# MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots - Now General Intensity Plots



## ahorton (Oct 20, 2008)

I was looking into the MC-E optics and I realised that all the intensity plots look the same because they scale the axis to fit the relevant part of the data.

So I decided to compare them all on the one plot. This doesn't actually add any info, but I like how it represents the data all together.

I took the info out of various data sheets for spot/tight optics, plotted a few points, made cubic-Hermite splines, integrated the splines and scaled them appropriately. All the optics I scaled down by 15% (relative to the raw MC-E) since they all claim about 85% efficiency.

So in the plots below if you integrate across all the optics you will get 0.85. Integrating across the MC-E spline gives 1.

The two aspherics were from my own experiments. They give roughly 4 and 2 degree beams.

I made the assumption that 90% of the light hitting the aspheric was transmitted. I calculated the amount of light hitting the aspheric by integrating the MC-E spline from -45 to 45 degrees for the 4 degree beam and from -35 to 35 degrees for the 2 degree beam (that is, a 30mm lens 15mm from the MC-E and a 50mm lens 36mm from the MC-E). This revealed that my 2 aspherics were picking up about 77% and 63% of the available light. Not that much in my opinion, but of course you can't beat them for tightness of beam.

Integrating across two aspheric splines gives 0.69 and 0.57 for the 4 and 2 degree beams.












The two aspherics ruin the plots so I zoomed in to show some detail.















I like this view. Can anyone confirm or deny some of my results?


----------



## ahorton (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

On the logic that throw length is proportional to the square root of intensity, I figure this plot should show relative throw lengths.






I'm not sure that I believe that my narrow aspheric throws less than 5 times as far as the raw MC-E, but that's what the maths tells me. It may be that the aspheric seems to throw further because you can always see the definite contrast. Then when I stand outside with a raw MC-E, my nightvision is ruined by the local flood and I don't realise that it is actually putting some photons on a tree 20 or 30m away.


----------



## znomit (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Ahorton, thanks for that. 
Could you normalise the central intensity to 1 and replot for comparison.


----------



## ahorton (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Happy to, though it doesn't show any more info. These are the intensities, not my predicted throw lengths.


----------



## Holzleim (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Great idea, to create this plot based on the square root of the relative intensities. So one get get a good feeling what the usability of the resulting beam will be concerning relationship of throw and flood.

I think you are right with the assumption that the raw MC-E prevents you from seeing as far as expected per math in relationship to the asphere due to the fact that the near by objects are enlightened by the extreme food beam that way that your eyes sensitivity is pulled down. 

I can confirm this from my own self made aspheric lights that the very small amount of side spill light you can achieve by using aspheres is very useful for looking at very far objects is the spot of your light.

I'm planning to use the CARCLO PLAIN TIGHT 26,5mm optic in my multi MC-E light. Would be very nice if you could integrate this one in your comparision  .......

Thanks for your effort,

Holzleim


----------



## ahorton (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*



Holzleim said:


> I'm planning to use the CARCLO PLAIN TIGHT 26,5mm optic in my multi MC-E light. Would be very nice if you could integrate this one in your comparision  .......



I would if I could find a datasheet from Carclo that includes a relative intensity plot. All I could find from them were FWHM figures.


----------



## Holzleim (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Yes, you are right.
I just asked there sales for a more detailed datasheet containing relative intensity plots.


----------



## liveforphysics (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Great work! Awesome job! Very useful data for helping with lens choice!


Thank you!


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Hmm, I was thinking of making a couple dual MC-E lights with the Boomerang optics to be my only two lights. Now I'm worried that the Boom MC-S won't have enough throw. Then again, relative to the intensity that a Ledil SS optic for a R2 would give, it would still be an upgrade, especially with two of them. Hmm... how spotty is too spotty? How much is not enough?? :thinking:


----------



## ahorton (Oct 20, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*



Hack On Wheels said:


> Then again, relative to the intensity that a Ledil SS optic for a R2 would give, it would still be an upgrade, especially with two of them.


 
Good idea. The next set of plots I make will start comparing different LED / optic combinations (scaled according to rated flux). In particular, I want to see the comparison with my aspheric'd XR-E R2s. I won't get to it for a little while yet, but am happy to take requests for other comparisons.


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*



ahorton said:


> Good idea. The next set of plots I make will start comparing different LED / optic combinations (scaled according to rated flux). In particular, I want to see the comparison with my aspheric'd XR-E R2s. I won't get to it for a little while yet, but am happy to take requests for other comparisons.




That would be great!  I would be most interested to see comparisons with the R2 + Ledil Square optics: RS, SS, D, and M. Though, naturally, anything would be good.  Thanks for doing this.


----------



## netprince (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

ahorton: would you mind giving a little more info about the aspheric lenses you are reviewing? Perhaps a link?


----------



## ahorton (Oct 21, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

For this one, I'm not sure the specs are right. You'll notice a difference in the focal length I mentioned above.
2 degree: http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3033.html



4 degree: http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/l3461.html


----------



## Holzleim (Oct 22, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Hi ahorton,


if you could provide me with an email adress I could send you .ies and .ldt data for some of the CARCLO optics.
I'm new to this kind of data format and found a viewer for the .ies data. If you like, I can provide this to you, too.
Hope you are more experienced with this kind of data than me....

Regards,

Thomas (Holzleim)


----------



## ahorton (Oct 22, 2008)

*Re: MC-E Spot Optics Intensity Plots*

Ledil Square Optics for the XR-E, the R2 doesn't matter here.


----------



## ahorton (Oct 22, 2008)

This one was of particular interest to me.

I thought that given the amount of light that an aspheric lens doesn't pick up with the MC-E, maybe a tight optic might give better throw. If my assumptions are correct, then I'm better off sticking to the aspheric.

I've assumed my XR-E R2 at 1A puts out 250 Lumens and my MC-E M at 0.7A puts out 750 Lumens. So the plots are scaled according to their cubic inverse.

The aspherics transmit 90% of light that hits them but I've only given the optic 85%.


----------



## netprince (Oct 22, 2008)

ahorton: Have you seen this lens? I was thinking about trying it on a mag with mc-e. Its got a 16mm fl from back plane, which would help collect more light, but I'm not sure how well the multi-emitter would project.

http://shop.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/detail.aspx?pf_id= 01 LAG 010


----------



## ahorton (Oct 22, 2008)

That's a nice lens. It would be a bit more efficient, but I think I'll save my money and use the ones I have for now.


----------



## ifor powell (Oct 22, 2008)

The plots are nice but I think some caution is needed, it's all from the datasheats and to be honest from the simple testing I did 12 mounths back with various XR-E optics the datasheat and reality sometimes leaves a bit to be desired. I had some optics from one manufacturer that had differnt half angles but you could not tell the differance in reality by eye or with a camera or a lux meter. Others looked to be speced very similarly e.g. very similar half angle very similarly shaped plots but the max lux reading from one was twice that of the other...

I am waiting for my MCE's and varios optics with interest.

Ifor


----------



## ahorton (Oct 23, 2008)

ifor powell said:


> I think some caution is needed



Especially if you count the assumptions I have had to make along the way.

I assumed all the optics were 85% efficient. If one is 95% and another is 75%, that's a big difference.


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Oct 23, 2008)

..any chance of a Ledil CRS to Ledil Boom comparison?  The aspherics seem to make the other options not look so great due to the nature of their intensity, would it be possible to do some more plots without them? I'd be curious to hear from people using aspherics though... do you find the beam pattern to be too weird/odd to use? I couldn't imagine using something like that for a bike light... flashlight maybe though.


----------



## ahorton (Oct 23, 2008)

You'd have to tell me what LED you mean. CRS and BOOM for XR-E I'm guessing.


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Oct 24, 2008)

ahorton said:


> You'd have to tell me what LED you mean. CRS and BOOM for XR-E I'm guessing.



Oh, you mean you aren't telepathic? 

Yeah, my brain skipped right over some details there... haha, I was thinking CRS for R2, to Boom with MC-E... Basically the setup that I'm using right now.. to the setup that I'm looking at using.


----------



## ahorton (Oct 26, 2008)

I've assumed 750 Lumens for the MC-E and 250 for the R2.






I hope you are not looking for throw from the MC-E.


----------



## Hack On Wheels (Oct 29, 2008)

ahorton said:


> I've assumed 750 Lumens for the MC-E and 250 for the R2.
> 
> I hope you are not looking for throw from the MC-E.



Thanks!

Ah, oddly enough, I was kind of hoping for some decent throw... I was hoping it could replace my triple R2 setup with one RS, one SS, and one M. Looks like even 2 MC-Es with S reflectors won't match that. That's a shame... but I can't say I'm a huge fan of the RS, as I do notice the artifacts quite a bit and obviously the distribution of intensity isn't very even...

Hopefully someone has an option that would give more throw though.. I would like to at least have that option before I finalize my housing design.


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 10, 2008)

Ledil RGB-X-MC optics looks quite throwy.


----------



## gibby_z (Nov 10, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> Ledil RGB-X-MC optics looks quite throwy.



Anybody have them on the shelf yet?


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 10, 2008)

Ledil Eva - quite big but also throwy.


----------

