mag64 was fun, but ill take my jetbeam/novatac/romisen in a heart beat in any real world application


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 17, 2009)

SureAddicted said:


> Well, as a person who used to compete in downhill racing for my local club, about 7 years ago now (anyone who knows what downhilling is about will know where I'm coming from) I've haven't had any failures using incans. Riding down the side of a mountain with no clear path, riding over logs and over big rocks as well as going off big drops (10-30ft) I didn't suffer any blown bulbs. If I took a big fall, the bulb would die, but that usually meant the lighting system was destroyed. A lot of members used to ride with less expensive lighting and they hardly had any bulb failures.


Let's go back perhaps 20+ years to the time period I'm referring to in my posts, and try to remember what was available for bicycle lighting at a price someone making $5 an hour like me could afford. I vaguely remember seeing some megabuck systems which I couldn't afford, and no way could I afford a steady diet of replacement lamps, either. I really couldn't use them anyway because the huge battery needed to be mounted where the water bottle cage was, and my bike didn't have mounts for a water bottle cage. Even if these expensive lights didn't fail prematurely over potholes, most were rated at perhaps 50 hours life. I could do that much riding in a good month. 12 lamps a year at perhaps $10 each was and is completely out of my budget, especially given that I didn't _need_ a headlight in the city. It was more to be seen than to see. All I had which was easily available and affordable didn't work, plus the lamps were only sporadically available.

You also have no idea how bad the roads in NYC are unless you've lived here. Taxis in the past have suffered crack frames. Sealed beam headlights failing over potholes wasn't that uncommon. A few years ago I attempted to design an LED replacement for a fluorescent advertising light. Guess why they wanted LED? The tubes were frequently shattering over potholes. I'd venture to guess also that anything you were riding offroad had shock absorbers. My road bikes don't. All I know is LED bike lighting has worked for me in conditions many incans wouldn't. With the lower power consumption of LED and the great emitters available, I will soon have the luxury of actually having a light which helps me see, instead of simply being seen. And I can do this at a cost far less than even a middle of the road incandescent bike light. Actually my cost less batteries for the project will probably run under $50, dependent upon whatever aluminum scraps I can find to make the housing. The 8 Eneloop AAs I plan to use for power I already have. Run time should be in excess of an hour at the highest setting (hopefully around 1000 lumens), much more at the lower settings I'll use most of the time. And it should all fit neatly on my handlebars, with no need for water bottle batteries or extra wiring.



> Making a statement like that, you haven't taken everything into consideration. You forgot about soldiers who work in vast areas and conditions, climates and environments. Firefighters who work at night, athletes who train and compete at night with insufficient lighting, and the list goes on. I've would like to see you do my job with only an LED. LED's do have its advantages, but 95% is obsurd. That figure would stand correct if you were at home, but when you get out into the real world, things change.


What percentage of the general population are all these occupations? No arguing incandescent is great for massive output and throw at a relatively inexpensive price. Multiemitter LEDs or HID can do this also, but at many times the price, and with added complexity. But when you come down to it, I think I was being generous with my 5% number. How many hand-held portable lighting applications actually _need_ more than perhaps 150 lumens (about what a pocketable LED light can deliver nowadays), and what percentage of users have these requirements? I wouldn't be surprised if it was 1% instead of 5%, but I figured let's give incan the benefit of the doubt. Let's face it, most of the people here, me included, are on the far outlier when it comes to lighting. My 1,000,000 cp spotlight is lots of fun to play with, but I've yet to find a situation where I would actually _need_ that much light (annoying raccoons from my bedroom window doesn't count as it's something I don't have to do).

And I'll also add that you have no idea how many incandescent lights I've seen sitting in people's drawers for want of a replacement lamp. Either they couldn't get them, or didn't feel the price was justified. Funny how the subject of replacement lamp price/availability never comes up in these discussions. A light which doesn't light isn't terribly practical. Hence my use of the qualifier "practical". For most of the general public an LED light which works so long as you keep feeding it batteries is eminently more practical than something like a Mag85, even if the Mag has a much bigger wow factor. The earlier comparison of the dowdy wife to the sultry mistress was very apt I thought.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 17, 2009)

kongfuchicken said:


> Most of the cpf'ers here think of large, powerful and short running setups when thinking of incans and the converse in more than one way when thinking of leds, the fair comparison between leds and incans would entail finding lights with the *same output and beam profile*, which so far hasn't really happened. To paraphrase what many in this thread have said, it's like comparing apples and taxes.


Yes, that's exactly the kind of fair comparison I'd like to see also. For example, I've heard things such as incandescents do better in fog or mist, but maybe this has more to do with the greater sidespill of LEDs relative to the hotspot than it does with the spectrum. You get a lot of sidespill reflecting off the mist, and blinding you. At the same time, the less intense for any given emitter lumens hotstop just can't penetrate as far. A fairer comparison might use an aspheric LED with all throw and little spill.

Another thing I'd like to see is comparing lights under conditions not favorable to either a cool or warm tint. Sure a red-biased light like incan will do better lumen for lumen in many rural outdoor conditions. And an LED might do better in the city with mostly neutral colors, and perhaps a fair amount of cooler colors as well. Neither are really fair conditions under which to make absolute statements about the spectral superiority of either type of light. Have a scene with a good mix of warm and cool colors, and then see which really does better, using your eyes, not a camera. The autowhitebalance range of most cameras these days is much greater than what humans can adapt to. Even a scene under candlelight can be made to look like it has the same color balance as the noonday sun, yet the eye won't see it like that.



> I have used a 100lumens cool led and a 100lumens incan, both with roughly the same beam profile and *I can see just perfectly the same with both outdoors BUT, my eyes get tired very quickly with the led*. This effect is quite hard to describe but prolonged use of cool leds outdoors where most of the background is brown/green/yellow has the effect of seemingly making my eyes work much harder to discern the same amount of details to the point, I actually have to close my eyes and rub off tears from discomfort.


Oddly enough, I'd say the reverse would be true for me. If I don't end up getting headaches under incans, they'll certainly at least make my eyes tired. This just goes to show the huge range of lighting sweet spots for humans.


----------



## IMSabbel (Jan 17, 2009)

SureAddicted said:


> Making a statement like that, you haven't taken everything into consideration. You forgot about soldiers who work in vast areas and conditions, climates and environments. Firefighters who work at night, athletes who train and compete at night with insufficient lighting, and the list goes on. I've would like to see you do my job with only an LED. LED's do have its advantages, but 95% is obsurd. That figure would stand correct if you were at home, but when you get out into the real world, things change.


Nothing on your list shows any area where incans have advantages.
Nothing wrong with being a fan of nostalgia, but vinyl doesnt sound better, either...

Seriously, Leds are on the low and middle end, and HID just destroys incans at the high end. Glowing pieces of metal will soon be just a memory.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 17, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> But when you come down to it, I think I was being generous with my 5% number. How many hand-held portable lighting applications actually _need_ more than perhaps 150 lumens (about what a pocketable LED light can deliver nowadays), and what percentage of users have these requirements? I wouldn't be surprised if it was 1% instead of 5%, but I figured let's give incan the benefit of the doubt.



 OK, at this point it should be obvious what is the source of the LED vs. Incan irrational conflict. Please at least decide on the magnitude of your patronizing superiority. Do you believe LED's are 95% or 99% superior to incans overall? We don't want the benefit of your doubt.

We all get it that in your world of riding a bike in NYC, you are not able to avoid potholes, and can only envision using an LED. That application and your model train LED hobby are very narrow, selective subsets that do not map over into generalized flashlight use. 



jtr1962 said:


> Let's face it, most of the people here, me included, are on the far outlier when it comes to lighting. My 1,000,000 cp spotlight is lots of fun to play with, but I've yet to find a situation where I would actually _need_ that much light (annoying raccoons from my bedroom window doesn't count as it's something I don't have to do).



Could you please try to keep the discussion between LED's and (handheld) Incans? Introducing the extreme 1 million candlepower spotlights dillutes any remaining validity of whatever point you were trying to make.



jtr1962 said:


> And I'll also add that you have no idea how many incandescent lights I've seen sitting in people's drawers for want of a replacement lamp. Either they couldn't get them, or didn't feel the price was justified. Funny how the subject of replacement lamp price/availability never comes up in these discussions. A light which doesn't light isn't terribly practical. Hence my use of the qualifier "practical". For most of the general public an LED light which works so long as you keep feeding it batteries is eminently more practical than something like a Mag85, even if the Mag has a much bigger wow factor. The earlier comparison of the dowdy wife to the sultry mistress was very apt I thought.



For the record, throughout my entire life, I have never seen a flashlight put away in a drawer because there was no replacement bulb available. Almost all the typical Everready/RayoVac/Maglite flashlights that have been around for decades used very similar, generic bulbs. They have always been sold at grocery, hardware, discount, and drugstores. Bulbs have always been cheap and long lasting when compared to the recurring cost of non-rechargeable batteries. If someone on this forum buys a custom high performance incan mod, and did not have the foresight to purchase extra bulbs, then they may have to wait until their order at one of many bulb suppliers is fulfilled. The cost of bulbs is as much a part of a light package as are batteries, charger, etc. Do you really want to bring up the costs of various custom lights?

At this point it is obvious that further discussion is a waste of time. No doubt it will not be long before another of the same type of threads will be posted all over again either here, or in the incan section of the forum anyway.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 17, 2009)

Incan is better than LED in fog because the shorter frequencies (blue) that dominate the LED spectrum are scattered more than the longer wavelengths where the incan spectrum dominates.

I think collimation techniques, especially TIRs, have advances in a way that it is no longer true that incan focusses better than LED. With LED you can have functionally zero sidespill and way tighter spills and coronas than with incan (at least the incans I know). Nevertheless, incan is better in fog. 
I saw it with my own eyes. Indeed 


Also, the high CRI or warm white LEDs just aren't there yet. The ones that focus have horrible color differentials across the beam (think M60W), and the ones that have great color don't focus. I am sure we'll have great high CRI LEDs soon, but right now, we haven't for the typical flashlight application.




> Sure a red-biased light like incan will do better lumen for lumen in many rural outdoor conditions.



Yes. Which might be a reason to use the incan despite the obvious disadvantages in efficiency and possible failure. There, you said it yourself 


About that aspect of failure ... an incan system (not the hotwire madness, I mean a typical low-profile incan like the M6 LOLA ) is a simple system. When using it, you are prepared that the bulb fails, and you have a spare with you. With a LED, you usually do not have a spare with you as "field repairs" aren't part of the program. And apart from the lamp, there's not much that can fail with the incan, which is not true for the LED, as numerous threads about interesting light failures show, especially when LED lights are not the top quality.

So ... IMHO incan has strengths, has uses and has advantages over LED. There is no point arguing this I think. Of course that won't help incan on th elong run because the advantages of LED will outweigh anything incan has to offer for the mainstream market, and incan will be relegated to niche duty. And our choices will be less, and that I dislike.

bernie



P.S.: vinyl does sound better. It doesn't fracture your soundwaves and re-assambles them upon hearing the music. Digital can't even compete on a theoretical level. But that didn't stop me from adopting the inferior digital technology. Same with LEDs.


----------



## Guy's Dropper (Jan 17, 2009)

Why do ppl keep bringing up reliability? Maybe I'm just lucky, but I have only had a incandescent bulb fail on me once, and it was in a $5 light. I know ppl who have used the same incandescent Streamlight Stinger every day of work for years without a bulb failure. They do fail sometimes, but not often enough to be noticeable. If reliability is such an issue, just find a space for a backup bulb.

Of course, that does not make leds strictly superior to incans. They both have their disadvantages and advantages. I'd say they are about equal at the moment, so yes, leds have caught up with incans. Leds for their great efficiency and incans for their perfect color rendition and simplicity.


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 17, 2009)

I own quite a few led lights and just a couple weeks ago got my first incan modules to my 6P. I like em both, incans and leds that is, but I prefer leds. Yes, color rendition is not as good but IMHO in every other aspect leds are better than incans. I see the LEDs are going to replace incans sometime in the future, it's just a matter of time. 

I've been once in a situation where i could have hurt myself pretty badly because of bulb failure. No it wasn't a flashlight that stopped working but a snowmobile which headlight's bulb burned at the wrong moment. I was driving through the woods quite fast (60~70mph), when suddenly there was no light at all (it was a cloudy and dark night). I magically managed to avoid all the trees but i got few bruises from the branches hitting me into my arms. That was a very close call and i'm very lucky even to be alive. Couple seconds after that situation my friend parked his snowmobile next to me and asked what just happened. I avoided couple of trees just barely.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 17, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> We all get it that in your world of riding a bike in NYC, you are not able to avoid potholes, and can only envision using an LED. That application and your model train LED hobby are very narrow, selective subsets that do not map over into generalized flashlight use.


And needing to light up a field on the middle of nowhere isn't an equally narrow, selective subset? Forget the cycling and trains for a moment. What do most people use flashlights for? To find their way around a dark room is usually number one by a huge margin. What's most practical for the largest number of people in this sitution? Well, it has to light up obviously. There's a greater chance of that if it doesn't drain batteries as fast, and also if the light emitter has a lower probability of failure. Next, it would be nice if it were fairly robust, at least durable enough so if you drop it the lamp doesn't fail. Finally, it needs to have enough output to perform the main task at hand-namely getting around the room. In terms of all these practical traits, LEDs do better except for the last one. Either LED or incan will light a room just fine, it's just that the LED has a better chance of actually working for the most people in the most number of situations. It _is_ the more practical choice for some large majority of casual users, whatever the percentage really is. I don't know why statements like that bother you so much.



> For the record, throughout my entire life, I have never seen a flashlight put away in a drawer because there was no replacement bulb available. Almost all the typical Everready/RayoVac/Maglite flashlights that have been around for decades used very similar, generic bulbs. They have always been sold at grocery, hardware, discount, and drugstores. Bulbs have always been cheap and long lasting when compared to the recurring cost of non-rechargeable batteries. If someone on this forum buys a custom high performance incan mod, and did not have the foresight to purchase extra bulbs, then they may have to wait until their order at one of many bulb suppliers is fulfilled. The cost of bulbs is as much a part of a light package as are batteries, charger, etc. Do you really want to bring up the costs of various custom lights?


Bulbs are readily available? News to me. Flashlight bulbs have never been readily available anywhere here except maybe Radio Shack. Even then, do you think the average person would distinguish between a 2.4V bulb or a 6V one? They'll just pull whatever looks the same off the shelf. Often they'll just trash the light completely, and buy a new one, because the cost of a lamp can be close to the cost of the cheap $3 lights the average person buys. At least when they get a cheap $2 LED light instead it'll have a somewhat greater probability of working when they need it. And maybe they'll actually use it long enough to go through a couple of sets of batteries.

People on this site may order spare bulbs and batteries as you say. Remember however that we're on the outlier. Most people here have way more lights than they'll ever need from a practical standpoint. It's a hobby. We love it. We're going to pay way more attention to things like spare lamps or batteries than the average person.



> At this point it is obvious that further discussion is a waste of time.


Sorry you feel that way.


----------



## js (Jan 17, 2009)

jtr,

Yes, bulbs _are_ readily available. Not just at Radio Shack, but at any hardware store, at K-Mart, at Wallmart, at Target, at Sears . . . and on and on. And most people can read the labels and pick the bulb for their 2D mag or 3D mag, or 2D everready or whatever. And if not, a salesperson can help in the majority of cases.

Seriously . . . are you joking? Most people just buy a new flashlight? That doesn't sound right to me.

Here's what happens most of the time: people buy a light and put batteries in it and it sits around for a long time and the batteries go dead and when they go to use it, it doesn't light up, or lights up only feebly. So, the next time they are at the store, the people pick up some batteries and replace the batteries. Rarely is the filament broken. Even dropping the light, you rarely break the filament.

And the battery depletion thing is an issue with either LED or incan. Heck, I bought my dad a StreamLight 2AA LED light--an aluminum one with a Kroll switch. Can't remember the model. But I figured it was a good replacement for his mini-mag. Brighter, whiter, longer running, no filament to break, etc.

You know what happened? He left the damn thing sitting around so long that the batteries leaked and got stuck in the light, and somehow in the process of extracting them, he broke something and the light now no longer works.

So, thinking back on it, I probably should have spent the money on Lithium AA batteries and had him install THEM in his mini-mag.

Honestly, I think its effing stupid to talk about how "normal" people use flashlights. They pretty much just don't. It's an after thought for most people. And that stupid around the house light or the car light--with alkaline batteries--well, that thing is useless in many cases, just 'cause of the batteries, and nothing to do with whether the light engine is LED or incan.

I gave my sister-in-law an effing SUREFIRE E2e. A Sure Fire E 2 E. So she could keep it in her purse and have it while out looking at antiques in dark shops or garages or auction houses. And also while walking from the auction barn or whatever, in the dark, to her car, parked in some field or something. What a great thing to have, right? A small, bright flashlight. I gave her extra batteries and told her there were more where that came from.

Great, right?

No. She never used it, apparently, and in fact, misplaced it for months and months. It was wasted on her. So I suggested that I could swap it out for a keychain light. (which she also probably never uses, but at least it doesn't get lost)

Flashlights are just wasted on non-flashaholics. Just wasted. Well, _sometimes_ anyway. Sometimes not, obviously.

Anyway, my point is just that the maintenance thing and/or breaking the lamp is almost NEVER the issue for most people. Hardly. It's just plain that they don't really care about flashlights and don't give them a second thought until they need them. And given this, Lithium primary batteries are going to be way, _way_ *WAY* more important than whether or not the light is an LED or an incan.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 17, 2009)

> And given this, Lithium primary batteries are going to be way, _way_ *WAY* more important than whether or not the light is an LED or an incan.



:thumbsup: 
:wave:
Dead on. The mission. What it requires. What is important. It is different with "normal" people. 

BUT ... guys ... please don't argue the lithium vs alkies vs rechargeables in this thread  

bernie


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> Seriously . . . are you joking? Most people just buy a new flashlight? That doesn't sound right to me.


Yep, same way they throw away a string of incandescent Christmas lights because part of the string is out. The reason might not be because they can't get lamps, or maybe can't pick the correct one. It's because a lot of the cheap lights using these lamps aren't worth fixing when you can buy a brand new one for not much over the cost of a lamp. Maglights are likely an exception to this as the average person considers them "high-end".

And I think another reason for buying new lights might be exactly what you mentioned about leaking batteries. Light doesn't work, the person doesn't even think the batteries are dead or leaking because they were new two years ago, and the light was hardly used. Instead they figure the lamp burnt out. Next time they're in the store where they bought the light they might look for a replacement lamp. Of course since the light is two years old they don't remember what kind of lamp it uses, if indeed they ever knew in the first place. The instructions are probably long gone. End result-they have no idea what lamp to get. If they're lucky a saleperson might find the right lamp for them. They look at the price: "No thanks, I can get a new light for only a buck more", and that's what they do. Repeat two years from now. On the other hand, if they had an LED light which is touted as "never needing bulbs", maybe eventually, perhaps with the help of a salesperson, they'll get to the point of figuring maybe the problem is batteries because the lamp "can't burn out" (of course we both know that isn't 100% true, but to an average user it may as well be written in stone). A really good salesperson, sensing that this is a person who wants to have nothing to do with the light beyond turning it on once in a blue moon, might actually point them towards some lithium primaries. And hope the batteries in the light are just dead rather than leaking.



> Honestly, I think its effing stupid to talk about how "normal" people use flashlights. They pretty much just don't. It's an after thought for most people.


Well, yes. I guess my reasoning here was directed more towards those who aren't flashaholics, but who use their lights on more than a casual basis, than people who only use them during blackouts. Me and my bike light 20 years ago was such a case. I didn't know anything about lumens or batteries or color temperature or replacement bulbs then. I didn't want to. I just wanted a light which would work when I wanted it to. I might not have minded replacing lamps perhaps once a year, figuring that's part of the cost of having a light. But that wasn't the case. And I think it's that way for lots of others who just want their lights to work without worrying about stocking up on replacement lamps. When maintenance starts to get unreasonable by a person's standards, they'll be more likely to make the switch to alternatives.



> Flashlights are just wasted on non-flashaholics. Just wasted. Well, _sometimes_ anyway. Sometimes not, obviously.


No arguments here. I think my brother ran over two halfway decent lights my mom gave him over the years. I gave him a $10 light from DX last year. I haven't bothered to ask if he still has it. At least if he doesn't, it was only ten bucks wasted.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

Coming back to the lamp replacement issue, I think just figured out why it might not be problem for hard core flashaholics, or non-users (i.e. those who have lights but rarely use them), but could be a major problem for those in between. In the case of flashaholics, obviously having replacement lamps and maintenance are a non-issue. It a hobby. They love it. They may even get joy out of replacing lamps. For the non-users, the light just doesn't run enough hours for the lamp to fail.

Now take someone in between who uses lights on a somewhat regular basis but really has no interest in it as a hobby. They may or may not know what replacement lamps to buy. They certainly view replacing lamps as a nuisance. Their goal is to use their light but keep costs and maintenance as low as possible. This was me 20 years ago. Usually after a short time they'll see that batteries quickly add up. Remember the case of my bike light? If I used alkalines, then I might have needed to buy 2 or 3 sets of 4 per week. As a result, I had to use rechargeables. It was the only thing I could afford. I imagine many others in my position might do the same. I think some of the more astute can see where this is heading. Many here know that rechargeables hold their voltage under load better than alkalines. Problem is if the light is designed for alkalines, using rechargeables will almost certainly compromise lamp life. Hence, this is probably one reason I experienced so many problems. But remember that at the time I didn't know better. I simply wanted to minimize my costs. I imagine many other similar users went down the same path. Remember that back then, most lights wren't designed with rechargeables in mind. The really high-end systems had custom packs, but those were out of my budget.

Anyway, I think this accounts for the discrepancy between myself and others regarding lamp life. Now the point is moot of course. I probably could get an incandescent system to work satisfactorily on a bike if I put enough time into it, but I didn't have this knowledge 20 years ago. Now however I see no point to doing this. This isn't 20 years ago when incan was the only game in town. An LED system offers me lower total-cost-of-ownership, longer battery life, and a spectrum more suited to urban cycling. I can easy imagine a large percentage of middle-of-the road users coming down the same path.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 18, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> Yep, same way they throw away a string of incandescent Christmas lights because part of the string is out. The reason might not be because they can't get lamps, or maybe can't pick the correct one. It's because a lot of the cheap lights using these lamps aren't worth fixing when you can buy a brand new one for not much over the cost of a lamp. Maglights are likely an exception to this as the average person considers them "high-end".
> 
> And I think another reason for buying new lights might be exactly what you mentioned about leaking batteries. Light doesn't work, the person doesn't even think the batteries are dead or leaking because they were new two years ago, and the light was hardly used. Instead they figure the lamp burnt out. Next time they're in the store where they bought the light they might look for a replacement lamp. Of course since the light is two years old they don't remember what kind of lamp it uses, if indeed they ever knew in the first place. The instructions are probably long gone. End result-they have no idea what lamp to get. If they're lucky a saleperson might find the right lamp for them. They look at the price: "No thanks, I can get a new light for only a buck more", and that's what they do. Repeat two years from now.


You are bang on with this jtr. Before having become "enlightened" I would just by a new light. Because the difference in price for a new bulb, which if it had not gone out was about to based on prior experience, and the price for new batteries was so close to just buying one of those blister pack cheapies that comes with batteries. Well before coming here I came to the conclusion that I was sick and tired of unreliable incan lights and bought a "great"(thought so at the time) little rechargeable LED light that could be plugged into the outlet so it would always be fresh in case of an outage. I was mostly buying it for the reliability though. I had those $1-$2 plastic lights and my "nice" incan was a minimag. I used to work on my cars all the time and would have to use my lights to see even during the day time. Every time I turned the lights on I had to repeat to myself "don't bump the light, don't bump the light, don't bump the light..." because the moment I bumped it on the undercarriage or dropped it from 6 inches the bulb would blow. 
For almost any task that the lay or even professional user would need a light for an LED would be by far the best choice. Obviously more professionals would need the benefits that an incan can provide than a lay person but even in that area LEDs are starting to take over. Who needs incans? Military, LEOs, fire and rescue, doctors, hunters and a few others. The common man however needs LEDs. Both sides are valid. But the incan argument is getting harder and harder to make as technolgy advances for LEDs and not for incans(nothing to speak of anyway). 

So have LEDs caught up with incans? Yes and no. Thats it folks. I have been watching both sides go back and forth and frankly I am worn out. I think jtr is the most unbiased here but I find he has slightly out of the norm tastes in light which he has readily admitted in the past. That said his points are sound and he seems to be more in touch with the "common" man.


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

jtr,

I'm curious what you would say here: what qualifications do you think you have that allow you to speak for the "average person" or the "common man"? (or would you claim this at all?)

From what we've talked about in various threads over the years, I get the impression that you're pretty much a city person and have been for pretty much your entire life. As such, wouldn't that sort of skew your data set?

It's dangerous to speak in sweeping generalities, but obviously it's something we all need (or want) to do from time to time. Still . . . there is probably a lot more of that going on in your posts than maybe there should be. It's easy to go from a few anecdotes to generalities.

I just did it in my last post! (For example)

But, however that may be, the argument that people just buy new lights because it isn't much more expensive than buying new lamps is _quite different_ than the argument that people buy new lights because there _aren't any replacement lamps readily available_.

And I'm sorry, but this idea that we have a totally throw-away culture has been just taken to extremes. It's a truism--a cliche--and thus, really, not true in the extreme truism form it takes on after enough time. I remember many, many occasions where my parents or my relatives were going through a strand of Christmas lights to find the one that was out. Heck, my wife just did this a month or so ago! And no, it wasn't at my prompting. And her family refuses to throw ANYTHING out, even when it is really time to do just that and replace it. They are very thrifty and embody the reduce, reuse, recycle slogan.

Perhaps it's a country mouse vs. city mouse thing, or perhaps it's because my wife and I both come from a family with a lot of farmers in it. But, I don't think it's that simple. No. I think that there is as much a core of Boy Scouts and New England tenacity and farmer's common sense and thriftiness in our "culture", our "society", as there is a core of throw-away stupidity.

I love discussing things with you jtr, but I would definitely _not_ call you "unbiased" or "in touch with the common man". I think you are highly intelligent and very rational and analytical, but that just isn't the same thing as unbiased, and it is almost a disqualification for being in touch with the "common man" (if there even is such a thing).


----------



## saabluster (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> I love discussing things with you jtr, but I would definitely _not_ call you "unbiased" or "in touch with the common man". I think you are highly intelligent and very rational and analytical, but that just isn't the same thing as unbiased, and it is almost a disqualification for being in touch with the "common man" (if there even is such a thing).


And I would not say he was unbiased either. That is rather impossible. Note my words "most unbiased" and "more in touch". These are not absolutes.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> I'm curious what you would say here: what qualifications do you think you have that allow you to speak for the "average person" or the "common man"? (or would you claim this at all?)


Interesting question here. The best answer is nothing beyond having lived 46 years and absorbed an enormous amount of information from many people in all walks of life, and having a pretty good ability to pick out patterns from mounds of data. Yes, I'm a city person, always have been, always will be. Moreover, I'm a large city person. Only a few places in the world I'd probably feel comfortable-NYC, Beijing, Tokyo, Shanghai, to name a few offhand. The thing about living in a large city, if you've ever done it for any length of time, is that in the course of life you'll cross paths with a staggering number of people. As a result, I'll be privy to an enormous number of conversations and opinions. A ride on the subway can often be more entertaining and informative than most news or reality shows. Here I get the pulse of people, unfiltered and uncensored. Moreover, the sheer numbers of people I encounter can be staggering just by virtue of where I live. You have access to a huge data set, one from which you can draw statisically valid conclusions. Now you might say, fine, I could believe this puts you in touch with _city people_, but what about everyone else? Well, that's the beauty of a place like NYC, or any other large, first world city. The population isn't stagnant. The 8.5 million people here are not the same 8.5 million who were here last year. I've likely encountered as many country people who recently moved here as I've encountered born and bred city people like myself. Had I lived in a small town, not ridden public transit, not walked on sidewalks or stores teeming with hordes of people, I would have been exposed to only a very small subset of opinions. As a result, I would probably be less likely to attempt to generalize. But when you've heard the same thing 200 times in 200 places, well, right or wrong maybe that's a real trend which you feel qualified to say you're aware of. Like I said, without a common frame of reference you just wouldn't understand where I'm coming from, and indeed it might seem like I'm making more leaps than I should.

The thing is we all generalize. For example, you mentioned that availability of lamps isn't a problem. This is coming from your experience and data set. Lamps may well be readily available at any hardware store, at K-Mart, at Walmart, at Target, at Sears, at grocery stores, etc. _where you and LuxLuthor live_. We don't even have K-Marts or Walmarts here. K-Mart closed most of their stores, and Walmart basically was not welcomed here to start with. Target and Sears aren't exactly common, either. Mom-and-pop hardware stores mostly disappeared. Grocery stores have never carried any great amount of flashlight lamps. Even getting spare Christmas light lamps has always been a problem. Maybe K-Mart had 5 or 6 packs on the shelves around the holidays. For whatever reason, these were items which never sold well enough for most stores to justify having. So in the end our own personal experience has translated into generalizing. But rather than argue with you about lack of availability of replacement lamps causing people to buy new lights, I figured another reason could also be that a new light isn't much more than a new lamp. I'd say both are true, but the latter avoids the need to take the thread on yet another tangent.

The whole throw away culture thing is certainly a cliche. I know I'm not like that. I've found and fixed computers thrown by the curb just because I hated to see them go to waste. Until going LED, I'd spend more time than I should have fixing strings of Christmas lights. It's not a city/country thing at all. I know just as many frugal people here as I do people who would probably throw their kids away if they could.



> I think you are highly intelligent and very rational and analytical, but that just isn't the same thing as unbiased, and it is almost a disqualification for being in touch with the "common man" (if there even is such a thing).


Odd how that apparent contradiction works, isn't it? The thing is in order to analyze something as dispassionately as possible, you have to be as an outsider looking in. I can't claim with any honestly that this is true for me 100% of the time. I'll often just walk around and immerse myself in what I see without bothering to make sense of it all, become the same common person I usually seek to analyze. After all, life is about more than trends and data and patterns. But I'm apart from it enough to be able to sense patterns, general trends, whatever. I think my brother is even better at it than me. When cell phones first came out, he said this was going to be really big. I totally dismissed the idea as preposterous, figuring who actually needs to have a portable phone besides doctors, politicians, a few other important people? And I also let my own biases against phones color my thinking. But I got a lot of other things right. First time I saw a white LED back in the late 1990s, I said these things are going to be really big someday. And 5 years ago I foresaw the massive demand increase for public transit. I just picked up on overhearing lots of people saying the same thing-that they were basically getting weary of driving/traffic.

No, I'm not totally unbiased. As saabluster said this is impossible. I try to do my best to be aware of my biases (such as the one against warm light) and not let them color my thinking. I get it wrong sometimes. That's part of being human. I don't have pointy ears or green blood or no emotions.

I'll also add that there's nothing I consider "special" about me. In fact, I think you also pick up on things extraordinarily well. You just have a different data set than me. And these same things are there for all to see who are willing to open their eyes.


----------



## waddup (Jan 18, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> And these same things are there for all to see who are willing to open their eyes.



Unless its dark, 

and you got no flashlight


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> It is almost _exactly_ like that--arguing over who is the "perfect" female.
> 
> SO WHY DO IT?
> 
> ...


Best post ever! :twothumbs


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 18, 2009)

waddup said:


> Unless its dark,
> 
> and you got no flashlight


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

Good post, jtr! And thanks for answering. And good point about the wide variety of people who come to the city. I hadn't thought of it like that.

As regards the lamp availability thing, I think that illustrates (partly) what I was getting at: the big city is unusual. The great majority of places have the kinds of stores I was talking about (even if they go by different names). The big city is a special sort of environ, different than a smaller city or big town. Or so it seems to me based on my limited experience. Perhaps I am wrong?

Moving on, to the whole "in touch with the common man" thing, I don't think I came at that from the right direction, but I was thinking along the lines of how people's minds work. Someone who has a bent for engineering and science and whose mind is very analytical is a lot different than average. And you lean even more in that direction than most engineers or scientists I know. You're _very_ analytical, I think. (And I think you would agree, yes?)

So . . . it's like Spock trying to generalize about the McCoy's of the world.

But then . . . as you point out . . . if Spock wants to he can be very analytical and try to extract data and trends from the McCoy's behaviors and habits.

Still . . . I have a great distrust of that sort of thing. I think even just taking the "overview" and being analytical about it in the first place moves you away from the reality that many people live in. And I'm not saying that those people can't reason or think or what not. NOT AT ALL!!! In fact, I pretty much include myself in this group, this reality, that I'm talking about. You, and many here, always want to return to the scientific, evaluative statement --like statistics, for example. Like the stuff Lux quoted that he got annoyed over. That sort of stuff. And you have passed up the opportunity to take other paths (some I have suggested) in the discussion thus far.

It's like . . . let's go back to women. Say you're dating a woman, and you fall in love with her, or think maybe you are, how do you "decide" if you "love" her or not? Or do you even use that part of your brain at all? Can you analyze you and her and your relationship in the same way as you are trying to analyze LED's and incans and extract some sort of percentage like "95 percent of the time, LED's are better for 95 percent of people"? Or is maybe _the heart_ involved in some way also?

In terms of lighting plusses and minuses candles should have been obviated years ago. Yet, we still have candles, don't we? Why is that? Because they are lovely, that's why. Because people love them (myself included). It's not about an analytical evaluation of efficiency and runtime (but they're pretty good there, aren't they) and the risk of setting fire to your curtains and maintenance routines and all that. No, it's about more than that.

If I'm having dinner with Eva Green, bring on the candles!

Similarly, the story of incans and LED's is more than a statistic, more than a general trend, more than parameters and numbers and "arguments" pro or con. And _the reality_ of being a Law Enforcement Officer or Search & Rescue or EMT or Fireman--that reality is more than can be comprehended in analytical terms.

If you want to say that, statistically, over time, more and more of our lighting will go to CFL and LED, I have no argument with you whatsoever.

But if you want to say that 95 percent of the time LED is "better" than incandescent, well . . . I just don't think that statement has much meaning or validity left in it for anyone but you.


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

kaichu dento said:


> Best post ever! :twothumbs



Thanks kaichu dento. I got kind of a kick out of it my own self! LOL!


----------



## kongfuchicken (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> It is almost _exactly_ like that--arguing over who is the "perfect" female.
> 
> SO WHY DO IT?
> 
> ...



Jim, while I have no problem sharing your point of view, let me make this point clear:

Spiderman could totally kick batman's arse unless it were the old batman who EDCs bug spray and my grand-daddy could totally kick anyone's grand-daddy's arse; what happens after he does is another story.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 18, 2009)

Now wait a minute! This is getting serious. Crawly Spiderman is a wheenie ... Batman is the true hero here.


----------



## 43X16 (Jan 18, 2009)

Oh wow now you have started big argument oo:  :nana:


kongfuchicken said:


> Jim, while I have no problem sharing your point of view, let me make this point clear:
> 
> Spiderman could totally kick batman's arse unless it were the old batman who EDCs bug spray and my grand-daddy could totally kick anyone's grand-daddy's arse; what happens after he does is another story.


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

kongfuchicken,

I'm with you on this one! Spider Man could totally kick Bat Man's arse. I mean, c'mon, it's a no contest. Although . . . I suppose if Bat Man got some totally cool new toys . . . :thinking:


----------



## brightarc (Jan 18, 2009)

They both have their uses.
For example: I don't EDC a hotwire, for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, leds has yet to beat a 64663.


----------



## 43X16 (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> kongfuchicken,
> 
> I'm with you on this one! Spider Man could totally kick Bat Man's arse. I mean, c'mon, it's a no contest. Although . . . I suppose if Bat Man got some totally cool new toys . . . :thinking:



No way :thinking: besides, Batman use incans and HIDs!  :duck:


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

Bat Man's just a guy who decided that because some people got killed he was going to become a bat. Spider Man, on the other hand, was transformed into something more by a bite from a pimped out spider. And now he's pimped out. Creepy crawly? Yes. Totally bad-arse? You betcha. Faster and stronger than Bat Man. He's super-human, whereas Bat Man is just a super, heroic human. He may be more heroic (or not), but Spider Man would totally kick his arse in a fight.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

Yep, my money is on Spider Man also (unless of course Batman has some super heavy duty bug spray). I mean the kind which can kill those arachnids in Starship Troopers with one squirt.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 18, 2009)

Come on js ... you know better than that. :tsk:

While Spiderman might possess brute force and be biologically pimped, he has not the spirit of a warrior nor is he intelligent enough to be one. Batman however, he suffered, he discovered his true self, he is one with himself. His spirit makes up for the bio-pimping easily.

And ... he has the toys. :devil:
And the money to buy them.

bernie :nana:


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

A little posting maintenance. I meant to thank SureAddicted for his kind words. He reminds me that it is not just the 10 or so guys posting in this thread that are reading it. That there are people all over the planet that can benefit from it. Keeping the facts straight and subtracting BS is important to the value of CandlePowerForums as a knowledge base.

SureAddicted –

After one year as a member your “new guy privileges” are here by summarily revoked by me, your peer; with no authority that is real or implied. To commemorate this milestone you shall be singled out for ambush by a known LED troll. If I have a moment I might remind the resident moderators what happened last time he participated in one of these discussion. Or maybe not. You are not a new guy anymore so I’m sure you’ll handle this just fine on your own. Have fun and as always, play by not only the rules but the spirit of the rules as well.



IMSabbel said:


> SureAddicted said:
> 
> 
> > Making a statement like that, you haven't taken everything into consideration. You forgot about soldiers who work in vast areas and conditions, climates and environments. Firefighters who work at night, athletes who train and compete at night with insufficient lighting, and the list goes on. I've would like to see you do my job with only an LED. LED's do have its advantages, but 95% is obsurd. That figure would stand correct if you were at home, but when you get out into the real world, things change.
> ...


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

kungfuchicken –

Your point may appear to have been lost but it is not. I’ve got a few comparo shots around here. When I get time I’ll host ‘em and post ‘em. I can tell you that a Malkoff 26 and a stock SureFire P91 in the real world have a similar beam pattern and intensity.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> What is amazing is that what starts the conflict is LED Jockeys speaking about incans like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly. And in this case, after I politely disengaged JTR in a previous exchange in this thread, he decides to re-engage me after I posted photos of an incandescent flashlight's awesome image return of a natural scene and then proceeds to nag away at it.



LuxLuthor said:


> OK, at this point it should be obvious what is the source of the LED vs. Incan irrational conflict. Please at least decide on the magnitude of your patronizing superiority.


 
You caught me off guard with that one. I laughed out loud enough to wake up the neighbors. And they live a far piece away from us. I have an alternative viewpoint. I'd say for 95+% of all practical use minded members, they find JTR’s suggestions of no value. For the other 5%, not yet but that number keeps growing smaller every moment.




LuxLuthor said:


> We all get it that in your world of riding a bike in NYC, you are not able to avoid potholes, and can only envision using an LED. That application and your model train LED hobby are very narrow, selective subsets that do not map over into generalized flashlight use.


 
Yup. I get that too. The first time I heard it, the second time and all the other times I heard it.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

JTR - 

The astronaut…he didn’t stay home. He used an incandescent source in a more hostile environment than walking the ridgeline leading up the hill to Snuffy’s house. You didn't want to use an incan walking up the hill for fear of failure.



jtr1962 said:


> *No*, I stopped using incandescent because the investment in time/money to keep it working makes it not my while. It has nothing to do with the fair of failure you keep harping on.



BS to your “*No*”. It’s a definite *YES* - You know exactly what I'm talking about but you choose slink away from what you said. It was your original challenge to the HotWire photo and you know it. Let me remind you:



jtr1962 said:


> However, one reason I personally won't touch incans anymore is their perchant for failure (especially true for incan bike lights which seem to fail at any large pothole). If the lamp instaflashes when you're on that ridge you're toast.


To keep things straight let’s step through it one time.

I present something that is true and show a photo depicting it.

You challenge the device’s ability to perform in an earthbound hostile environment.

I show a photo of an astronaut using said device in an exceedingly hostile environment.

You challenge the age of the technology depicted in the photo with a pdf proposal thinking you really have something with the LED spacesuit.

I refute your challenge with facts about what modern, intrepid astronauts actually use and show more proof of the fact with yet more NASA photographs.

Your rebuttal now is that my squadron of incandescent wielding astronauts doesn’t count as a point of fact because NASA has more money than you do so they must have better light bulbs and, and, and it's just not fair. Oh, but those spacemen counted big time when you thought they were all LED Jockeys. Not now though. Huh Uh. You done run ‘em off like Snuffy on the Revenuers. 



jtr1962 said:


> And needing to light up a field on the middle of nowhere isn't an equally narrow, selective subset?...snip... It _is_ the more practical choice for some large majority of casual users, whatever the percentage really is. I don't know why statements like that bother you so much.



You are doing to this thread what you did to AMDBlondie’s “Home Alone” thread. You just go on and on and on and on about what you can’t do, what you failed at, what doesn’t work for you, what didn’t work for you, drawing us into your world of stuff that doesn’t work…your world of CAN’T. You are turning this thread into another JTR's World thread. Listen to yourself. If I offered to give you a perfectly good 2003 Monte Carlo with 65,000 mi. on it, you wouldn’t accept it because it would be too much trouble to change the oil every 3,000 miles. Nothing would be good enough for you unless it was modeled after an electric toy slot car with a 100,000 mi. maintenance agreement. So sad that someone would handicap themselves with such negativity.

But harboring this negativity is doesn’t seem to be enough so you attempt to share your negativity. You declare that your experience is the most valid baseline to render the standards for the rest of mankind’s decisions on personal lighting. Sorry, I meant ~95.1% to 99.6% of mankind. Your body of posts here does not promote an exchange of information that causes all to achieve a greater understanding. Your body of posts is a drag and it attracts disconcerted expressions of frustration at the lack of mutual understanding and agreement making that leads to useful conventional wisdom.

Your argumentative discussion style is definitely different from mine. 

I speak of beautiful outdoor scenes. You speak of melted toy trains and broken bicycles.
I speak of intrepid Astronauts. You speak of crappy wages and urine-laden potholes.
I speak of incandescently attractive women. You speak of misery and death.

[Edit] buffed the burrs and sharp edges off the above post [/Edit]


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

JTR –

You are an interesting fellow. Though your lifestyle would be a certain death to my spirit, I do find it to be interesting. In a recent post of yours, I would have enjoyed hearing more about how you experience the city. What I did hear reminded me a little of a movie, The Brave One. The main character went about the city recording sounds. She played the sounds back to herself and from that wrote a radio program. It was interesting stuff. Maybe you could open up your own thread about your experiences of life in the big city. Maybe you could write a blog. Maybe it becomes famous.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

It might be a good time for some convening of knowledge.*


The color of light, imagery and validity of perspective...

* Possibly the most important component of our flashlights and torches is the actual light that is thrust out of them. What that light does to illuminate its objective target in the way of returning an image to us is important enough to be the basis of many of our discussions. One of my favorite subjects to learn about is light itself. What creates it, how it acts and reacts, its intensity, its power and how it is defined are aspects of light that fascinate. Of great interest to me is the spectral components of a beam of light. The different frequencies or colors present in different light beam emissions can greatly effect the imagery or information returned to the user.


*Mildly Entertaining "Test"**:* (The answers are provided for ease of reading.)
 
*1)** Environment:* Fair to poor office lighting.

Would light from a blue LED peaking near 470 nm help or hinder in reading small print?

Answer: 

It depends on the individual. Some people report that it blurs the print and hurts their eyes, some report there is not much difference, still others report a significant increase in their ability to read small print. One legally blind individual reported being able to retain their job which required reading small print simply by employing the use of a blue LED torch. He could not perform this function without the aid of blue Inova even with powerful glasses.

* 2) Environment:* Low ambient lighting during a stage presentation such as a play.

Would light from red LEDs peaking near 625 nm spotting the target character help or hinder in defining the image of the target character?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some members of the audience will experience little effect in definition; others will notice a slight blurring; still others will notice some increase in definition. What most audience members will notice is a different definition rendition as well as a different depth rendition in comparison to everything else on the stage. These two differences highlight the target character and set that target character apart almost as much the obvious difference of the red color.

One individual reported that they were so visually impaired that they could barely navigate in low ambient light situations without the use of both a powerful blue light and a powerful red light used simultaneously. They designed and used a head mounted dual LED device to successfully satisfy this need.

* 3) Environment:* Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

Would light from a cyan LED peaking near 505 nm help or hinder vision in the area of defining the target image?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some individuals report that they lose so much color rendition that they feel almost bewildered. Others report a preference for cyan in this environment due to its definition of target capability as well as its particular color rendition capability. With effort, individuals can train their eyes/vision processing to take advantage of the aspects some wavelengths afford. 505 nm is one of those wavelengths.

* 4) Environment:* Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

Would light from a royal blue LED peaking near 455 nm help or hinder vision in the area of defining the target image?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some individuals report a blurring effect; others nothing; others reported that it was pretty. One individual reported that he could read distant signs he could not possibly read without royal blue light returning the image. Other individuals substantiated this report with their own real world investigations.

*5) Environment:* Jewelry store, low to no lighting.

Which frequency of light is best for causing diamonds to fluoresce?

Answer:

380 nm. 395nm will work also. However not all diamonds fluoresce. Some diamonds fluoresce different colors. If a yellowish diamond fluoresces blue, the effect could be strong enough to mask the yellowish tint when viewed in a jewelry store's fluorescent lighting. You might be surprised by the diamond's true color when you look at it at home under different lighting. The reverse is true for diamonds that fluoresce yellow. They can appear more white under incandescent lights, but acquire a yellowish tint in ultraviolet light. A strong yellow fluorescence bring diamond prices down, sometimes quite a bit, since yellowish tinted diamonds are generally less desirable than whiter stones. A blue fluorescence can help increase the prices of diamonds with yellowish tones.


* 6) Environment:* Low ambient lighting during a stage presentation such as a play.

Which of these colors of light would be easiest to hide from the audience on non-target backgrounds; blue 470 nm, red 625 nm, cyan 505 nm or royal blue 455 nm?

Answer:

blue 470 nm.

* 7) Environment:* Medical diagnosis.

Which color of light would be best for diagnosing subdermal vascular anomalies; blue 470 nm, red 625 nm, cyan 505 nm or royal blue 455 nm?

Answer:

red 625 nm. One specific instance is where 625nm/660nm is used in oximetry. 910nm IR is used in tandem in oximeters for attaining a ratio of absorption differential between the two (red and infrared) frequencies.


*8) Environment:* Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon. 

What color of light is best for tracking blood?

Answer:

The discussion continues among folks all over the world in many different venues. Some individuals report blue works for it’s absorption properties. Some individuals report that red works for its reflective properties. Some individuals report that a strong warm/white LED works very well while still others report that incandescent light is best for them.


* 9) Environment:* World.

Which personal lighting tool is better for rendering diverse target images; LED or incandescent?

Answer:

It depends on the target and possibly more importantly it is dependent on the individual observer. All perspectives are valid.
*
Opinionated Commentary:*
 
Each individual has unique optical capabilities. Each individual has unique image processing capabilities. For a moment, couple all the above mentioned light frequencies and their different renditions of different targets with the fact that individuals see images differently. All those colors. All those targets. All those eyeballs. All those brains. One would think it would be a simple logical step forward to accept that one type of light is better for one person’s interpretation of a target image and a different type of light is better for another person’s interpretation of a target image. My observations indicate to me that it is in fact not such an easy logical step.

I think I may know why. It has to do with what is right before your eyes. We instinctively trust our vision for survival. What we see must be correct because we are seeing it. Now that might be considered to be empirical evidence. Add to that varying degrees of knowledge of light. From here the individual might submit that what works for them does so because of scientific fact. Since the preference is evidenced empirically _and_ is supported by scientific fact, the preference might be considered to be an absolute. It’s not. It's their perception. 

This is the complicated part of the pot of ingredients that can produce enthusiastic discussions and sometimes those discussions can cook up to produce quite a spicy dish of conversational fare. 

And there’s more. One very interesting fellow has let me know (and I now agree with him) that people can train their eyes to use different types of light to enhance the information they receive from an image. Further he contends and I agree, that individuals can train their light processing capabilities and can even recalibrate their processors using different techniques not limited to but including simple concentration.

These words I’m using to attempt to make a point may or may not be of use. Let’s try another question. Is a blue LED the best choice for reading a map? Why, of course not. The best light for reading a map would be incandescent. No wait. The best light would be warmish white LED outputting exactly 28 lux. Maybe not. Remember that legally blind fellow who’s job depended on his ability to read small text and this task could only be accomplished by enhancing the target with a blue Inova? He doesn’t care what color the interstate is. He just wants to know _where_ I-40 West is. Now if he and I were in a “save the world” scenario and he was the guy that had to cut the correct wire on the bomb before the timer reached zero, I might be inclined to hand him an incandescent light for its color rendition capability. A better choice for me, if time allowed, would be to _ask him_ which light he would prefer for the task at hand. In this case his opinion would make a world of difference to me.

Like many, I have certain lighting preferences for different tasks. While night fishing I prefer to use a tiny LED torch to tie lures, a no-spill TIR LED torch to spot the fish the guy twenty feet from me just pulled on shore and a powerful incan torch to see if that's a small branch or large snake floating in the water. Not everyone will prefer my choices. Individuals see images differently and process those images differently. If a fellow tells me he has no problem identifying an un-moving, mostly submerged cotton-mouth water moccasin at 30 feet out using an LED flashlight I’m inclined to believe his choice is best for him despite my own personal empirical evidence or my somewhat limited grasp of the science of light.

*Rhetorical Question: *

Is it possible that in a given environment and while targeting a given object, that one type of flashlight emitting a particular class of light beam might truly be more useful to some people while a different type of flashlight emitting a different class of light beam might truly be more useful to other people?


----------



## SureAddicted (Jan 18, 2009)

Icebreak, I appreciate the kind words mate. My only intention was to provide as much factual information as possible. I'll uphold the CPF moto, that is to provide accurate information to the best of my ability. I do spend a lot of time reading archives, then reading them some more, it's the only way to gain knowledge besides real world experiences. 
Thanks again and keep doing what you do best as well. :thumbsup:


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

For those of you who made it through the light knowledge test kudos to you and my sincere thanks for taking the time to read it. I have another favor to ask. Please consider once again my perspective as being valid for me.

During the day the sky changes its light output in intensity, tint and spectra. Right now there is an intense blue sky blowing light into the north side of my home. Some of my LED lights are almost that exact same color. I like that color. On the southern side of my home there is intense direct sunlight blowing in. My best HotWires do not match the tint. They try to with rendition but, in fact, they are heavy to the red and amber. Still, I like that color. Later today the sun will get low and the tint will shift to the red/amber side. My better incandescent lights will match that. Before dusk there is some “magic hour” photographers treasure. Even more amber. I like that color too.

It’s a beautiful world we have to live in. No reason to limit the kind of light we use. Nature doesn’t. So, try to forgive me if at night I prefer the stunning effect incandescent light has on all the beautiful things in this world as it baths them in a smorgasbord of delicious color.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

Don't take this the wrong way, Icebreak, but I'm finding you increasing frustrating to converse with because you're harping on every single word I say, not allowing that I might modify my position or add to it as the thread progresses, and frankly not really getting the main point of my posts. Why I don't know. You are certainly quite adept with your language skills, and you seem quite intelligent. But bear with me as I'm ending this post on a more positive note despite being a bit critical of you now.

For example, let's take your whole diatribe about fear of failure. I mentioned lamp failure on that ridge to illustrate that it _could_ potentially be a life or death situation. I wouldn't even be walking on that ridge in the first place, much less at night, so what I said is totally not applicable to my world. Just not my cup of tea. I just wanted to show you how lamp failure might be more than just a minor inconvenience _in your world_. For me lamp failure is simply an inconvenience and an expense. On balance I made the decision that these factors outweighed the benefits of having light _to me_. I actually tried to get into your world a bit, and you proceeded to take me down because of it when I later clarified my position.

And then this:



> You are doing to this thread what you did to AMDBlondie’s “Home Alone” thread. You just go on and on and on and on about what you can’t do, what you failed at, what doesn’t work for you, what didn’t work for you, drawing us into your world of sh!t that doesn’t work…your world of CAN’T. You are turning this thread into another JTR's World thread. Listen to yourself. If I offered to give you a perfectly good 2003 Monte Carlo with 65,000 mi. on it, you wouldn’t accept it because it would be too much trouble to change the oil every 3,000 miles. Nothing would be good enough for you unless it was modeled after an electric toy slot car with a 100,000 mi. maintenance agreement. So sad that someone would handicap themselves with such negativity.


Well, maybe my expectations of reliability are based not on negatively but on idealism. Ever consider that? I'm an engineer. I _know_ what it is possible to do, even when cost is constrained. It frankly annoys me that certain levels are unreliability are tolerated when they don't have to be. I know we can build electric vehicles which would go 300,000 miles or more between failures. How do I know? Because a similar technology (electric trains) already has been proven to do this over decades. And I wouldn't exactly be thrilled with the variable and high fuel costs to power a gas car when electricity is cheaper and less subject to price fluctuations. I personally won't tolerate anything less than what I know is possible for any vehicle I would own. Since such vehicles aren't made (yet), I made the personal decision not to own a vehicle. Why? Same reason I gave up lighting my bike years ago. The investment of time and money relative to the benefits is just not worth it to me personally. Remember this is NYC. 50% of the people in NYC don't even have licenses, much less cars. I also decided not to own a PC until they reached certain levels of cost and performance (this occurred for me personally in the late 1990s). Again, same reasons. My viewpoints are mostly founded on idealism, not negativity. I'm negative about the crappy products most people seem to tolerate when I know we can do way better. I'll even give the general population a free pass here because most aren't engineers. They have no idea what is possible. I can't make that excuse, so I simply refuse to deal with products not made as reliable as they can be.

Same thing with people. I see how we all treat each other in this world and I know it doesn't have to be that way. I've been in situations where this wasn't so. I know it's possible, just mankind by and large refuses to do it. When I see this it sickens me and annoys me. That thread you referred to was a great example. The treatment of the original poster and the trivializing of his problems made me sick to my stomach. It was a disgrace, something everyone who piled should have been ashamed of. We're better than that. I know we are.

I think also that what you see as negatively on my part is simply a decision on my part to not take action based on a logical analysis of the facts at hand. A big problem I see is many people getting themselves into major trouble by just jumping into things without analysing them first. Take my brother. He got in over head buying a house. He just can't afford it on what he makes. Now normally I wouldn't care, but more often than not someone else's failure to plan ends up becoming _my_ problem. Between my mom and myself, we've already given my brother in excess of $30,000. Didn't have to, but neither of us relished the prospect of him moving back in with his garage full of car parts (speaking of which he still has quite a bit here). His failure to think things through became our problem. Now don't you think it's nicer when maybe I carefully think something out, and decide maybe if I went through with it the likelihood of success was poor, and decide not to, especially if my failure might affect someone else? I know myself and my situation well enough to know what is likely to work (i.e. working at home), what has lousy prospects but might be remotely possible (finding work paying halfway decently which I could physically and mentally handle), and what I would definitely almost certainly fail at (relationships with the opposite sex comes to mind for reasons which are both private and way off-topic). Generally the lower the prospects of success, the less likely I am to attempt something. This goes double if my failure would affect others.

Contrary to what you may think, my life isn't the living death you seem to think it is. I go out into the world, among _people_, practically every single day. Quite the contrary, living in a place like you do would be a living death to me. Not being able to see lots of people, not seeing the dramatic changes I'm always seeing here in the city, not seeing the sights and smells of the controlled chaos we call civilization, it would be a living death to me. I'v tried it. I lived in a country place in college. Felt horribly depressed and like a fish out of water. Frankly, I don't know how you can live the life you do but isn't that what makes us unique?



> Is it possible that in a given environment and while targeting a given object, that one type of flashlight emitting a particular class of light beam might truly be more useful to some people while a different type of flashlight emitting a different class of light beam might truly be more useful to other people?


This is the best thing you've said in the entire thread, in fact I loved the entire post of which this was a part. I agree with it entirely. The only reason I even engaged you and LuxLuthor here was because of your posts praising incandescent light as if its spectral superiority was an absolute. It isn't to all people. Some people find it better, for others in most (or even all) situations it's lacking.



> JTR –
> 
> You are an interesting fellow. Though your lifestyle would be a certain death to my spirit, I do find it to be interesting. In a recent post of yours, I would have enjoyed hearing more about how you experience the city. What I did hear reminded me a little of a movie, The Brave One. The main character went about the city recording sounds. She played the sounds back to herself and from that wrote a radio program. It was interesting stuff. Maybe you could open up your own thread about your experiences of life in the big city. Maybe you could write a blog. Maybe it becomes famous.


Thanks, not a bad idea actually, and a great way to end this post on a positive note. Provided my hands cooperate (maybe I should give speech recognition software a try?) I've often thought I've had a few good books in me. You've certainly suggested a topic which would make a great one. And for me, it's exactly like you said-I hear this cacophony of random sounds, and just somehow pull patterns out of it.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

One more thing Icebreak,

Upon rereading your great post ( #249) bringing together the many subjects touched upon in this thread, I'd like to nominate that post for inclusion in CPFWiki (what part I don't know). It's really great stuff. No way could I have done something like that, so cleary, and in relatively few words. It is one of the best things I've ever seen on these forums, and I usually don't give compliments easily.


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

Icebreak,

I was well aware of that post by IMSabbel, and have been keeping an eye on things, but I let it stand because it is obviously totally out of left field and ignorant of all the preceding posts in this thread, and anyone who has been keeping up knows that. Don't feed the Troll, in other words.

Now, as for jtr and his posts, while I get (and even agree with) where you're coming from, it is dangerous territory to speak so negatively and objectively about someone elses' posts and posting style. The things you said would be better qualified in some way (or ways, plural), to soften them a bit and help prevent a flame war. A bit more respect is due here, in other words.

Now, as I already posted before, I think the problem is one of approach and understanding more than anything else. Both you and jtr have rather unique perspectives from which you view the world, and as such you should both cut each other some slack here. Better to ask a question, for example, instead of make an accusation. So, instead of saying that jtr has backed down and changed his positions and spiraled this way and that, you could simply illustrate the bits you believe contradict each other and then ASK him how he can reconcile them, or if he has changed his mind, or what?

Best not to _assume_ that his _intention_ was to weasle out of something.

From what I know of jtr, he doesn't do that. He is a man of great integrity from what I have seen.

As are you, Icebreak.

So . . . please be just a bit more circumspect when speaking critically of another member and his posts. Leave those sorts of general judgments to each individual member, to make for his- or herself.

Now, all of that said, I have to agree that for me personally when I read a jtr post speaking negatively of something for him personally, the _flavor_ of it is nonetheless general and over-all-critical. This is just the way he thinks, in my personal opinion. He's not trying to be all Mr. Negativity, I don't think. He's just trying to be honest and forthright and to have a discussion.

Still . . . it is easy to get the "negativity" vibe from it. In my opinion, *all* idealists are prone to this. The vision they have in their heads of how things _might_ be can often poison the good that is here now, present, mixed in with some neutral and bad. In other words, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

I'm an engineer and a scientist, but thankfully, what I take out of this is a wonder that stuff works at all. It's all so wonderful! And there are SO MANY ways it could all not work, not be. I like nice things, quality things, and reliable things, but I also know what goes into them and all the things that can and do go wrong at all steps along the way, and so these quality reliable things SHINE OUT BRILLIANTLY to me as wonderful and exceptional. --things to be enjoyed and marveled at-- But they don't make me annoyed at anything less!

LOL!

Is the glass half full or half empty? It's a question of what we focus on and how we express ourselves!

Like saying that "Some people find incandescent light better, for others in most (or even all) situations it's lacking." Who are these others? Certainly jtr is one of them! But the fact is that Art galleries, photo studios--they all use tungsten halogen incandescent lighting, by a large margin.

Food for thought.


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

jtr1962 said:


> One more thing Icebreak,
> 
> Upon rereading your great post ( #249) bringing together the many subjects touched upon in this thread, I'd like to nominate that post for inclusion in CPFWiki (what part I don't know). It's really great stuff. No way could I have done something like that, so cleary, and in relatively few words. It is one of the best things I've ever seen on these forums, and I usually don't give compliments easily.



Well, I nominate all these pictures of Eva Green for the CPFWiki. I know I have downloaded them all for my own personal Wiki! LOL!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 18, 2009)

I just remembered, I can't "bow out" of this thread yet, because I want to give Bernie my impressions of the SF TIR lens which I should be getting this week.

In the meantime, I told JTR that I lived in Manhattan for the better part of 6 years at 81st & 3rd; and 25th & 2nd. It is the worst place in the world to get any feel for using flashlights. Never once did I need a flashlight the entire time I lived there. You don't need one outside with all the street, car, store lights. Even with the rare power outages, there was enough light from car headlights reflected off buildings that adding a few candles indoors sufficed. Just look at a night satellite image of NYC. You can barely see the stars when you look up....from all the ambient light.

You might want a flashlight to increase your noticeability riding a bike, but the point is that you have no ability to "take the pulse" of the general public (outside of similar big cities) on a subject such as flashlights (or automobiles). There are also 40+ Radio Shacks, numerous hardware & electronics stores every few blocks that carry bulbs, so I reject the limited bulb availability claim.

Talking to strangers on subways? OMG! Dude, the #1 rule in NYC is to ignore everyone, walk fast, keep your head down, avoid eye contact, guard your wallet, trust noone, and focus on your own survival. People in NYC physically have very narrow, confined realities that do not predict anything for the rest of the population. NYC has its own physical reality.

These discussions always come down to your subjective preference of lights for your limited uses, and anyone making any claim of overall superiority of any one type of light is not being objective or rational. 

What any New Yorker (or anyone else in their own limited circumstance) thinks is best for the rest of the population is delusional. A New Yorker (or anyone in their own unique geographic location) who interpolates that something is 99% better overall (removing the benefit of your doubt from the patronizingly low 95% previous estimate) for the general population is attempting to shout beyond the forest from deep within an isolated cave.

Even still, I love "The City," and visit it often. There is always something going on, it never sleeps, and has the best arts/theater & restaurants in the world.

And obviously, Superman is the most powerful of all the superheroes, which is why he is my nemesis.


​


----------



## kongfuchicken (Jan 18, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> And obviously, Superman is the most powerful of all the superheroes, which is why he is my nemesis.



Yeah but you won't find him on these boards because the ******* doesn't need a flashlight with his double EDC native to his eyeballs.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 18, 2009)

JTR -

I can brush the burrs and edges off my previous posts if that would be to your liking.

I'm pleased that you enjoyed post 249. 

I hope you do consider something with post 248. A book might be the way. I'll tell ya. If someone did a blog with occasional webcasts talking about what really went on in the city and added sounds of the city I'd tune in for it. _The Brave One_ is a repeating favorite around this house, maybe two or three times a year. Related to that, _Panic Room_. I understand why people would buy an apartment in the city when I see that.

I thought I'd mention I do have some contact with civilization. Not N.Y. or D.C. crowds mind you but a bit of a metro feel. It may sound odd, probably because it is, but I live in a rural city. Symphony, Theatre, Shows, Concerts, a couple of 4 star restaurants, Art Centres, smallish Museums...did you see my Art of the Chopper thread in the Cafe? I work a few blocks from here. I live back behind the jet wash.






Gotta giddy up now. Dad gum raccoons are getting into the sour mash and getting cantankerous and drunk and dancin' about and such. First thing you know they knock over a still then Bob McCoy starts shootin' and the pigs git out and of course then I gotta fight Jesse Hambacon 'cause he knows I been kissin' his sister then her mom wants to fight me and Bob McCoy calls the sheriff and Mizz Hambacon will clock Sheriff Holiday but she won't go to jail 'cause "Doc" has always been sweet on her...Ah Lawdie what mess.

Just kidding. We'll get a bite at the Canyon Grill, check out some local art and go to the late movie. Defiance I think. Take care of yourself, JTR.


----------



## js (Jan 18, 2009)

OK.

NO ONE GO ON THE OFFENSIVE ABOUT THE NEW YORK CITY COMMENTS, PLEASE.

Lux,

***quote removed***

Please edit this part of your post to make it clear that you are talking about _the reality of the city in which they live_ and not their understanding of reality. The next sentence is "NYC has its own reality" so that should be clear, but more than one thread has trainwrecked over NYC and whether or not people care about each other and this or that. It's not a Fenix vs. SureFire train-wreck certainty level, but it's close. So, please make it clear.

Also, 

***quote removed***

Again, this is going to be misinterpreted to mean that New Yorkers are mentally isolated instead of _environmentally_ isolated.

Please change a few words here and there to make this clear.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> JTR -
> 
> I can brush the burrs and edges off my previous posts if that would be to your liking.


No need to really. I've developed a pretty thick skin being on forums the last seven or eight years. What you wrote was mild compared to some of the stuff I've seen. And post 248 more than made up for it anyway. You gave me a bunch of ideas I hadn't thought of, at least not seriously. I mean, I thought of writing a book or two, but it always came down to "with all the stuff being written by everyone and his brother how many people might be interested anyway?" Maybe the subject has appeal to a much wider audience than I thought.



> I thought I'd mention I do have some contact with civilization. Not N.Y. or D.C. crowds mind you but a bit of a metro feel. It may sound odd, probably because it is, but I live in a rural city. Symphony, Theatre, Shows, Concerts, a couple of 4 star restaurants, Art Centres, smallish Museums...did you see my Art of the Chopper thread in the Cafe? I work a few blocks from here. I live back behind the jet wash.


Cool. Is this the thread you're referring to. Saw some pics there and it actually doesn't look that much more rural than where I am (northeast Queens).

EDIT: Never mind-I found the thread. I somehow missed it because it was right on top (I assumed it was an older thread). But the other one I linked to was pretty good also.

While looking I also found this other thread of yours which I think discusses some of what is being discussed here: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/86752


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 18, 2009)

js said:


> OK.
> 
> NO ONE GO ON THE OFFENSIVE ABOUT THE NEW YORK CITY COMMENTS, PLEASE.


Don't worry, the thought never even occurred to me.  Seriously, I read them and decided I'm just going to let it pass. But thanks for bringing it up anyway.


----------



## lctorana (Jan 19, 2009)

43X16 said:


> No way :thinking: besides, Batman use incans and HIDs!  :duck:


 
But the bat signal that was shown in a searchlight beam against the clouds?

That HAS to be a carbon-arc.

EDIT - it strikes me that Batman wouldn't ever need a flashlight. I mean, bats don't need to *see*, do they?


----------



## js (Jan 19, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Come on js ... you know better than that. :tsk:
> 
> While Spiderman might possess brute force and be biologically pimped, he has not the spirit of a warrior nor is he intelligent enough to be one. Batman however, he suffered, he discovered his true self, he is one with himself. His spirit makes up for the bio-pimping easily.
> 
> ...



Your argument sways me, bernie. Perhaps you are right after all.

But, aren't they *both* heros? I mean, isn't Peter Parker brave and self-sacrificing and intelligent? You don't think Peter Parker has suffered? Nor that he has the spirit of a warrior?

If true, I agree, the scales tip in batmans favor.

As for Superman, he's ridiculously easy to defeat. Just get some of the kryptonite stuff that seems to be so easy to find--for _Lex Luthor_ anyway (who is a villain, is he not? Interesting.)


----------



## js (Jan 19, 2009)

Perfect edit to your post, Lux. Thank you. I really appreciate it.


----------



## baterija (Jan 19, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I just remembered, I can't "bow out" of this thread yet, because I want to give Bernie my impressions of the SF TIR lens which I should be getting this week.



Glad you remember I have been waiting for your impressions too. 

And everyone putting down Batman better revisit the Dark Knight where with the aid of of powered armor and synthetic kryptonite he beats Superman.

"I want you to remember Clark...in all the years to come...in your most private moments...I want you to remember...my hand ...at your throat...I want you to remember...the one man who beat you..."

And back to the regularly scheduled thread topic.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 19, 2009)

That's the thread, Art of the Chopper. Here's a shot with the blues from an aluminum overcast sky competing with the reds of interior incandescents. You may notice that the trees are iced up except for the evergreen. Even though every thing appears very blue, that one green tree is just about right. New condos in the background.


----------



## js (Jan 19, 2009)

By the way, if anyone wants to take issue with LuxLuthor's post with the NYC comments, as it now stands, please feel free.


----------



## Sabre (Jan 20, 2009)

Just my thoughts:

I'm rather torn between LED and incan. I continually go back and forth between the two. I think that either type of lighting may be superior in any given situation, depending the particulars of that situation.

I am a police officer and I carry a Fenix TK11 on my belt and also have a Mag Charger with me. I'm continually comparing the two in different situations. Sometimes I'll compare the two lights and I'll think the Mag looks better. Other times the LED.

I noticed that the TK11 looks very white indoors. I mean _white_ white. However, outdoors it seems to gain a blue tinge that increases with the distance between the light and target.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 24, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> P.S.: Lux ... you wanna see a nice throwing LED beam in a small package that destroys incan throw of the same size ... check the SF TIR out. Color rendition forgotten for a while



Seems like this thread has become morbidly convoluted, but I wanted to follow through on the TIR after getting a *SF-E2DL-BK* that Bernie tells me uses a Cree XR-E.

I must say that while this LED has a better tint towards the green/brown and thereby giving a somewhat more accurate color rendering to my snowy foraging, the throw was more dramatic than I was expecting. Its stated 120 lumens seems to be slightly out throwing a Jetbeam Jet-III-Pro-Ti that is supposedly putting out 225 Torch Lumens.

I'm genuinely happy that I followed Bernie's lead and have a chance to appreciate this TIR technology. I can see more outdoor use for this TIR LED vs. my other LED's. There are still all the other overall features I need from incans outside, but this is a surprising improvement in beam confinement and throw.


----------



## baterija (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanks for sharing Lux.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 24, 2009)

Thanx Lux


----------

