# Why use incandescent?



## degarb (Feb 13, 2008)

I see price, and warm fuzzy calming yellow light, as reasons to use incandescents. But what is their efficiency and reason over led emitters that can get over 100 lumens per watt, better white light and over 50,000 hours of use?


----------



## BillG (Feb 13, 2008)

well, you hit one of the nails on the head. 90% of my lights are LED....but i will never get rid of my Mag and SL Scorpion. i can see things more clearly with a yellowish light than a white light. i think my eyes expect to see outdoors with a yellowish light like the sun has. also, a spot to flood light can be very versatile.

if i know i'll be outdoors at night for a few hours, i will bring along my scorpion.

Bill


----------



## mwaldron (Feb 13, 2008)

I'm never going to give up LED lighting, my SF L2 is a wonderful light. 

To address your issues though, let me say the following. 

I prefer the more daylight colored, colors reproduce as I expect them to. I go out of my way to find CCFLs for my house that imitate it as well. 

I'm not sure LEDs are any more efficient in a practical sense. My A2 runs on High power for just about as long as my L2, both on 2 123 batteries. I understand the lumens/watt says the A2 is less efficient, but for practical purposes they're about the same to me. 

Bulb replacement is a real downer though for incandescent lights, and that's why I'll likely only ever own the two A2's that I own now. I prefer not to be a slave to unexpected failure. It's bad enough having to feed these things CR123's, but I can plan for that. When a bulb blows in the field, I may not have another with me.


----------



## divine (Feb 13, 2008)

It's a lot easier to see with an incandescent light, just like Bill said. It's also not so harsh on your eyes.

You know the other big reason? LED's aren't very bright. Maybe 250 lumen max unless you want to pay a lot of money for that Ostar LED.

Not all incandescents are super yellow, I'm still looking for a whiter incandescent light.


----------



## HBlight (Feb 13, 2008)

I still love my incandescents lights.

My EDC is a SF G2. It is great for day time use. 

I am a Operations Manager for a Freight Forwarding and some times I have to inspect cargo on the warehouse, inside a truck or inside a container.

Must of this activities are during day time, so incandescent lights is the flashlight of choice.

My best incandescents are SF G2 and Streamlight Scorpion.

HBlight
***NO GUNS***NO FIREARMS***


----------



## yellow (Feb 13, 2008)

> You know the other big reason? LED's aren't very bright.


compared to what? :thinking:
to similar sized lights that run for a maximum of 50 mins (high power), or up to some hours ("normal" to low output bulbs)?

only the superbright LAs, that run for about 20 mins, are a match to a single emitter light in the 2 CR123 size class now
(and the led runs for 2+ hours at that output)


----------



## yellow (Feb 13, 2008)

doh, timeout double post again,
somehow the last weeks CPF is screwed here
:thinking:


----------



## KeyGrip (Feb 13, 2008)

The myth of yellow incandescents comes from lamps not being properly driven. A good lamp, driven well, will make any LED look blue in comparison. Outdoors, especially in fog, rain, or generally poor visability is where incandescents really stand out. LEDs have a definite place in the flashlight world, and I EDC one, but incandescents aren't dead yet.


----------



## nerdgineer (Feb 13, 2008)

BillG said:


> ...a yellowish light like the sun has...


Sorry to pick nits, but sunlight is quite "white" (5600 deg K spectum) unless the sun is low in the sky. Regular incands have full spectrum light but tilted toward the warm end of the spectrum due to their usually lower temperature (typically 3200 K or so..).


----------



## dougie (Feb 13, 2008)

Apart from folks with personal preferences I suspect incandescent lights are now beginning to loose ground quickly to LEDs for the bulk of the smaller light sales.

I can't make sweeping comparisons with the states but here in Europe most of the lights I see on sale in the shops are cheap Chinese made LED lights. Of course this doesn't include Maglite:sigh: which still seems to have a lot of incandescent stock for sale. 

If I visit most European websites for flashlights/torches the incandescent lights on sale are usually reserved for lights with more throw and total lumen's than the smaller 2 or 3 cell lights. 

The argument that incandescent bulbs are more unreliable than LEDs and therefore unreliable for use in tactical situations is a moot point. If you choose the right manufacturer for your bulbs and use shock isolation then provided you know the average lifespan for the incandescent bulb in question you can decide to replace it long before potential unreliability is a large risk. 

Whilst LEDs themselves are probably more reliable than conventional incandescent bulbs the electronics in the newer LED lights mean more areas of potential failure. If an incandescent light fails it is simply a case of replacing the bulb you are back in business. If a LED fails and is mounted to the heatsink then the ability to replace it in the field is very unlikely unless it is a module. 

Whilst I personally now prefer LEDs and don't have issues with the color of the beam or other issues with how it makes things look less defined I still think that incandescent has a way to go before it is finished.

Doug


----------



## Jarl (Feb 13, 2008)

Incans have an advantage in mid to high power applications, especially where space is limitted, ruling out multi-LED. Also, they're simpler and cheaper than HID which have higher efficiency.

IMO incans will always have their place, especially for cheaper, high power applications (and for reference, I'm an LED whore, but I really want an A2!)


----------



## Taboot (Feb 13, 2008)

yellow said:


> compared to what? :thinking:


 
- There are a great many incan solutions that are brighter than similarly priced LED solutions you must admit. Perhaps for some, brightness and/or cost is more important than runtime.


----------



## Supernam (Feb 14, 2008)

To me, everything looks more natural with incandescent light. Incands also have a lot more "punch" regardless of whether they are being compared to an LED with more lumens. LED light seems to "get lost" in anything other than white walls. 

Obviously, for camping/emergency usages, an LED is a must for it's efficiency. However, if your light goes home everyday, a rechargeable incandescent can make you very happy.


----------



## ZMZ67 (Feb 14, 2008)

I favor LEDs most of the time because of much better overall performance but there are still times when I want an Incan.Details are sometimes "washed out" in LED light outdoors.Incans provide better contrast in an outdoor environment to my eyes.
Price can also be a factor.Some inexpensive incans provide very good throw even though thier overall output is not impressive.Overdriving common bulbs can also improve output.


----------



## MikeSalt (Feb 14, 2008)

90%+ of my flashlights are LED and the emitters are getting very good indeed. Colour rendition and even fog-cutting with a Cree Q5 WC are outstanding

That is until I pull out my Mag 2D Roar of the Pelican. Approximately 30 watts of overdriven, incandescent goodness. When you use one of these, the question, 'Why use incandescent?' pretty much answers itself.

But it is a short-run wonder, 20 minutes being typical. You would never use it as your primary light, that would be LED, but it is your 'investigate what that rustle at 300 feet' light.


----------



## MikeSalt (Feb 14, 2008)

Just thought of another reason. If your LED overheats, or your driver board fries and you are out in the field, what can you do? Most LED flashlights are non user servicable. In an incandescent, it is usually direct-drive, so 99% of in-field repairs are as simple as changing a bulb.


----------



## scott.cr (Feb 14, 2008)

Incandescents have more bandwidth than LEDs... look at the_LED_Museum's spectrographic analyses of LEDs HERE and HERE. Their output is very narrowband compared to an incandescent.

It would seem to me the broader spectrographic output of an incan allows more "information" of the illuminated subject to be sent to the eye.


----------



## cal..45 (Feb 14, 2008)

no reason for me to use incans anymore. sorry, but to me this technology is an outdated anachronism. LED is in my opinion the way to go and we have just discovered the tip of the iceberg yet.... 


regards, holger


----------



## 2xTrinity (Feb 14, 2008)

I'm still waiting for someone to come out with an efficient multi-phosphor LED with a color temperature of around 4100k. That would be an ideal white light source IMO. There would be no significant "gaps" in the spectrum, and the color temp would right in between the "cool white" LEDs (5500k usually) and the "warm white" incan lamps (3000k usually).

I have found that taking LED and incan lights with similar beam patterns and output and combining the beams results in color rendition is preferable to either one or the other, so it's not a simple "either-or" IMO.


----------



## jugg2 (Feb 14, 2008)

> I have found that taking LED and incan lights with similar beam patterns and output and combining the beams results in color rendition is preferable to either one or the other, so it's not a simple "either-or" IMO.


 
That is very interesting, I will have to try it.


----------



## RichS (Feb 14, 2008)

I am relatively new to this forum (Oct 07), and I have purchased many LED lights due to their size and efficiency for the output they give.

But I continue to be absolutely shocked at the back and forth debating about color/contrast/clarity rendition of incandescents and LEDs outdoors. I have shown several of my friends my lights, and they are all impressed with the DBS throw, etc., but not one of them thinks for 1 second that even my best LED light light lets you see better, clearer, and closer to daytime clarity/color than any of my incandescent lights.

Here is a long range shot (260') with my brightest LED, a DBS and my Mag85.

Try to look past the output since the Mag85 clearly outclasses the DBS, but just look at the ground lit by the spill on each. Look at the barn. My goodness, am I the only one to notice that LED lights don't render colors anywhere close to an incandescent?!

DBS 3SD Q5 SMO






Mag85





Here are some closer range photos (50') from a CL1H Q5 OP and a SL TL-3 Carly 1499 which are closer in output. I mean, is it really just me or does the LED "gray" or white-wash everything out?? I'm mean, where's all that "LED color rendering"??

CL1H 3SD Q5 OP





SL TL-3 Carly 1499





When I see these types of threads regarding LED vs. incandescent lights, it almost seems like people posting aren't actually taking their lights outdoors. Because I know I have pretty decent eyesight, and it's not even a question of which illuminates better and more clearly - incandescent all the way. But if it's a question of extra runtime needed, pocketability, pure output for size, then and only then, and LED fits the bill.


----------



## cal..45 (Feb 15, 2008)

@ richs,

while your mag85 is certainly an impressive example of how good a incan still can be, it is nevertheless an irrelevant piece of technology. the lifetime of the bulb alone makes it totally uninteresting for 99,9999% of all people, but the very few true hard core flashaholics found on this forum ( I can't consider me that) 

lets put it simple: 

where can I buy a DBS? answer:  here 

where can I buy a mag85? answer:  here 

certainly one can buy all the parts needed and starts building a lamp that outshines and outthrows every commercial available flashlight, but is it economical? no its not. is it practical? I wouldn't think so

certainly I can grap my 10 euro 1.000.000cp discounter light and outshine my fenix P2D and my dereelight DBS but does it fit in my pocket? no it doesn't. does it have good runtime? no it doesn't. is it lightweight? no its not.

just put an textured reflector onto your DBS rather than a smooth one and give the warmer R2 led a try and the results are probably not so dramatic anymore as shown in your comparison pictures. just my 2 cents....


regards, holger


----------



## jugg2 (Feb 15, 2008)

The Mag85 is a rechargeable setup, it is very practical IMHO. My 2D 5761 only has 15 min. runtime, but it is rechargeable, and I have 4 sets of batteries for it; so basically I have a 900+ torch lumen light that runs for an hour. Also, I can easily carry it in my back pocket. My new setup runs at 450 bulb lumens for around 45 min., no single emitter LED can match either of those stats yet. Don't get me wrong, I like LEDs, great for small EDC lights, or small high output lights (Fenix T-1), they are perfect when space is a premium. I just prefer rechargeable incans...


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 15, 2008)

I am a 99% LED guy, but I tried out my wife's new M4 with LOLA the other night, and it is just awesome. LED lights, unless they are multi LED lights just can not match the awesome light output at night that some of the Incans produce. LED lights are either too "spotty" or too "floody", not having that rich volume of light that reaches way out there and lights up a huge area. That is what an incan like the M4 does for me.

Bill


----------



## 2xTrinity (Feb 15, 2008)

> Here are some closer range photos (50') from a CL1H Q5 OP and a SL TL-3 Carly 1499 which are closer in output. I mean, is it really just me or does the LED "gray" or white-wash everything out?? I'm mean, where's all that "LED color rendering"??


Cool white LEDs, which are especailly strong in the blue portion of the spectrum, also aren't as usefll outdoors because just about everything is either red, yellow or green, there is very little blue. This means cool-white LEDs tend to render things as what I would describe as "greenish grey". Neutral or warm white LEDs on the other hand would be much more effective outdoors, but unfortunately we've yet to see very many available in group buys, or packaged in lights. I think people would like them. Also, the efficiency loss compared to "cool white" is surprisingly small -- the best cool white Cree is R2 bin, the best warm white is Q2, about 20% lower output. Outdoors, where things reflect "warm" light better, they would likely be more efficient.

Incandescent strongly favors the red. I find what I see is similar to what I'd see outdoors wearing blue-blocking sunglasses. Contrast is excellent, but grass and trees appear a lot "deader" under incandescent light than natural light. While I think hotwires are excellent at well over 3000k, and nearly flat discharge curves, but "generic" incandescent flashlights such as stock maglites tend to run too yellow (under 2700k) for a major part of the runtime. I believe this extreme end of the spectrum tends to be pretty poor as far as color rendition is concerned. 

If you look at some of the beamshots of 4100k HID lights, those are different from either LED or incan. Color under that light appears fairly close to what I see during the daytime, and there is certainly no lack for overall output. There are still some spectral deficiencies (flower that are saturated red or saturated blue look a bit "off") but aside from a few special cases, overall color rendition is quite good, and white balance is certainly closer to natural light.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 15, 2008)

cal..45 said:


> @ richs,
> 
> while your mag85 is certainly an impressive example of how good a incan still can be, it is nevertheless an irrelevant piece of technology.



Strong incandescents are relevant to many people that find themselves wanting to see things at distance in the wild and in the city.




cal..45 said:


> @ richs,
> the lifetime of the bulb alone makes it totally uninteresting for 99,9999% of all people, but the very few true hard core flashaholics found on this forum



Sometimes if they see a good incan in action they'll be interested. I'm on a huge walking bridge that goes over the river and runs along the side of a mountain. I spot a deer rooting around about 60 feet away on a ridge. A nice couple comes walking up and stops to enjoy that shot of nature. "Where did you get that flashlight? We can see that buck so clearly." The 2C Mag 1111 is what they were interested in. I hand it to the wife and let her shine it around in the woods tracking the little buck. "That's what we need." Easily pocketable and 700 lumens pumping out a banquet of spectral colors in its beam.

Here's an interesting thing:

Take the test: _The color of light, imagery and validity of perspective_

*Some people like the little test.*


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 15, 2008)

Why?.... Two words:

Surefire M6. :thumbsup:


----------



## lctorana (Feb 15, 2008)

Because a torch that gives me a MILE of throw AND 100 hours of battery life will do me.


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 15, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Why?.... Two words:
> 
> Surefire M6. :thumbsup:



feck that. the A2. 

Mmm..regulated incandescent.....


----------



## RichS (Feb 15, 2008)

cal..45 said:


> @ richs,
> 
> while your mag85 is certainly an impressive example of how good a incan still can be, it is nevertheless an irrelevant piece of technology. the lifetime of the bulb alone makes it totally uninteresting for 99,9999% of all people, but the very few true hard core flashaholics found on this forum ( I can't consider me that)
> 
> ...


 
Ok, forget the Mag85. You seemed to overlook the lower close range beam shot with my Streamlight TL-3. To make it economical, I simply droped in 2 rechargables and a better bulb. I think 99,9999% are easily able to afford and do that. It's cheaper than both LED lights in the above comparison. Again - I already mentioned LEDs have advantages - bulb life and efficiency is one of them - no one is debating that. But when it comes to the quality of light it puts out outdoors, I'm surprised that there's even a debate. Those photos are not a camera trick, that is what I see using each of them outdoors with my own eyes. 

Ok, so this incandescent (TL-3) is pocketable, has a clip, cheap to run, and renders colors 99,999% better than the LED it's compared to. This rendering is not just for looking at pretty colors, but by my eye it aids in actual "closer to daylight seeing" by providing better overall perspective, depth and clarity to the object/area.

Why use incandescent? Wow.........wait, am I on CPF?


----------



## chuck4570 (Feb 15, 2008)

Better bright white is not always the answer, all it take to appreciate a good incan light is to have a few early mornings or late evenings of a light mist, light snow, or fog. A high powered LED will just throw up a wall of blinding light, where a good incan will penetrate through it all. Firefighters use incan. lights for this purpose because it works on smoke as well.


----------



## Taboot (Feb 15, 2008)

RichS said:


> Why use incandescent? Wow.........wait, am I on CPF?


 
amen. 

They think we are cavemen using clubs, to their spacemen using lightsabres. 

I for one, welcome our new-fangled overlords wielding dim, blue penlights.


----------



## Carpenter (Feb 15, 2008)

Just the other foggy night, my son and I took an after dark walk. Me with my M3T and him with his 4AA LED (Boy Scout cheapy). It didn't take long before we wanted to switch with me because of how poorly his light was doing in the fog compared to my _"out of date incan"_ M3T. The M3T was giving the 100ft lightsabre effect as well as reaching out to things his light would normally reach if not for the fog.

I honestly am tired of all the threads that keep popping up asking why anyone still uses incan. Obviously, the op didn't search the forum before asking this question since the same answers are giving and the same issues are thrashed over and over again with no changes. Yes, incan is on it's way out based on how they suck power from batteries like a vacuum cleaner, however each technology has a purpose in my life as well as many others. 

I carry a SF L1 Cree on my belt, but also have an A2 in my pocket. Both get used frequently based on what environment I am in. I use my L1 more indoors when trying not to step on the dogs sweaky dogs in the middle of the night or even when I'm too lazy to flick a lightswitch. The A2 is used outdoors when walking the dog or anything else outdoors.


----------



## nobody (Feb 15, 2008)

RichS - Your photos clearly demonstrate what a LOT of us already know.

*LED's are not the best choice for everything.*


----------



## RichS (Feb 15, 2008)

Carpenter said:


> Yes, incan is on it's way out based on how they suck power from batteries like a vacuum cleaner, however each technology has a purpose in my life as well as many others.


 
Although I appreciate some of the points you are making, I highly disagree with this statement. I bought most of the latest/greatest highly acclaimed LED lights (below) before I stumbled onto the incandescent forum and found out what a strong incandescent could do. For about $100, you can tweak a mag light that will illuminate the outdoors about 3x better than any LED I own. Even lower output incans reproduce color and provide so much clarity, I rarely want to go outdoors with any of my LEDs. 

It even seems like the more output you get with an LED, the more it washes out. Although it seems like I can hit a target a mile away with my DBS, it doesn't do much good because I can't distinguish what it is hitting. Not so with incandescents - just the opposite. Until LEDs can hold a candle to incandescents in this regard, how can one state that they are on their way out?? This forum is about candlepower, not simply candlepower efficiency. 

I think we may need a spinoff called CPEF (Candlepower Efficiency Forums) for those that care only about efficiency rather than the quality and usability of the light that comes out of the front. What really boggles my mind is that some of the same people complaining about replacing batteries and bulbs in an incandescent buy a new $60-$100 LED light every time the latest/greatest comes out. How is that saving any money??


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Feb 15, 2008)

RichS said:


> Although I appreciate some of the points you are making, I highly disagree with this statement. I bought most of the latest/greatest highly acclaimed LED lights (below) before I stumbled onto the incandescent forum and found out what a strong incandescent could do. For about $100, you can tweak a mag light that will illuminate the outdoors about 3x better than any LED I own. Even lower output incans reproduce color and provide so much clarity, I rarely want to go outdoors with any of my LEDs.
> 
> It even seems like the more output you get with an LED, the more it washes out. Although it seems like I can hit a target a mile away with my DBS, it doesn't do much good because I can't distinguish what it is hitting. Not so with incandescents - just the opposite. Until LEDs can hold a candle to incandescents in this regard, how can one state that they are on their way out?? This forum is about candlepower, not simply candlepower efficiency.
> 
> I think we may need a spinoff called CPEF (Candlepower Efficiency Forums) for those that care only about efficiency rather than the quality and usability of the light that comes out of the front of a light. What really boggles my mind is that some of the same people complaining about replacing batteries and bulbs in an incandescent buy a new $60-$100 LED light every time the latest/greatest comes out. How is that saving any money??


+1

Great post!


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 15, 2008)

What is of a significant level of discourteousness found sometimes from the OP of these type threads is a lack of willingness to return to the thread. It would seem to equate to someone catching the elevator on the 4th floor to go to the 5th floor and intentionally farting as they stepped off.

From the OP's profile we have this.



degarb's Profile said:


> *Favorite incandescent light*:Trash went out, so don't know brand.
> 
> *Favorite Dealer*:One where you can return overrated crappy lamps that don't deliver battery life or concentrated light.



There was never an intention of discussing anything or learning anything because incandescent lights are trash. This thread starter seems to be just purposely stirring things up. With the debatable yet possible exception of Icebreak, all the responders have been polite. I would like to see this thread remain open to give the OP an opportunity to explain the intent of the original post. Meanwhile, I believe there may be a credibility issue.


----------



## Taboot (Feb 15, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> What is of a significant level of discourteousness found sometimes from the OP of these type threads is a lack of willingness to return to the thread. It would seem to equate to someone catching the elevator on the 4th floor to go to the 5th floor and intentionally farting as they stepped off.
> 
> From the OP's profile we have this.
> 
> ...



+1 - Here is quote from a past post of his https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2202962#post2202962:
I paint professionally, and require all men to use 2000watts of halogen in Night time inside (700 to 1500 watts in day), with 1 watt luxeon on head at all times (since you are in shadow of work lights and only a moving light can truly show all texture imperfections). My theory being 3000 watts of halogen at 8 to 10 foot from wall, equals daylight outside. Also, a 1 watt Luxeon led with good reflector gives outside daylight brightness at 4 foot distance for 3 in diameter. And on sunny days with snow around house, a well windowed room can allow over 2000 watt/10 foot halogen equivalent onto that one imperfect wall, yet was belovedly checked over twenty times. Furthermore, that 60 watt incandescent bulb, 6 inches from wall, can show imperfections a 1500 watt-10 foot distant halogen might never show.

Sounds like he already has reasons to use incandescents


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 15, 2008)

Never mind the OP. Sometimes a thread can get a life of its own. Some good stuff posted here.

Bill


----------



## SafetyBob (Feb 15, 2008)

Absolutely a good thread. For those that posted the photos, thank you so much. I think those of use who have spent alot of energy trying to get every last lumen out of an LED for the longest amount of time have done just as much for the flashlight community as have those who have absolutely pressed the limits of these [email protected] with those incredible incans that light up half their cities. 

Everyone here on CPF is advancing the cause of creating incredible flashlights....some from commonly availble commercial parts....some from exotic materials. 

Those that say the general public could care less about high powered incans (or even high powered LEDs too), you are correct. That's why we have gathered here.....to advance our interests and skills in building the perfect flashlight.....mainly from the most generic flashlight out there. The bad part is that everytime someone builds the "best" new flashlight, LED or incan, someone ALWAYS comes up with something more spectacular. 

That makes us all better......and if the truth were known.....they are really jealeous of our "little" flashlight collections!!

How many of you can now use your lathe, mill, and/or soldering iron way better than you did before you came here? I know I am in that category, and I will never be able to thank each of you enough personally....that is until I make it to one of those CPF get-togethers!!

Bob E.


----------



## Taboot (Feb 15, 2008)

Bob,

Great post. I agree with you across the board.

Taboot


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 15, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Never mind the OP. Sometimes a thread can get a life of its own. Some good stuff posted here.
> 
> Bill



Absolutely. There's very good content in this thread. And thanks, Bill, for highlighting the positive. It's been an outstanding opportunity to talk about light and how we use it. That's always good.

Bob E. -

Tremendous post, sir.

It's known that there are copious ways for us to use light from 1 lumen and upward. We also know that sometimes it's a best practice strategy to use as little as possible for many reasons including not revealing one's location. Yet there is for me something very comforting about being able to "own the night" with a hand held tube putting out an extraordinarily powerful beam of high CRI incandescent light. I just brought this up because I haven't read your ROP thread yet so I'll just say it here. Congratulations!

- Jeff


----------



## adamlau (Feb 15, 2008)

Reminds me of the Supra vs Cobra vs LS6 posts I used to partake in. Chevy pushrods? Old technology. But able to put out big power. Turbochargers versus superchargers and so on and so forth. You have to appreciate all viewpoints in order to properly appreciate anything at all.


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 16, 2008)

With lights, I like all types! :twothumbs

If lights were women.... I'd be Hef!


----------



## Nos (Feb 16, 2008)

Agree, nice thread :twothumbs but another question to the colour rendering. 
do warm leds have a better?

and how is "neutral white" VS "warm white" 
or pure output compared to usable output in a foggy sourrounding?

like 2xTrinity said? does a warm Q2 beat a neutral white Q5 ? :shrug: 

and finally warm white led vs incan 

i would have done some tests, but i dont have a warm white torch, or incan i can but against my T1


----------



## Monocrom (Feb 16, 2008)

Nos said:


> .... and finally warm white led vs incan


 
If we're talking indoors, definitely warm white LED. Learned that while checking shipping containers. (One advantage of my job; I get to use my lights at work). 

If you don't need a great deal of throw, LEDs tend to be better when it comes to flood. 

Outdoors?.... Well, there are indeed a number of recognized LED Throwers out on the market. But for best throw; tough to compete with a high-output inca.


----------



## FlashInThePan (Feb 16, 2008)

NOS, the warmer-colored LEDs are definitely better outside. A recent camping trip really brought this home for me.

I own a few of McGizmo's McLuxIII PDs, each with a different LED inside. One of them has the UV1J (an ancient LuxIII!), which to my knowledge was the warmest LuxIII ever made. When I took it camping and fired it up alongside my Seoul-based PD, the difference was astonishing. Even though the two lights put out about the same number of lumens (my Seoul'ed PD is a reduced-output "mizer" version which is about as bright as the old Lux IIIs), the warmer UV1J made a huge difference in my ability to differentiate between tree branches, rocks, and just about every object in and around the camp site. The surroundings just seemed to "pop" right out. When used inside, of course, the UV1J looks yellow, and the Seoul looks nice and white. But for outside use, the UV1J was *by far* the best of any LED I owned...especially at a distance. (And let me tell you - I brought a LOT of LED-based lights!)

This comes with a disclaimer, of course - I *already* love incans, and prefer them for outside use. So I'm a bit biased here. But even variations of color temps in LEDs can help render outside objects better.

- FITP

P.S. Great points, everyone else. This thread just reaffirms a) why the incan is still a phenomenal light source for many uses, and b) CPF is such an awesome place. =)



Nos said:


> Agree, nice thread :twothumbs but another question to the colour rendering.
> do warm leds have a better?
> 
> and how is "neutral white" VS "warm white"
> ...


----------



## adamlau (Feb 16, 2008)

Posted a few beamshots in the post titled Beamshots: 1S vs. EO-9 vs. MN16 vs. MN21.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 16, 2008)

A couple of random thoughts on this:

1) LEDs are weak in red compared to incandescent but incandescent are weak in greens, blues, and especially violets. A few cool white emitters combined with a red emitter can give the best of both worlds. You get color rendering very similar to daylight, and better than either LED or incandescent alone, even better than warm white LEDs. So the assumption that incandescent renders _all_ colors better is false. It may work better than LED for certain rural outdoor areas, but indoors or in urban areas heavy with neutrals, blues, greens, etc. you miss a lot.

2) Yes, the best highly overdriven incandescents can be reasonably white, or at least white enough for your eye to be able to adjust. For a typical Maglight, or a household incandescent, forget about it. Those things are orange-yellow even if you stare at them for hours.

3) Efficiency. The best LEDs are obviously better, but throw in one red emitter per three or four white ones for better color and efficiency drops 20% or 30%. Add to that the fact that most LED lights operate at greater than 350 mA, and you probably have overall efficiency no better than the best overdriven incandescents. For now then I'll say efficiency is a wash, but LEDs will do much better underdriven. And you'll have useable light for hours as the battery runs down. My Fenix gives a good amount of light even when the AA Eneloop is all but empty. Not so for incandescent.

4) Light output. Here is really where incandescent makes sense. You can get a few hundred lumens with a single LED. You can get over a thousand with multiple LEDs. However, as with HIDs, there starts to become a cost issue after a while. There is no cheaper way to get thousands of lumens than with incandescent. The lamps may not last long, but the replacements are cheap enough. Note that we're talking strictly portable focused light apllications here. For diffuse, interior lighting incandescents haven't made sense in a long time, either in terms of efficiency or longevity. LED doesn't yet, either, but that's likely to change in a few years.

Note that I'm not a big fan of incandescent flashlights but I'll grudgingly admit they still have their uses. When LED emitters start to exceed 1000 lumens, get a little cheaper, and have better emission in the reds, then I'd say incandescents will be all but obsolete. As it is now, there only real niche use left is for certain portable, focused light applications with outputs in the hundreds to thousands of lumens.


----------



## z282z06 (Feb 16, 2008)

I am quite impressed with the differences in both incan and LED technology. While studying light in a different venue, specifically how water affects submarine plant growth. In the abscence of red spectrum light for instance, those beautiful red filame angel fishes look absolutely gray in color or lack there of! Literally a camoflage down below 20 feet or so, where the red spectrum can not penetrate. There is a book, now out of print by Martin Moe, that describes lighting in great detail. If you can find a copy I think many here would find it a good read.

When I got my L4, I shined it in my darkened closet in the dark room and then lit the E2e right next to it. The lack of color detail of the shirts when looking at the L4 surprised me to be quite frank. Sunlight carries the complete spectrum of light therefore making all colors visible, and for perception purposes makes it the most desireable color or temperature for our eyes to appreciate actual color. 

I don't like the fact that the incans burn out, but I don't see myself dumping my incans any time soon. What would be the large inconvenience of carrying an E2e head and a couple of bulbs as a back up? I see guys carrying enough batteries to jump start a car here.

As far as the OP's lack of presence, I see many people here that are quick to point out others foibles or perceived foibles anyway. Maybe the Op has a life and has to travel for work or some other commitment and can't chime in as aften as some would like him to. Maybe his current situation doesn't allow him 20 puls hours a day, like some on here, for reading and doing endless searches about subjects that may have been beaten to death here. A post is just like the Tv, don't like whats on change the channel or thread as it were. So what. I rarely pay attention to who is posting the posts I read unless it is something that enlightens me, or someone that just jumps right in to criticize. I have made a few posts and started a few threads I am sure have pissed off some thorobreds here, but it was never done with Malice. And with a few exceptions I am sure you could say that about many of the "stupid" or "rude" posts some here are quick to point out. 

I enjoy the CPF forum, and many others, but man some of you folks need to chill out, and quit taking everything so seriously.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 16, 2008)

FlashInThePan said:


> even variations of color temps in LEDs can help render outside objects better.



I've noticed the same effect. Even back when Dat2Zip's second run of sandwiches were delivered I got one that was warmer than others. It didn't seem quite as bright but when viewing multi-colored targets they "popped". My Malkoff Q5 seems to do a lot better than most of my other LEDs.

z282z06 -

The OP's activities where known before I posted comments. Please PM if further discussion is desired.

You've touched on something I think about quite a bit. Studying plant life in the ocean must have been a terrifically interesting pursuit. I consider what light does in a fresh water environment. One place I fish is 300 ft deep. The color of the water and the color of the sky effects the activities of the bass and crappie I'm after. To get a good presentation one thing we do is throw much further and deeper than we think they are, swimming and jigging the lure into the strike zone. It's interesting to note by the colors of the water, sky and lures how far the fish will swim out of the holding zone to chomp down on some lunch. On the river the usual winner is chartreuse. Sometimes just a little bit of red makes all the difference. Then some guy will show up with a bland gray and white lure and catch a few of each of the three species we are after in an hour. Of course fish see differently than we do and it's sometimes hard to figure out what colors they are looking for.

Another reason I use incandescents takes place while night fishing. One thing they can do that none of my LEDs can do very well is too help in observing fish spawning. It's interesting to see them 5 feet off shore and 2 feet deep wriggling about in the rocks, sand and mud creating clouds of silt. While in this mode they are uninterested in any of my menu items. However I can walk 50 feet upstream and throw 15 feet out and BAM, I'll get a fish. I like watching fish with a strong incan almost as much as I like catching them.

It's rainy and funky out today. The white bass should begin to run in a week or so. I'm still going out there to see if the hardcore guys are doing any good. Definitely a fluorescent cyan jig kind of day but you never know. A kid might show up with a Zebco, a cork and some dead minnows then proceed to smoke all of us.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Feb 16, 2008)

> 3) Efficiency. The best LEDs are obviously better, but throw in one red emitter per three or four white ones for better color and efficiency drops 20% or 30%.


I don't think efficiency drops that much, in multi emitter arrays I've done, The red LED consumes no more than 20% of the total power, and lumens/watt efficiency of red LEDs is more like 40-50% of the whites, not zero. So that should translate to more like a 10% efficiency drop.

Another nice alternative to LED + red is to actually blend equal parts incan and LED light. Efficiency is only slightly better than incan alone, but the resulting color output is better IMO. I'm considering doing a bike light using this method, with the ability to switch to incan alone (say for a foggy situation, or to prevent glare to others), or both (for more output, or if I need to be seen...)


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 16, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> I'm considering doing a bike light using this method, with the ability to switch to incan alone (say for a foggy situation, or to prevent glare to others), or both (for more output, or if I need to be seen...)



Build two please. 

When I shine a WA1111 Hotwire at a tree then enhance that beam by shining a Q5 at the same spot the return image is magnificent. I don't think a double headed hand-held would be very popular but I'd still like one with two 26mm optics/reflectors using this combination. Independent control would be nice. I'm thinking for your bike light you might be wanting closer to around 30W+ for the incan but I thought I'd mention the WA1111 because it works well in tandem operation with a Cree. I'm sure there are many combinations that would work well.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 17, 2008)

There's absolutely no reason to ever use an incan for anything. They totally suck. Anyone who uses them is an idiot. There....now are the LED Jockeys happy for a while again before starting another of these topics in the incan section?

:shakehead :devil:


----------



## Carpenter (Feb 17, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> There's absolutely no reason to ever use an incan for anything. They totally suck. Anyone who uses them is an idiot. There....now are the LED Jockeys happy for a while again before starting another of these topics in the incan section?
> 
> :shakehead :devil:


 
+1 Lux


----------



## yellow (Feb 17, 2008)

why not stop to compare apples to oranges?

saying a led is not good outdoors and having in mind an ROP as a "normal" incan (which it is not!),
is comparing these:










*but isnt the normal question of the original posters a comparison of 2 pc. CR123 lights?*
Somehow I always read "6P" and such.
Here the [email protected] wins easily! (+ offers more than double the runtime + can be dimmed, ...)
or do You all take Your M3s, ROPs, ..., as only and "best suited" lights to night hikes?


These two here are the lights other ppl than we flashaholics might bring to hikes. Who still wants the 2 AA incan? 







And finally, as such lights start to get into market:
anyone dares to offer its "better in the outdoors" 10-15 Watts incan a competition with something like this:





(they are both about 10 W, thus might be compared)

In future, the incan will be best in high drain / small size applications when runtime is not important, and will also still win the throw contest (but who really needs a small diameter dot at 100-150 meters and nothing else?)
yes, yes, not _this_ incan there, the 9N is not a spot light. Lets take the 9NT instead


----------



## Illum (Feb 17, 2008)

Monocrom said:


> Why?.... Two words:
> 
> Surefire M6. :thumbsup:



heh heh....the M6 with the MN15 beats the A2 both in color temperature and runtime....but for all turboheads, actual practical outdoor use is limited because of the absence in flood or spill:candle:


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 17, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> heh heh....the M6 with the MN15 beats the A2 both in color temperature and runtime....but for all turboheads, actual practical outdoor use is limited because of the absence in flood or spill:candle:



Playing arond with the M4 LOLA throwing to 50 yards and the spill is really good. What is neat is that the spot is large and not pointy, though, and this is interesting and maybe worth a thread of its own, the M4, using LOLA, with its turbohead throws an "oval" center beam, and the M4 LOLA using the KT1 turbohead throws a "round" center beam, both turboheads using 4 CR123's.

Bill


----------



## degarb (Feb 17, 2008)

Actually, I posted for enlightenment after googling to no luck. Subscribed, but cpf failed to notify me; I guessed no reply. I think I could learn alot from this board concerning color discernment. The other knee jerk replies were not helpful, and could learn from the reverse side.

I did a library search on Martin Moe and got two books on aquarium. Anything.

Also, the idea of combining different lights is something I've been playing with. My lux 3 is very red, my rebel is very yellow, my lux 1 is blue-white, my cree is florescent, my seoul is white with slight yellow. Combining gives surprising results. 

I don't hunt animals, rather color skips in paint jobs (many skips hide in some lighting, while not in other lighting--dynamic levels,angles,and colors of lighting, may be best) for about 10 hours on a typical day. Runtime is important. I can't see using a light that only gets 2 hours; I prefer nine to ten hours minimum for 3 AA cells. And led tech today isn't what is was 6 months ago, this is tip of iceberg. But we can't forget color.

Perhaps, someone can recomend a single AA light to use tactically for short bursts to supplement?

Also, what about halogen? CRI is supposed to be like incans.


----------



## EV_007 (Feb 17, 2008)

Why use incandescent? Better question is, Why not use an incandescent? jk

But seriously, even though there have been huge leaps in LED advancement compared to incans, the warmer, wider spectrum light of the incan cannot be denied, especially outdoors under adverse atmospheric conditions as mentioned earlier. 

True, more power is required to get an incan to "shine" but when it does, boy does it ever.

My own uses:
*
LEDs* ideal for indoors or short range outdoor use.
*
Incans *for outdoor long range use espceially good for cutting through fog, rain, snow and smoke.

As many high end LEDs in my collection, I just placed an order for two incans the other day.

Why incandescents? WHY NOT? :twothumbs


----------



## HBlight (Feb 18, 2008)

EV_007 said:


> *LEDs* ideal for indoors or short range outdoor use.
> 
> *Incans *for outdoor long range use espceially good for cutting through fog, rain, snow and smoke.


 
I like this definition very much. It is short but accurate!!!!

HBlight
***No Guns***No Firearms***


----------



## BMF (Feb 18, 2008)

Well, I've read too many "color" posts in this thread but if I remember correctly there's thread someone needed a work light to get out the best of color and they considered getting an OTT Light ...


----------



## adamlau (Feb 18, 2008)

SilverFox mentioned that his wife preferred the use of the OTT-LITE TrueColor Rechargeable Battery Task Lamp, IIRC. I was influenced by that very post to purchase the OTT-LITE TrueColor Jupiter Magnifier Lamp ( Moonstone Grey). Although protective eyewear is always recommended, the magnifier of the lamp doubles as a shield. An excellent buy and highly recommended :thumbsup:


----------



## EssLight (Feb 18, 2008)

degarb said:


> Actually, I posted for enlightenment after googling to no luck. Subscribed, but cpf failed to notify me; I guessed no reply. I think I could learn alot from this board concerning color discernment. The other knee jerk replies were not helpful, and could learn from the reverse side.


I think a number of the knee jerk replies came about because of the title of the thread, and you didn't include information about your specific application in the original post. But now you have given us a better idea what you are looking for.


degarb said:


> I don't hunt animals, rather color skips in paint jobs (many skips hide in some lighting, while not in other lighting--dynamic levels,angles,and colors of lighting, may be best) for about 10 hours on a typical day. Runtime is important. I can't see using a light that only gets 2 hours; I prefer nine to ten hours minimum for 3 AA cells. And led tech today isn't what is was 6 months ago, this is tip of iceberg. But we can't forget color.
> 
> Perhaps, someone can recomend a single AA light to use tactically for short bursts to supplement?


I don't think you can find a single AA incan light that is bright enough to help in your application. Even if you converted it to 14500, you would be quite limited on runtime.

My suggestion is to consider a 2xCR123 sized light. Again, the limitation is short runtime, and you would be feeding it new batteries frequently. So going rechargeable would be the best route. One possibility is a Wolf Eyes 6A, it runs on an 18650. It is still not something you can leave switched on all the time during a 10 hour day, but using it "tactically for short bursts", it could help you hunt paint flaws. The quoted runtime for a 6A is 60 minutes. If you picked up an additional battery, you would have 120 minutes of use per day, which equates to 12 minutes of "hunting" time per hour. I don't know if that would work for you, but that's my suggestion.

EssLight


----------



## js (Feb 19, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> There's absolutely no reason to ever use an incan for anything. They totally suck. Anyone who uses them is an idiot. There....now are the LED Jockeys happy for a while again before starting another of these topics in the incan section?
> 
> :shakehead :devil:



hehe. LOL!'

This topic has of coursed been discussed at great length in other threads. Here is one of them, in case anyone wants to do more reading on the subject:

 What is the point for incandescent???!?!?!?!111


----------



## Taboot (Feb 19, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> There's absolutely no reason to ever use an incan for anything. They totally suck. Anyone who uses them is an idiot. There....now are the LED Jockeys happy for a while again before starting another of these topics in the incan section?
> 
> :shakehead :devil:



Amen. I am an incanidiot.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 19, 2008)

Why use incandescent? Blood Tracking.

Perspective and perception is a strong factor in light preference. My perception is that incandescent light is better for wet blood to some small yet perceptible degree and for dried blood to a large degree.

Here are a few poorly composed photos. They are from a borrowed Canon Rebel EOS that I didn't know how to operate. Looks like there's some color correction going on with the incandescent and maybe just a little bit with the white LED.

The target is a black and white photo copy of a newspaper. On the newspaper is a mostly dry drop of blood, a wet drop of blood and the words "Red Ink" written by a Pilot G2 5mm red pen.

The intent was to try to get similar lux applied to the drops of blood. The first photo is using a single red nichia very close. The second photo is using a Cree Q5 from a Malkoff in a Z3. The third photo is using a Lumens Factory E0-9L in a Pila GL3. In real life the return images are fairly close to the photos but as mentioned the incandescent seems a little orange in the spill area. In real life the incan shows its value on the dried blood. Much more color return. Someone mentioned that there's more backscattering/reflection with the Q5 pic which is true. The red nichia pic is almost exactly what is seen in real life. It washes everything out in red so there is little chance to see color variation between the blood and its surroundings. I'm typing fast (for me) but wanted to be clear that in real life the Malkoff Q5 does just fine with the wet blood and it is competing with a 450 lumen incan although the incan is slightly off target in an attempt to attain a similar intensity or lux. The incan does significantly better with the mostly dried, slightly tacky blood.


Red Nichia







Cree Q5






Lumens Factory E0-9L


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 20, 2008)

Carpenter said:


> Just the other foggy night, my son and I took an after dark walk. Me with my M3T and him with his 4AA LED (Boy Scout cheapy). It didn't take long before we wanted to switch with me because of how poorly his light was doing in the fog compared to my _"out of date incan"_ M3T. The M3T was giving the 100ft lightsabre effect as well as reaching out to things his light would normally reach if not for the fog.


Hmmm... Google... _Hmmm._ US$300 lightsabre versus Boy Scout cheapie. Right. :shakehead :ironic: These anecdotal stories (either way) get a bit tiresome when people keep on comparing apples and poodles.



RichS said:


> I bought most of the latest/greatest highly acclaimed LED lights (below) ...
> What really boggles my mind is that some of the same people complaining about replacing batteries and bulbs in an incandescent buy a new $60-$100 LED light every time the latest/greatest comes out. How is that saving any money??


:thinking: OK...



SafetyBob said:


> Those that say the general public could care less about high powered incans (or even high powered LEDs too), you are correct.


Wouldn't they be correct if they said the general public could *not* care less? Are you saying they are saying they _can_ care less?



degarb said:


> Also, what about halogen? CRI is supposed to be like incans.


That makes sense, because halogen incandescent bulbs are... incandescent bulbs.

Icebreak, in the Q5 shot it looks like you've got direct light bounce off the dried blood spot. Is that right?


----------



## RichS (Feb 20, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Hmmm... Google... _Hmmm._
> 
> Right. :shakehead :ironic:
> 
> :thinking: OK...


Awesome! Hey TorchBoy, I really appreciate you adding value to this thread. I just knew that a highly enlightened Flashaholic* like you with almost 2,100 posts would help to clarify why there is still obvious value in incandescent technology even with the advancements in LED technology. 

I mean, my dumb posts with the pictures showing output and color comparisons of two of the best of each were really ridiculous now that I see the kind of insights you were able to add.

Thanks for letting me share the same forum with you!!

:bow::bow::bow::bow:


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 20, 2008)

Ooh, _that's_ sarcy.

But seriously, since you've shown yourself to be good at taking comparison photos - and having appropriately similar torches to make some point to it - would you mind doing me a favour, regarding something I've been wondering about for a while? Take two outdoor shots with ideal white balances, rather than the same for both. I figure our eyes automatically adjust to what colour we're seeing, so if we don't have two lights being used at the same time we'll be less bothered than typical comparison shots might indicate.

Cheers.


----------



## RichS (Feb 20, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Ooh, _that's_ sarcy.
> 
> But seriously, since you've shown yourself to be good at taking comparison photos - and having appropriately similar torches to make some point to it - would you mind doing me a favour, regarding something I've been wondering about for a while? Take two outdoor shots with ideal white balances, rather than the same for both. I figure our eyes automatically adjust to what colour we're seeing, so if we don't have two lights being used at the same time we'll be less bothered than typical comparison shots might indicate.
> 
> Cheers.


Thanks, I thought that was pretty good...:laughing:

Yep, I'd also like to see the outcome using the most appropriate white balances for each, to give each light a fair shake. Although I'm not sure which is best for LED vs. Incandescent. It seems that most use the "sunlight" white balance setting for LED beamshots, so I am assuming this is best for LED. But what would be considered most appropriate for incandescent? It looks like my camera (Fuji F30) gives me the choice of sunlight, shade, 3 florescent modes, and incandescent.


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 20, 2008)

Manual white balance on a piece of paper first? :shrug:


----------



## LukeA (Feb 20, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> Icebreak, in the Q5 shot it looks like you've got direct light bounce off the dried blood spot. Is that right?



I said something about that in the thread the pic was originally posted in. I never got a good reply.


----------



## Chrontius (Feb 21, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> What is of a significant level of discourteousness found sometimes from the OP of these type threads is a lack of willingness to return to the thread. It would seem to equate to someone catching the elevator on the 4th floor to go to the 5th floor and intentionally farting as they stepped off.
> 
> From the OP's profile we have this.
> 
> ...



I'd like to see this thread remain open because it provided useful information. I don't honestly maintain any incandescent lights, having switched everything over to LED - my last incandescent light (not counting 12v searchlights) was a 2xAA Mini-Mag that frankly sucked batteries (and everything else) without providing useful amounts of light. 2004 FL hurricane season hit, and I switched to a third-generation Inova X5 (Twisty head -> twisty tailcap with momentary button -> smoothed-out side ridges -> Nichia diodes) and never looked back - apparently I missed out on some things transitioning to solid-state.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 21, 2008)

Torchboy -

The crop of nits is always in high production when perception is at the core of a subject. Pickins is easy.




TorchBoy said:


> Wouldn't they be correct if they said the general public could *not* care less? Are you saying they are saying they can care less?



It's a good thing *SafetyBob* didn't misspell a word or say "irrigardless" because that would totally annihilate the value of his point of view.



TorchBoy said:


> Icebreak, in the Q5 shot it looks like you've got direct light bounce off the dried blood spot. Is that right?



Yes. Most of that reflection can be attributed to the harsh beam angle. That's what these words were supposed to mean:



Icebreak said:


> Someone mentioned that there's more backscattering/reflection with the Q5 pic which is true.





LukeA said:


> I said something about that in the thread the pic was originally posted in. I never got a good reply.




LukeA-

My apologies for such a feeble attempt at a "good" reply. It's possible that I don't know what a good reply is. Here's our previous conversation:



Icebreak said:


> Again, my own perception:
> 
> We know blue turns blood black and UV requires luminol.
> 
> To my eyes red LEDs wash the color red out of every thing. Try a red LED on a road map. To illustrate this wash-out, I borrowed a friend's Canon a few minutes ago. Below you'll see images of a black and white copy of a news magazine. On the border of an indistinguishable photo on that copy you'll see three targets. One is a drop of almost dried blood. One is a drop of fresh blood. The other target is the words "Red ink" written in red ink. The test is not perfect because we are using different intensities of light. I got the red LED right next to the targets, pointed the white LED right at targets and pointed the incan below the targets in an attempt to equal the playing field. The test shows close to what my eyes see. The incan seems less yellow/orange in real life. The photos do demonstrate what images these frequencies of light will return from the targets fairly well.





LukeA said:


> I don't see the incan as being really better than the Q5.





Icebreak said:


> Much of this is individual perception. For me, seeing the red in the dried blood tells me the image is returning more information. If trying to find a wet blood trail it appears that the Malkoff Devices M60 Q5 would do fine. For you and your individual perception the Cree LED works fine and your perception is 100% valid.
> 
> For other folks the red LED might be the ticket. My eyes perceive less than useful information from its image return.





LukeA said:


> Also the Q5 image is glaring off of the dried blood, and the incan one isn't. That makes a difference.





Icebreak said:


> I see that now. Good observation. And yet where it is not glaring I'm not getting an image return with as much information. Let me go check in the real world again.
> 
> BRB.
> 
> ...



Challenges are good so thanks for that. The best I could do in this case was, in a moment of frustration, stab myself in the forehead and flail about in excruciating pain hoping that a couple of drops of blood would fall heroically to land perfectly on the border of a black and white back-ground, post a couple of marginally useful pictures and then proceed to fumble around on the keyboard trying to explain my perception. Those words can be understood as a description of what I saw...or not. It could be that I went to all that trouble just to be joshing everyone. As was mentioned, the best way to find out for yourself is to do a real world test. A test a little less intense than mine should do just fine. 

OT - Your sigline is righteous.


----------



## jlomein (Feb 21, 2008)

I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the advantage of a beam that gives off heat? You can't fry a bug with an LED...


----------



## SureAddicted (Feb 21, 2008)

jlomein said:


> You can't fry a bug with an LED...


 


How many lumens do you need to fry a bug?

Steve


----------



## KeyGrip (Feb 21, 2008)

Depends on the bug. MacTech cooked an ant (or a tick?) with a 9P once...


----------



## SureAddicted (Feb 21, 2008)

KeyGrip said:


> Depends on the bug. MacTech cooked an ant (or a tick?) with a 9P once...



Was that with the P90 or P91 LA?

Steve


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 21, 2008)

SureAddicted said:


> How many lumens do you need to fry a bug?
> 
> Steve



No flashlight needed. Just a magnifying glass and a sunny day. My brother and I would have contests when we were young seeing who could fry the most ants.

There is also the reflector/focus advantage that incans have since they move in and out of the reflector....throw is important. Admittedly, the aspheric lens LED lights are also nice, but are a very tiny beamspot on tight focus.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 21, 2008)

RichS said:


> Thanks for letting me share the same forum with you!!
> 
> :bow::bow::bow::bow:



Now, was that so hard? Good for you, knowing your place in the pecking order. It's about time one of you noobies was put in his place; coming around here with all your fancy flashlights and fancy equipment and fancy ideas and fancy talk and such. Well you sure got your comeuppance didn't ya? So there. Ugh. :nana:






Nice beam shots and presentation, BTW.


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 21, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> Yes. Most of that reflection can be attributed to the harsh beam angle.


OK, so you were shining it in the wrong place, from the wrong place. That reflection might be quite eye-catching. I don't think blood reflects like that when it's completely dry.



Icebreak said:


> The best I could do in this case was, in a moment of frustration, stab myself in the forehead and flail about in excruciating pain hoping that a couple of drops of blood would fall heroically to land perfectly on the border of a black and white back-ground, post a couple of marginally useful pictures and then proceed to fumble around on the keyboard trying to explain my perception.


oo: Don't beat yourself up over it.  A pinprick to the left thumb would probably do better. You wouldn't get blood in your eyes as you typed, and you would still be able to touch-type.


----------



## TorchBoy (Feb 21, 2008)

jlomein said:


> You can't fry a bug with an LED...


I've given this one some thought, and I think it should be quite do-able. Aim the LED down, crank it up to 1 amp, add a drop or two extra virgin olive oil - the thing gets pretty hot pretty quickly - and drop in/on the bug. Fried. QED. :tinfoil:


----------



## Fird (Feb 21, 2008)

My incans belong in my lamps, which are connected to outlets, which supply plenty of power most of the time (it's when they don't that my LED lights come out and supplement.)

I'd love to have a regulated incan P60 for my CL1H V3.0, I'd buy it if I could find it.  but I have one reservation which will never allow me to use an incan for an emergency situation:

--begin scenario---
[room lights go out suddenly, or any other reason for needing a flashlight goes here]
I smile confidently as i draw my lithium breathing incandescent lumen-belcher from my belt holster. ::click... POP:: I cease smiling, and begin to wonder why I didn't just leave the stupid LED module in place..
--end scenario--

Fird


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 21, 2008)

Fird said:


> I'd love to have a regulated incan P60 for my CL1H V3.0



Me too.


----------



## KeyGrip (Feb 22, 2008)

Fird said:


> --begin scenario---
> [room lights go out suddenly, or any other reason for needing a flashlight goes here]
> I smile confidently as i draw my lithium breathing incandescent lumen-belcher from my belt holster. ::click... POP:: I cease smiling, and begin to wonder why I didn't just leave the stupid LED module in place..
> --end scenario--



But what if the same thing happens with the LED? Just a thought. By the way, I believe it was a P91. Also, as for LEDs not being able to cook anything, if you put an ant on my KL4, it'd be toast in five seconds.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 22, 2008)

TorchBoy said:


> OK, so you were shining it in the wrong place, from the wrong place. That reflection might be quite eye-catching. I don't think blood reflects like that when it's completely dry



This tangential strategy to devalue the reported perspective is almost genius. And yet it indicates an unwillingness to entertain a larger scope of view. So, by contrast of baseline reasoning, your rebuttal is actually adding credibility to the reported perspective on how well incandescent light fares in returning an image of blood.


----------



## sed6 (Feb 22, 2008)

Why indeed?


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 22, 2008)

Sed6 -

To know why, well there's much that has been evidenced in this thread so far. However, it might be good to take a look at this little test to gain a better understanding of light and preference:

*Introduction*

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.

*
Here is a *mildly entertaining, somewhat annoying* "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.

* 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


* 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.

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 128 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 makes 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.


----------



## sed6 (Feb 22, 2008)

Mmm...a well thought out response. Clearly there are instances where the spectrum of light from an incan would be useful. I see a trend toward some 'warmer' color LED for better outdoor rendition. I wondered why my doctor uses an expensive incan bulb in his wall mounted eye/ear inspection light.


----------



## jlomein (Feb 22, 2008)

KeyGrip said:


> Also, as for LEDs not being able to cook anything, if you put an ant on my KL4, it'd be toast in five seconds.



Oh I can definitely agree the KL4 gets insanely hot in the hand lol...but my point was that the beam of incans is what gets hot. You can cook a bug without the bug even touching the flashlight. The beam that emits from an LED doesn't give off any heat.


----------



## spoonrobot (Feb 22, 2008)

This forum is so much more sarcastic and caustic than it used to be. That said, personal preference dictates why I use incandescents.

I like incandescents for reading and long term use because LEDs tend to give me a headache if I use them for longer than a half hour.

Incans are also nice because they have a light source that can be easily changed should it malfunction. Carrying back-up LED engines is much more costly and difficult than carrying 2-3 bulbs when exploring.

I like both.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 22, 2008)

sed6 said:


> Mmm...a well thought out response. Clearly there are instances where the spectrum of light from an incan would be useful. I see a trend toward some 'warmer' color LED for better outdoor rendition. I wondered why my doctor uses an expensive incan bulb in his wall mounted eye/ear inspection light.



Thanks, Scott. On a side note, next time you are in your GP's, Dentist's or Otolaryngologist's office; have a look around at the manufacturer's labels on the equipment. Some of it could be Welch Allyn. Welch Allyn is the manufacturer of the lamps many members use in their HotWire flashlights in the 20 to 45 watt range.


----------



## KeyGrip (Feb 22, 2008)

jlomein said:


> Oh I can definitely agree the KL4 gets insanely hot in the hand lol...but my point was that the beam of incans is what gets hot. You can cook a bug without the bug even touching the flashlight. The beam that emits from an LED doesn't give off any heat.



I know, I was just being what my grandmother would call "a little pill." On an interesting side note, if you get an LED light with enough output, you can actually feel some heat coming out of the front. It's nowhere near an incandescent, but if you get that light to the right intensity you can feel it.


----------



## h2xblive (Feb 22, 2008)

I like incandescents, but they serve a purpose. I think of incandescents as my "power" and search lights where I need lots of light and I don't need the aggravation of washed out colors. My LED light are "go-to" lights to use when needed or as "survival" lights to use when the power is out or I otherwise need max runtime one a single set of batteries.

Unless my life depends on it, I don't think it's worth it (for me), to invest in a high-end LED light. They're like computers and constantly changing. I almost regret buying a pre-cree Surefire L1 because it's like an IBM 286 computer while all these other LEDs are quad core Pentiums. I feel if someone wants to "invest" in a light they should buy an incandescent. Needless to say, I'm thinking about buying a Surefire M3


----------



## Fird (Feb 22, 2008)

KeyGrip said:


> But what if the same thing happens with the LED? Just a thought.



There's some regulation in my light that's supposed to prevent that, but you bring up a good point. My problem is that incan failure is a regular part of its normal life, it's expected that every 50-100 hours or so.. the LED module isn't supposed to do that, but your point is perfectly valid, I am NOT carrying a spare LED module in my pocket, but I would be carrying spare incan modules.. 

point well taken,

Fird


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 22, 2008)

KeyGrip, a little OT on my part but I thought I'd mention that in our power LEDs neither the InGaN substrate nor the YAG frequency conversion coating is producing IR. The heat that is felt is by absorption. The light energy strikes the skin and is converted to caloric energy. There is no heat in the beam. Weird isn't it?


----------



## KeyGrip (Feb 22, 2008)

I thought all light frequencies could generate some heat. That bit about caloric conversion makes sense, but is weird to the point that I would never have thought of it happening. This thead has turned out to be quite informative.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 22, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> KeyGrip, a little OT on my part but I thought I'd mention that in our power LEDs neither the InGaN substrate nor the YAG frequency conversion coating is producing IR. The heat that is felt is by absorption. The light energy strikes the skin and is converted to caloric energy. There is no heat in the beam. Weird isn't it?



So if you aim a incan light at a heat sensor or thermometer they will not register heat?

Bill


----------



## LukeA (Feb 22, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> KeyGrip, a little OT on my part but I thought I'd mention that in our power LEDs neither the InGaN substrate nor the YAG frequency conversion coating is producing IR. The heat that is felt is by absorption. The light energy strikes the skin and is converted to caloric energy. There is no heat in the beam. Weird isn't it?



I'm going to call bull on that. If the light became caloric energy, then you would become hyper. Skin, or practically any other medium, absorbs any wavelength of light energy (at least to some degree) and converts it into thermal energy. The beam is always made of energy, but it travels through the air in a different form than the one into which it converts when it hits something.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 22, 2008)

Bill, KeyGrip, let me Google that up. It's been my understanding that what I said about power LEDs is correct. I hope I didn't get that wrong. 

[Edit] OK. It's looking like I'm right about heat not existing in a beam of LED light but wrong about heat existing in IR. It's just another frequency of light albeit an odd and unique frequency range. The absorption of IR does create heat. More IR in an incandescent light will cause more heat via absorption. Incandescent lights also point their natural thermal energy forward so "heat" does exist in the beam but only as far as the thermal energy can travel. Where as our LEDs' thermal energy paths to the slug, the sink then the body.

So it seems correct to say there is little or no heat in a beam of LED light but it has nothing to do with IR content. My apologies gentlemen. I'll do some further checking to see if my correction is correct.

LukeA -

A calorie is the amount of energy, or *heat*, it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). One calorie is equal to 4.184 joules, a common unit of energy used in the physical sciences. A gallon (about 4 liters) of gasoline contains about 31,000,000 calories. Caloric energy does not always refer to the energy contained in the food we consume. LINK 

More accurately speaking heat is not temperature nor is it really energy. Heat is the transfer of energy from a higher temperature to lower a temperature, something cannot have "heat".

Saying that absorption causes caloric energy is referencing the measurement of thermal energy. Saying that absorption causes thermal energy is more direct and more productive. Your point is well taken.

[/Edit]

[Edit_2]

A little more from a physics forum:

"Visible light has more energy per photon than IR."

"IR feels hot because the nerve cells in our skin reports large quantities of that frequency of photon as heat."

"snip...infrared absorption is qualitatively different from visible and UV absorption: the first goes to vibrational energy in a material, while the second and third go to electronic transitions."

I've got more but I want to get off of off topic so we can continue talking about cooking bugs...er, I mean why to use incandescent light.

[/Edit_2]


----------

