# Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering



## js (Dec 4, 2008)

Just over four years ago now I posted a thread titled  How long before LED light is really good?, where I asked the question:



> How long, do you think, before the quality of light from LED's starts to rival the light from a good incandescent? I'm guessing three to five years, but does anyone have a more informed estimate? What's on the horizon for LED technology? Will there soon be another high quality/power LED besides the Luxeon? What advances are in sight?



Well, as it turns out my estimate of three to five years was just about right! With McGizmo's introduction of Nichia 083 High CRI LED's to our humble online community, the highest quality light I have ever dreamed of from an LED is now available! The light from these 083's does indeed rival the light from even a high CCT incandescent. Or surpasses it. I'm amazed at how wonderful it is; at how well it renders colors; at how bright and sunny it is while totally lacking the yellowiness of incans. It is the best of both worlds.

My experience with the 083's is due to a single light: McGizmo's SunDrop. Don suggests in the thread that the name "SunDrop" might possibly be a bit too ambitious, but I don't think so. It is my considered opinion, after living with this amazing little light for going on two months now, that the Sundrop does indeed fulfill the destiny of its name, and does in actual fact, in reality, put a goddamned drop of SUNLIGHT on whatever you shine it on! Does my amazement come across here? Because, it is amazing! I'm amazed. It's an amazing light. I was stunned when I first experienced it, and still today, I like to just shine the light into my hand and admire the bit of sun held there, and always use it around the house when I need or want the highest quality light. The SunDrop is magic. I know, I'm being very hyperbolic here. I'm sorry. But those of us who have experienced this light will attest to the fact that the reality deserves some hyperbole. paulr says in one of his posts that:



> The Sundrop has almost killed my interest in other lights, I like it so much. I've been carrying mine every day for months, where I always used to switch from one light to another.



This is what I'm taking about. And, of course, being a McGizmo light, the SunDrop is impressive not only because of its light engine and high CRI light output, but also because of it's design and build quality. It is based upon one of Don's clickie C packs, which has the nicest clickie switch and silicon rubber boot I have ever used, and which features the trade-mark McGizmo ergonomic titanium body design with the flared end and grippy concentric rings. Two fingers fit very nicely in between the tail flare and the head of the light, making switch activation a joy. The lens, which is not flat, but which is in fact a focusing lens specially designed by Don, is sapphire crystal, and the o-rings are high quality EPDM. It's a real beauty of a light—very charming and endearing. Oh, and best of all, the silicon rubber switch boot is easily and separately user replaceable, so for those of us who dislike the feel of smooth slick squishy rubber, we can economically and conveniently change out the switch bootie as often as we like to keep it feeling crisp and new.

One drawback of the 083's is their lower efficiency compared to Crees and Seouls. This is the cost of very high CRI, unfortunately. However, it is still plenty bright for most uses—about 40 lumens—and has a good runtime on a single 123. (There is also a SunDrop XP which gets extended runtime from two 123's in a longer clickie pack, and of course the currently offered Sundrop 3S)

The other draw back of the SunDrop is that the beam, like the beam from the Mule, is a total flood, and really doesn't throw at all. This is not a problem for indoor use, and for near-field outdoor use, of course, and for many of us, throw isn't really absolutely necessary, or we carry more than one light anyway (those _real_ flashaholics out there, right brightnorm!?!). For myself, for better or worse, I find that I absolutely _do_ need throw in my EDC, and I refuse to EDC two lights, as I have other important things I want to EDC besides lights, like my Sebenza, for example. Nonetheless, for me, the Sundrop is the single best around-the-house-and-yard light I have yet had the fortune to use, and for most people, I suspect that the Sundrop's lack of throw would not be an obstacle even for use as an EDC light.

There are plenty of good photos in the SunDrop thread, but I wanted to take some of my own that would capture just how good the light is from this thing. I tried a number of different setups in about a freaking dozen locations around my house, but when I framed it up and went back and forth, I just didn't feel satisfied that they captured the full amazingness of the Sundrop. In a number of cases, this was partly due to whites in the pictures being turned into even _more_ whiter whites by the Cree LED in the Mule head, which frankly, looked pretty good, even though it was an artificial coloration, not a faithful rendering like the Nichia 083 in the sundrop. Further, nothing I came up with bettered (or even added anything to) the pictures in the Sundrop thread. Not surprising, I suppose, but frustrating nontheless.

Then this evening, I started "thinking outside the box" as it were and figured that I needed two main things: RED and a PERSON (a woman, in point of fact)—and in addition, also wanted a background that wasn't white: no white walls, no white backsplash, no white period. And, for good measure, wanted some other colors besides red. Well, it's maybe a little unconventional, and not as sophisticated as the amazing outdoor pictures Don took, but I do think it captures very well the superior color-rendering of the Sundrop. Plus, honestly, how can you go wrong with a beautiful woman in a bikini? So here they are: (oh, and I threw in the X-Rite ColorChecker chart, which sadly, is *cough* upside down—must have been distracted by the GQ cover, I guess)












You can clearly see the difference in skin tone, and the dramatic difference in the red cover. Also, notice the light golden, honey wood-color of the chest in the sundrop picture. That's how it really looks during the day, whereas the Mule light really skews it to a kind of pale greenish cool cast. And the Mule head also unnaturally amps up the blue border and Megan's eyes, although it's not a huge difference. More precisely, you can clearly see the superior color-rendering in the ColorChecker chart part of the pictures. Notice in particular the purple (3 over, 3 down from top-left), and the three redish/pinkish squares touching the purple. Sunlight itself wouldn't really do much better than the sundrop, in all honesty.

Also, let me reiterate about the _neatness_ of this light. It's just a charming, wonderful little light that fits in the hand very well. It's a pleasure to use and look at, and the clip is, of course, the McGizmo titanium clip, the single best clip in all of flashlight-dom. No matter how you grab this light, the clip won't get in your way or annoy you. On the contrary, it even feels better in some grips precisely because of the clip. The clip does it's job very well on top of this, and is positioned properly at the very rear of the light for correct, bezel-down carry. If you clip this to the inside of your pants pocket, the head won't be sticking up a full inch like a SureFire light. Or you can just drop this little guy right into a pants pocket for very comfortable carry. On top of all this, the Titanium body feels really, _really_ good to the touch, and the concentric rings don't get in the way of that, while at the same time providing a nice grippiness. It's a very well designed and thought-out light.

I highly recommend it for those people who, when it comes to light (and flashlights), are more interested in quality, than quantity. This is one for the flashlight Hall of Fame. Or _my_ flashlight hall of fame, for whatever that's worth.

Thank you, Don. You've created yet another truly extraordinary light.


----------



## Woods Walker (Dec 4, 2008)

Wow she is..... and the tint looks good too. The biggest issue I have with most LEDs are for night trail hikes as often tree liken under most LEDs look very much like the blue blaze state trails or white makers on the AT. A few times I followed the patches of liken/tree moss and had to back track to aviod getting turned around. No big deal as a few times I just setup camp and found my way in the AM however for the longer dayhikes that move into dusk/night it is more of an issue. Also the warmer tints help with mist and fog as it seems to reflect back less into my eyes if that is even possible.

I should take some photos of this liken/trail marker Phenomena. I think most people would be suprised just how near the liken which often grows in small patches the size of trailmarkers tooks to the man made markers under most common LED tints.


----------



## js (Dec 4, 2008)

Woods Walker,

Yes. I know just what you're talking about, I think. This sort of thing is exactly why I have always championed the usefulness of incans--not that they are _better_ than LED's, or anything like that--but just that in some situations, they do have their advantages over LED's. But then, I like to walk in the woods. A lot. It's a main preoccupation of mine, and I see from your screen name that you are a kindred spirit. So, yes, the Sundrop would have no trouble allowing you to distinguish between lichen and trail markers. Good story, BTW!


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 4, 2008)

Good post, and so true.

The SD really is a charming little light. You just have to love it and play with it. Touvh the fat sapphire lens and all. 
And it is very useful, too.

bernie


----------



## Woods Walker (Dec 4, 2008)

I see the light is 40 lumens but funny thing is that 40 lumens in the woods seems to equal 100 in the city.


----------



## js (Dec 4, 2008)

Bernie,

Yes, it really is _surprisingly_ useful. That high CRI LED isn't just for looks! hehe. For so many tasks, the Sundrop is just plain highly effective and practical. Whether it's finding an item in a deep floor-level kitchen cupboard, or getting the mail at night, or evaluating two sheets of chiyogami paper for a craft project, the Sundrop is unsurpassed and unquestionably useful.


----------



## js (Dec 4, 2008)

Woods Walker said:


> I see the light is 40 lumens but funny thing is that 40 lumens in the woods seems to equal 100 in the city.



Yes. And, further, as you noted in your first post, light that has a lot of blue-ish frequencies in it is a detriment in foggy conditions, as the blue light scatters a lot more in the fog than red light. So, yes, those 40 lumens have significantly more punch than you might think just from the numerical value.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 4, 2008)

The SD is very comparable to the Zabralight H30, except for the gorgeous colors and the construction, of course.

Here's a beam comparison of the SD-3S, the current model with 3 speeds, and the H30, both on high. First on a white wall, then in practical use.

The pics are taken from my upcomig "low level" evaluation thread.

















bernie


----------



## Woods Walker (Dec 4, 2008)

js said:


> Yes. And, further, as you noted in your first post, light that has a lot of blue-ish frequencies in it is a detriment in foggy conditions, as the blue light scatters a lot more in the fog than red light. So, yes, those 40 lumens have significantly more punch than you might think just from the numerical value.


 
Yea the LED light just kinda goes belly up. Fun times in the freezing rain too. I never understood the reasons for this only that it was real enough to me.


----------



## tebore (Dec 4, 2008)

I just want to say if you're gonna post beam shots comparing tint, CRI or CCT PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a custom white balance because cool whites come out too blue and warm and neutral whites come out too pink or yellow.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 4, 2008)

Kiessling said:


>



Sorry to stray off topic, but that's one heck of a record collection...or a hell of a lot of laser discs.

Interesting photos. Especially in the above two examples, I would rather have the white/blue than the incan color. Personal preference though...


----------



## carnal (Dec 4, 2008)

JS,

I read all 7 pages of McGizmo's thread "High CRI and its significance".
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/199054&highlight=nichia+083

What informative stuff! You guys are to be loved for pushing these High CRI led's and McGizmo's Sundrop to the forefront of CPS! From a photographer and videographers point of view, this could be revolutionary. 

How bout a "GROUP BUY" of the Nichia 083's? I already emailed McGizmo, asking to buy one.

ME WANTS!
Brian


----------



## js (Dec 4, 2008)

tebore,

I don't know whether you were referring to me or bernie, but I can assure you that the pictures posted above in my first post very accurately capture and characterize the color rendering differences between the two light sources. The differences you see in the pictures were not the result of incorrect camera settings or automatic program algorithms like Auto-White-Balance.


----------



## js (Dec 4, 2008)

carnal,

Yeah. Don is awesome! too true. That High CRUI thread was a really great thread and it was a lot of fun to be a small part of it. I hope you have fun with your Nichia 083's!


----------



## Woods Walker (Dec 4, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> Sorry to stray off topic, but that's one heck of a record collection...or a hell of a lot of laser discs.
> 
> Interesting photos. Especially in the above two examples, I would rather have the white/blue than the incan color. Personal preference though...


 
The conditions I am thinking about are a world away from looking at someones record collection. With the holidays I am a bit overworked however after that I really should do a thread of just how most LEDs look on the trail and though various weather conditions in the field and compare that with incans and warmer tint LEDs. Maybe I will get a warm tint dropin for the G2Z and use the warmer Rebel EOS and mix it up with a Incan G2. Toss in a Inova T3, PT APEX and L2D Q5 for the cooler tint LED side. But don't know if my camera skills are up to the test or if anyone is interested. I am going to use the search to see if this has been done before.


----------



## js (Dec 5, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> Interesting photos. Especially in the above two examples, I would rather have the white/blue than the incan color. Personal preference though...



You know, that was actually part of what I was talking about when I was recounting why it was so difficult to get a satisfying set of pictures contrasting the Cree with the 083: even though the Cree was clearly skewing the colors, the skew was actually pleasing in some ways, and certainly not a problem. This is why I have always preferred LED lights indoors, for the most part, but have nonetheless insisted that incans have their place, mainly in outdoors usage. Anyway, the point is just that I was looking for a set of pictures that would both capture the difference, _and_ show a situation where the poorer color rendering was objectionable--obviously, immediately, clearly, not in any way a positive skew from reality. Low CRI, yellowy incans are both skewing things and objectionable in most situations. Most LEDs are skewing things but are at the same time _not_ objectionable in most situations. This is why the skin-tone and red colors were so important in the success of the final pictures: there's nothing positive about skewing those things towards the cool blue end of things, nor of messing with their color balance. We all know what skin tone should be and what bright red should be!

But, keep in mind that the Sundrop pictures in bernies post are NOT the "incan color"! They are sunlight color--true color, or fairly close to it. The Sundrop isn't an incan and isn't yellowy. It's balanced.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Dec 5, 2008)

I would join you if I could afford one!

Ah maybe I could snag a beater late next year!


----------



## BabyDoc (Dec 5, 2008)

JS, this you wrote a wonderful review. Being an owner of a SunDrop myself, I can attest to everything you said in your review. You have captured its real essence, and it is difficult for me to add much to what you have so eloquently written.

However, it should be stated that in some situations, correct color rendition is not just a nicety; it is a necessity. Many months ago, as a pediatrician trying to use an ordinary LED flashlight to look at throats, I was quickly frustrated that I couldn't tell a normal throat, from a pink throat, or from a red throat. They often looked nearly the same. One afternoon using a Fenix L2D, I missed what later I saw looked like an obvious strep throat. The throat looked normal, but the rapid strep test was postive. Since the patient hadn't left the office, I went back and looked at her again with an incadescent light and couldn't believe that I missed seeing strep with the Fenix Q5. I was about to give up on using LED's when I started a thread on the forum, asking for suggestions for better color rendering LED flashlights that could be used in a medical setting. Most people couldn't appreciate my problem, but Don did. He sent me a PM and asked if I would like to try out a light he was thinking of marketing down the road. And of course, I did. He sent me a a Mule with the Nichia 083 HIGH CRI installed. He rigged an acrylic hemisphere for a lens on the front of the light. Anyway, it was love at first try. Partly because of my feedback and encouragement, Don went ahead with the SunDrop production. Of course when the first wave of the production SunDrops became available, I just had to buy one. I believe I received the first one in the wave. Anyway, I have been using and loving the SunDRop ever since. In case you wonder why I just didn't stick with the incadescent, there are several reasons. The SunDrop provides brighter, more even illumination over a longer time, than any incandescent could. Now that I have used the Sundrop for several months, incadescents while fine with reds and pink, make flesh tones look too yellow. While I still carry other lights, (how many flashaholics carry just one?), the SunDrop stays at work in my lab coat pocket and is used several times a day. The Mule prototype still sees professional service, but now at home with people stopping in on occasion for free medical advice.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Dec 5, 2008)

How does the 083 compare to Seoul's high-CRI P4?


----------



## js (Dec 5, 2008)

BabyDoc,

I just love real world examples like that! Great post! And I totally agree that good CRI isn't just a nicety. In some situations it is a necessity. I have heard this time and again from various professionals: sometimes you really do need good color rendering. Until recently, that meant an incandescent, but now, with the Nichia 083 and the SunDrop, that has all changed, and as I pointed out, the Sundrop has as good a CRI as most if not all incans, while at the same time having a pleasing, non-"yellowy", light on a white wall. It's got beauty and brawn. Personally, I never found the yellowy light from a _good_ incan to be objectionable, but I know I am in the minority on that. But, in any case, I totally love the 083 light. It's really great. An incan may still be better in fog due to it's _lack_ of the upper range of colors and prominence of the lower end, but the Sundrop would be close. If only it threw . . . 

Ah well, we can dream, and judging by McGizmo's past performance, those dreams just might come true in the form of a McGimo light . . .


----------



## js (Dec 5, 2008)

TigerhawkT3 said:


> How does the 083 compare to Seoul's high-CRI P4?



I have no idea, but perhaps someone else might chime in.


----------



## nars42 (Dec 5, 2008)

Couldn't one put a very carefully designed filter in front of a cree to cut out the blue spike? I am thinking somethink like a photography filter in front of the led (Skylight). I know this would significantly cut output but with Q5 lights running on one CR123 producing around 180 lumen, some could easily be sacraficed. Just because, this SunDrop is a $500 light after all...


----------



## Sgt. LED (Dec 5, 2008)

http://www.pssl.com/Rosco-Roscolux-Gel-Sampler

If there is one that will do it - it's in that pack.


----------



## mudman cj (Dec 5, 2008)

TigerhawkT3 said:


> How does the 083 compare to Seoul's high-CRI P4?



I have both the 3000K and 4000K versions of the Seoul LEDs, and I took some pics comparing the 4000k against the 083. I didn't bother with the 3000K version because it was so yellow. Here is a link to my thread with the pics.

Subjectively IMHO, the 083 gives a more accurate rendering of objects the way they appear in sunlight. The Seoul LED emphasizes yellows, oranges, and reds more than the 083 and also more than sunlight. The 083 also seems a bit better at rendering certain shades of green and brown, where 'better' means more like sunlight. 

The best way I can succinctly describe the Seoul LED is that it looks more like incandescent than any other LED I have ever seen. And you guessed it, the 083 looks more like sunlight.


----------



## js (Dec 5, 2008)

nars42 said:


> Couldn't one put a very carefully designed filter in front of a cree to cut out the blue spike? I am thinking somethink like a photography filter in front of the led (Skylight). I know this would significantly cut output but with Q5 lights running on one CR123 producing around 180 lumen, some could easily be sacraficed. Just because, this SunDrop is a $500 light after all...



Yes, you can do this. Check out the High CRI thread in McGizmo's forum (first link in my first post) for a discussion of why you might prefer to use the 083. But, I mean, go for it! CPFers could then experiment first hand with the differences and come to some kind of consensus on it. The thing that I would say might be a problem is that if there is a severe lack of a certain frequency of light, a filter can't do anything about that, and that might be the case here with the low reds. But check out the High CRI thread for more discussion on this. I can't honestly remember where that was left in the course of the discussion. That was what I took out it, but I won't vouch for the accuracy of my memory on this particular point.


----------



## Illum (Dec 5, 2008)

I find it sort of odd that something like this has not been used before, in addition to the fact that there isn't one bit of hinting on Nichias website concerning this "Nichia 083" high CRI LED.


----------



## BabyDoc (Dec 5, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> I find it sort of odd that something like this has not been used before, in addition to the fact that there isn't one bit of hinting on Nichias website concerning this "Nichia 083" high CRI LED.


 
As Don explained it to me, the Nichia 083 high CRI LED had been used previously in residential lighting applications, but never before in flashlights. Because of its low output, relative to the popular Crees, most manufacturss hadn't considered using this LED in a flashlight. Except for a small niche of users who require high color resolution, more lumens is what sells flashlights, not higher CRI with fewer lumens. That's why Don told me he had reservations about marketing this light and why he made it available in only such a small limited edition run, to see what kind of response there would be. He was rather surprised that the first SunDrop wave sold out so quickly but not how thrilled people were with this light.
We knew it was that good and different, that seeing was believing.

Unfortunately, with the down-turn in the economy and the report of a few defective light engines, the second wave hasn't moved out the door as quickly, even though it offers 3 different light levels, rather than just the one level of the first wave SunDrops. Nevertheless, the holidays are approaching and I am optimistic that Don will have soon have many more happy SunDrop customers.


----------



## js (Dec 5, 2008)

Woods Walker said:


> The conditions I am thinking about are a world away from looking at someones record collection. With the holidays I am a bit overworked however after that I really should do a thread of just how most LEDs look on the trail and though various weather conditions in the field and compare that with incans and warmer tint LEDs. Maybe I will get a warm tint dropin for the G2Z and use the warmer Rebel EOS and mix it up with a Incan G2. Toss in a Inova T3, PT APEX and L2D Q5 for the cooler tint LED side. But don't know if my camera skills are up to the test or if anyone is interested. I am going to use the search to see if this has been done before.



Woods Walker,

I'm pretty sure that nothing _exactly_ like what you want to do has been done before (although I could be wrong), but I can definitely tell you that I would be interested, along with a good many others. Capturing the superior out-door color rendering and throw and discrimination of incan (or Sundrop) light isn't so much about superior camera skills as about lots of trial and error and good intuition. If you want it badly enough, you will succeed for sure, even if you have only basic camera skills. I say GO FOR IT!


----------



## divine (Dec 5, 2008)

Illum_the_nation said:


> I find it sort of odd that something like this has not been used before, in addition to the fact that there isn't one bit of hinting on Nichias website concerning this "Nichia 083" high CRI LED.


I don't think the 083 is a retail product at all.

At work, I meet with some representatives of (commercial) lighting manufacturers. There are some lights, like home lighting or commercial lighting, that you can buy (pretty expensive, though) with Nichia 083 led's in them.

The one company I most recently met with is teaming up with this Italian company who does some amazing things! They had this strip light that can be recessed into concrete with these small RGB leds that looked smaller than a cree and put out about half the light of a cree in red, green, or blue. I didn't get to see it output white (all colors on), but I was curious to see how bright it would have been.

There's this great company, Renaissance that makes a downlight that outputs practically any color you want it to. They aim about 30 or so red, green, and blue Cree's up at a white dome, the color mixes together, and outputs the exact color you want it to. Warm white, cool white, green, orange... It can fade from red to green. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. They have to use more red led's than green or blue, because "the led's are weak at the red." lol

I think the lighting industry is starting to, and will continue to push some nice light emitters our way.


----------



## divine (Dec 5, 2008)

js, I have a question for you. I got a poorman's sundrop from mudman.  Is it just me, or... say different colored words or backgrounds lit by the nichia led or by another led. Do you think it is more difficult to focus your eyes with a lower CRI led?


----------



## TedTheLed (Dec 6, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> As Don explained it to me, the Nichia 083 high CRI LED had been used previously in residential lighting applications, but never before in flashlights.



...at long last !!....where oh where can I get those 'residential lighting' 083 fixtures !!! ???

500? sheesh. I could really use one for gauging the coffee beans while they're roasting, though..
in the meantime there is a similar product on it way to my door at this very moment from Fenix that makes simlilar claims for color whiteness: 

the 4sevens 30 led remote control (!) dimmable 180 lumen light bar 50 bucks:

https://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=79&products_id=345

a rather breathless review extolling the white light:

https://www.4sevens.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=345&reviews_id=196


----------



## SaturnNyne (Dec 6, 2008)

Ah JS, trying to do for the SunDrop what you did for the A2? Very nice writeup! 
Finances dictate that this one will not be drawing me in though. 
But I do love color rendition, so I'm watching where this technology goes.


----------



## js (Dec 6, 2008)

divine,

Well, as I am getting to be about 40 now, I have a little trouble focusing on text, period, no matter what the light source, but I haven't noticed the effect you're talking about. On the other hand, I haven't looked for it either! I'll see what I can see this evening some time.

SaturnNyne,

Thanks! But, actually, as awesome as the Sundrop is, the LunaSol 20 is the light that has taken the place of the SureFire A2 for me, and I will be posting a similar type of thread on it as I once posted on the A2. I hope to come close to finishing this weekend, and to put the final touches on over the coming week. But we'll see.


----------



## mudman cj (Dec 6, 2008)

About a week ago I believe I read somewhere in the forums here that this undercabinet light uses 5 Nichia 083 LEDs. It only costs $59.


----------



## NoFair (Dec 6, 2008)

TedTheLed said:


> ...at long last !!....where oh where can I get those 'residential lighting' 083 fixtures !!! ???
> 
> 500? sheesh. I could really use one for gauging the coffee beans while they're roasting, though..
> in the meantime there is a similar product on it way to my door at this very moment from Fenix that makes simlilar claims for color whiteness:
> ...


 
My 2 are normal led tint and not like the Nichia 083. Unless there is a new version out it will be like an unfocused Cree/Seoul. Still a great product btw

Sverre


----------



## FrogmanM (Dec 6, 2008)

js said:


> divine,
> 
> Thanks! But, actually, as awesome as the Sundrop is, the LunaSol 20 is the light that has taken the place of the SureFire A2 for me, and I will be posting a similar type of thread on it as I once posted on the A2. I hope to come close to finishing this weekend, and to put the final touches on over the coming week. But we'll see.


 
Looking forward to the LS20 review!

Mayo


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 6, 2008)

Hi guys,

I would like to add a few comments and observations. 

Nichia doesn't have distributors like most of the other LED manufacturers. I don't know why they choose not get to market through typical distribution channels but that is the case.

The 083 is a 6 die package and it is available in different bins as well as different configurations. The High CRI 083 uses a couple phosphors as I understand it and it is a different part from the more common and popular 083 LED. The High CRI LED has an obvious afterglow in the phosphor after being shut down. It doesn't last long but is clearly visible. Because of the 6 dice, the LED is not ideal for collimation. When collimated, there is obvious tint variation from spot to fill which is also less than ideal. 

My limited experience with the Seoul high CRI LED's has been less than I would have hoped for but it is limited. In my experience, the Seoul when collimated has an obvious variation in tint from spot to spill but then to some extent, this is true of most of the P4's. My main disappointment with the high CRI Seouls has been in their color temperature which has been way to much on the warm side for my preference (Most of the bins of the Nichia 083 High CRI also have lower color temps and are obviously "warm" in tint). I had hoped that the Seoul High CRI LED would be a solution for a collimated beam of light offering a relatively neutral white (cool white is out of the question unfortunately, IMHO) beam allowing for better color rendition. According to my spectrometer of unknown accuracy, the CRI was below 90 on the samples I tested and the beam tint was clearly and obviously warm if not out right yellow. I won't state that the Seoul high CRI LED's can't or don't serve a purpose but I couldn't get excited about working with them in their present state. I supposedly have some high color temp, High CRI Seoul samples on order or request but it has been a couple months now.

I feel very fortunate in the reel of 083's I got from Nichia because they have a color temp approaching neutral white and certainly cooler than the typical warm or other high CRI LED's I have sampled. It was commented above that the cooler tint is more pleasing to the eye for some. I know I much prefer the high color temps and this may be because of my old and yellowed eyes. :shrug:

As I understand it, CRI is based on a tungsten black body radiator and 100 is the number asigned to such a source, by definition. However the CRI is not independent of color temperature and it is measured relative to a specific color temp. I.E. a particular light source may have a measured CRIa of 96 @ 4300k. If you compare an illuminated scene with this source to one say from a source that has a CRIa of 96 @ 6000k, you will see obvious differences in color, at least initially, I believe. Initially, I believe you will perceive the difference in tint due to the difference in color temperature. However once your eyes and brain adapt, I don't know that there will be significant differences in how the colors are perceived, relative to each other. :shrug:

Evaluating LED's with standards based on incandescent sources has some merit to be certain but it seems to me that the limitations and misconceptions can be significant and misleading. 

If we seek artificial light sources that can mimic natural light sources then I believe we should find ways of quantifying these natural sources and use them as the standard; not incandescent. If we seek to render colors accurately as they would be seen under incandescent illumination then using the CRI system is the way to go. If we seek to render colors accurately as they would be seen in daylight then a better system could be devised I believe. As I understand it, the lighting industry is addressing these issues. 

To artificially simulate natural light, we need a full spectrum source that is similar in its spectrum to natural light. The RGB and other multi color sources can give us billions of colors and certainly give us a perceived "white" light but they are not full spectrum typically and there will be errors in rendering colors across the spectrum, as a result.

As I have messed with the different light sources and made feeble attempts at understanding them, I have become aware of a few things. For one, our visual perception is quite sophisticated and the process of image acquisition and interpretation is not so simple that measured numbers given to us from data collection devices can tell the whole story or even come close to quantifying, qualifying or predicting what we will see and how well we will see it. Perception is in the eyes of the beholder.

Another consideration for some of us in terms of color rendition is that of using a camera to record an illuminated image as opposed to our eyes and brain. Today's digital cameras and image software have become quite amazing and are capable of corrections and manipulations film photography could never dream of. As long as a light source has some energy present across the full spectrum, the image software can filter the image and balance the colors relative to a different, target spectrum. If you have an illumination source that is close in the spectrum you want represented in the final image then obviously you don't need to mess with corrections (but you do have the option). 

In many situations, good color rendition is a bonus but not a requirement. I think we need to realize the difference between good color rendition and correct color recognition as well.

For both the eye/brain and the camera, I suspect that there are absolute as well as relative thresholds that need to be met in order for us to get the correct picture. I think of these thresholds as minimum and maximum levels of light at the different spectral points. These thresholds are relative to each other in the sense of their relative intensities. In other words, the spectral graph needs to be above zero across the visible range and any spikes need to be within some boundary line.

Ideally our artificial light source will mimic the source we seek to emulate; be it noon sun or 4k incandescent. In practicality, our source can deviate from the ideal but at what point does it become to far from the mark to provide adequate information?

To end this ramble, I agree with js that there are now some LED's that can rival the color rendition of incandescent. Cool. Unfortunately, I don't consider incandescent cool literally or figuratively and I look forward to LED sources surpassing incandescent sources and getting closer to rivaling the sun and moon in their ability to illuminate and render color.


----------



## Federal LG (Dec 6, 2008)

Jesus!! Megan Fox in that magazine cover RULES!!

Well... I really like Fenix TK20´s Q2 LED. It have a superb color rendition, if compared with my others LED lights.

Specially in the RED color.


----------



## js (Dec 6, 2008)

Excellent post, Don. And for the record, it is true that I have never minded the yellowy tinge of incandescent light, and that I have indeed always felt that incans were pretty cool (figuratively speaking)--but then again, I'm a hotwire guy. LOL!

However, nonetheless, even before this whole amazing, revealing, humbling journey that started with the High CRI thread in the McGizmo forum, I always realized the the incandescent filament _was not the reference standard for light_. I just maintained that it was as good as it got when you couldn't use natural light. Even so, I was operating under the delusion that color rendering and perception was a lot more objective that it really is. What my recent experiences with the Gretag MacBeth ColorChecker chart, my Pentax K10D DSLR camera, and photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, and with different sources of light such as Cree and Seoul emitters, Nichia High CRI 083, and high CCT incandescent light sources --what all of these experiences have taught me is that I really didn't know what the !*&&# I was talking about before. And the upside to that is that I now _know_ that I don't know. LOL! It's been astonishing to see how colors morph and change right under my eyes, and back again, and how the side-by-side or quick-change comparison is so different (and more extreme) than the long-term use-it-and-see-what-its-like type of comparison. As Don says, you get used to a certain source and your brain makes adjustments, and it all seems "normal" and you think of it as right and good. I've lived with incandescent flashlights in my life for so long that I never knew how much that had biased my mental perception. I still maintain that incans have superior color rendition and excel in poor weather outdoor use, but I am now much more conscious of their failings, even in the realm of color rendering. Natural light is the reference, is the "best" (if there is such a thing). You can digitally correct things, in very sophisticated and impressive ways, but it has been my (limited) experience that pictures taken using only natural light will always be superior. And, of course, you can mess with them digitally as well!

My wife is a graphic artist and has a much better eye for color than I do, and proper color management, display, and reproduction has been a recent project for me for our computer setup. Mac OS X has its own color management system known as "Color Synch" and you can provide icc color profiles for your printer, scanner, and other devices (they usually come with them, or are already in the OS), and you can color calibrate your monitor if you have the right software and a little stick-on probe to measure the color you actually get in order to compare it against what the computer actually requested. And, taking a digitally stored image with quantified colors, creates an objective reality: something which can be maintained consistently across the whole process until even the final output. But sourcing it, by taking a picture with a digital camera, or by scanning it, involves light, a specific certain light source(s), with a specific device to capture the image, pixel by pixel, and ends up reducing a complex and multi-faceted reality down to one layer, one "interpretation", if you will. That painting, or tapestry, or backpack, or shirt--what does it "really" look like? What are it's "true" colors? There is no single answer, no right or true appearance. It looks different under different light, and even different to different eyes.

So where does that leave CRI and color rendition? I think it's a lot like music reproduction, actually. Certain speakers, certain headphones, certain mics, are _objectively_ bad in that they _leave out or severely distort part of the spectrum_. We can all agree that a red LED is just not good at rendering colors! Same goes for a green or a blue, or a yellow-green. There are certain colors you simply can't differentiate under red light, and most colors appear to be something totally different under a red LED than under a source with a fuller spectrum of frequencies. And certainly, we can all agree that a modern Seoul emitter is a "truer" light source than the first white 5 mm LED's. So, "bad" is pretty easy to determine.

But, "BEST" is much, much more problematic and controversial. Go to any audio forum and ask what are the "best" headphones or speakers or microphones, and you are going to find a lot of disagreement, because _there is no such thing_ as a single best set of headphones or speakers. And scientific measuring devices won't help you out either! You can't just quantify the frequency response curve's deviation from a perfect flat-response and find the "best" speaker or headphone. The resulting scores would tell you nothing, except for which speakers or headphones were just plain bad. And not even that, in some cases, if the mic or speaker were for a special-use situation.

However, "good" is going to be a lot less controversial, especially if you provide specific information for your intended uses! You'll hear a lot of the same speakers or headphones or lights or whatever mentioned again and again. People will have their personal preferences, of course, but most will say something like "yeah, the such-and-such is pretty good, but I prefer this other whatever".

I think that's where we are with CRI and color rendering. CRI is useless, except to identify what just out and out is going to _suck_. It has the illusion of being objective and "scientific" because it is a quantitative measure of a light source, but that is indeed only an illusion. There is no better judge of color rendering than the two eyes in your own head. Because, after all, they are what matters to _you_.

I can only tell you that between the Cree in my Mule and the 083 Nichia in the Sundrop, there is no contest. When it comes to color rendering, the Sundrop is unquestionably better. And it is, in my opinion, better than an incandescent in most situations. But it's not quite as good as sunlight on a clear day, in my experience (or to my preference). But it's definitely GOOD at rendering colors. And it's the first LED light I have experienced where I could say this.

Now, many people have gotten bent out of shape when I have complained about LED light in the past. They have objected that LED light already was great, more than good enough, etc. But "good enough" for who? And for what? _If_ color really is important to you--and this may put you in a minority--then a conventional white LED just plain isn't good enough. Objectively, clearly, NOT GOOD ENOUGH. A bunch of Crees on a bar would just not due in an art gallery. A bunch of High CRI Nichia 083's, on the other hand, would indeed be good enough! Some might still prefer tungsten halogen incans, but it would be just that: preference. The 083 would not leave any colors out, would not under-represent any colors, and would have a balance and smoothness plenty good enough for relative harmony to reign between the colors. For a long time, people have talked about an incandescent light source at 6,500 K instead of 3,500 K. If we could only find a filament material that was solid at 6,500 degrees K and electrically conductive, then we could have a real sunlight source (along with all of it's dangerous UV that the atmosphere filters out in the case of the sun). And this 6,500K CCT incan would run at about 130 lumens/watt efficiency, even without any sort of IR reflective coating or insulation to the envelope. But, of course, the challenges involved in containing such a hot filament in a transparent envelope are formidable. And I doubt we would ever find such a material, in any case, although anythings possible, I suppose.

But, no need! The 083 is fairly close to being just such a light source already. It's spectrum isn't maybe as smooth as the sun's, but it's a pretty good approximation of it. Closer than any other source I've seen or heard about. And I've had plenty of experience with the Solux (and similar) modules with the special reflectors that allow reds to pass through, raising the CCT of the light from the filament. They certainly lack the yellowiness of incans, but they aren't as good as the Sundrop. Taking away some of the predominant part of the spectral curve isn't going to add anything to the part of the curve where it is low (or zero).

Everyone I know of who has experienced the Sundrop will tell you the same thing: it provides the highest quality light (for color rendering) of any LED light they have used. It's good. It's very good. And it portends great things to come.


----------



## js (Dec 6, 2008)

Federal LG said:


> Jesus!! Megan Fox in that magazine cover RULES!!
> 
> . . .



Mmmmm. Indeed. I don't normally buy GQ magazine, but that one had *cough* some really good articles in it.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

carnal said:


> JS,
> 
> I read all 7 pages of McGizmo's thread "High CRI and its significance".
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/199054&highlight=nichia+083
> ...



Brian,

I meant to post the link to the High CRI Nichias for D.I.Y. thread, but forgot about it. Better late than never! So there it is.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 7, 2008)

So by now seeing this GOOD light source, it begs the question about availability and use. Are they so new that McGizmo really is the only person to lay his hands on some? Are they so new that there is no wide distribution yet? And of course, what about this LED in a much much cheaper host? 

I hope this thread keeps getting updated about this new source.


----------



## tebore (Dec 7, 2008)

js said:


> tebore,
> 
> I don't know whether you were referring to me or bernie, but I can assure you that the pictures posted above in my first post very accurately capture and characterize the color rendering differences between the two light sources. The differences you see in the pictures were not the result of incorrect camera settings or automatic program algorithms like Auto-White-Balance.



I was really referring to Bernie's but now that I look at yours the Mule one seems overly blue. I can't see the EXIF data to see the color temp. 

I know you may think it's accurate, and in some cases the AWB is dead on; but taking the 3 mins to use a gray card to set a custom WB can make a huge difference. 

I didn't use to use a CWB but after listening to a few other professionals I started to and it indeed does make a large difference. You never have to worry about WB and CCT correction in software which in most cases you're going by memory and can really change a picture. Eg blue jeans becoming black.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

tebore said:


> I was really referring to Bernie's but now that I look at yours the Mule one seems overly blue. I can't see the EXIF data to see the color temp.
> 
> I know you may think it's accurate, and in some cases the AWB is dead on; but taking the 3 mins to use a gray card to set a custom WB can make a huge difference.
> 
> I didn't use to use a CWB but after listening to a few other professionals I started to and it indeed does make a large difference. You never have to worry about WB and CCT correction in software which in most cases you're going by memory and can really change a picture. Eg blue jeans becoming black.



tebore,

Using a CWB and calibrating with a card is indeed an _excellent_ approach for getting good, natural looking images in the light you have, and I wasn't objecting to your statement, as such.

However, what I _was_ saying was that I wanted to capture _how the light looked to my eyes_ and not capture the best looking, most balanced picture. So, if you could see the CCT in K of the jpg's, you'd see that they are indeed different, and not the same. So there was some correction used. But not so much correction that the Mule photo started to look better than it actually did, _in subjective reality, to my eyes_. Someone else may indeed have ended up with a different WB adjustment than I did--no two eyes are exactly the same. But, I bet it would still have been pretty close, _if their goal was to capture exactly what they saw with their own two eyes_.

The K10D is an entry level professional DSLR. I can digitally preview the image, and see the effect of changing the color balance. It has the usual AWB, daylight, cloudy, shade, tungsten, fluorescent ,etc., as well as CWB, and manual numerical setting options if you know the CCT of your light source. On top of that, you can fine-tune any setting (even AWB) by adjusting the amber-blue axis or green-magenta one, or both. So, I could have done anything I wanted to the WB, really.

My goal was to capture the subjective reality of what I saw, actually saw. I neither wanted to over-correct it so that what really was a bit yellowy became neutral, or that what was really a bit bluish/cool, became neutral. Nor did I want to just fix the WB so that I had a "scientific", objective measure of _what the camera "saw", as the camera is not the same as the human eye. So, for what I want to do, a CWB isn't the answer. It would have made those two pictures look a lot closer together than what they actually looked like to me.

What do you think? Does this make sense? Or am I missing your point?_


----------



## divine (Dec 7, 2008)

You know what lighting people are saying now? That museums and art galleries would prefer to use LED's to light their displays. They are claiming that LED's do not project any UV, and they won't damage what they are lighting up. :shrug:


----------



## BabyDoc (Dec 7, 2008)

js said:


> So where does that leave CRI and color rendition? I think it's a lot like music reproduction, actually...... .


 
JS, the analogy to music reproduction is a good one in many ways. Let's carry this a little further. Just as a sound system having a poor frequency response hides certain parts of the sound spectrum when it overemphasizes other parts, the same came be said of LED's that emphasize say, blue, and hide what reds may be there. Just as we have become accustomed to incadescent lights and prefer often the warm way they colors our interiors over more accurate colder daylight, many of us prefer warmer sound systems which emphasize the low midrange and bass, though it may obscure higher frequency detail. Ask any woman who has ever used daylight flourescents to put their makeup on, whether they like that light. Most hate it because it makes their skin tones look death-like compared to incadescents. Daylight fluorescents or incadescents (Reveal) takes the flush and blood out of their skins. Audio reproduction is the same. We don't necessarily strive for live instrument or vocal sounds. In this day of electronics, we seldom hear live music any more. So our reference point is colored by how we even hear live music. Go to any broadway musical, and it is unlikely you are going to really hear a "live" performance. The orchestra is hidden in a pit that is miked and amplified by less than state of the art equipment, just like the performers themselves whose voices are amplified by inferior radio transmitting microphones that are incapable of producing much of the sound spectrum. This doesn't even take into account that many musical instruments today have become totally electronic, like many guitars, pianos, organs, and even percussion instruments. After this exposure to "live" music, which in many ways is made dead by the theatre sound systems, we go home and imitate the same dead sound in our homes, and are happy with it. Outside of the home, we are thrilled to carry our IPODS with us and listen to inferior sound through tiny earbuds just because we can carry 100s of recording in a device smaller than a pack of cigarettes. High end stereo is all but gone, because few people can appreciate or remember what real live music sounds like.

Now getting back to light. It is very much the same. We spend more time indoors. We don't care as much about color rendition as we do about brightness. Its quantity or lumens (like the number of files an IPOD can hold), and not quality of light that matters to most people. People forget what the real world looks like since most of the time their world is colored by artificial light. Albeit imperfect, it is the standard by which they see things. Finally, it is difficult for flashlight manufacturers to sell color rendition. How do you demonstrate quality and sell it to the masses? CRI doesn't mean much to most people when it comes to flashlights, any more than 1080P means much to people buying flat screen TV's. (I know too many people with flat screen TV's who don't even subcribe to high definition cable service, yet they are happy with their big TV; again quantity and not quality is what most people care about.) 

The bottom line of all this is, I don't personally believe there will be a big push to have high color resolving flashlights. The average guy just can't or won't appreciate them, or pay a premium to buy them. Since we are reading this thread and are therefore not the average guys, it is hard to imagine I am correct. But seeing what has happened to sound reproduction and how we are settling for less accuracy, I don't see it being that different for lighting.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

tebore,

Just thought of an important post-script:

When I was talking about what my eye saw, I was talking about a quick comparison: shine the Sundrop, take in the picture, turn it off, shine the Mule, take in the picture. If I only use the Mule (it's a SF L1 with one of Don's excellent ALM heads for it), then pretty quickly, I notice the skew less and less, and the second picture would indeed seem a little bit too blue to me as well. But, I mean, that really doesn't count, does it? I can get pretty well used to firelight and candlelight, too, but that is going too far into the realm of the subjective reality.


----------



## orcinus (Dec 7, 2008)

This is all nice and well, and i really appreciate the high-CRI emitters that have started to spawn out lately, so please don't take this as bashing. Please read the whole post carefully before flaming...

The photos posted in this thread tell you absolutely NOTHING about the color reproduction. Nothing at all. You could've just as easily set the white balance to favor the colder light and get a Nichia high-CRI shot that lacks as much in the blue part of the spectrum as the "normal" shot in the first post lacks in the red part of the spectrum.

Here - look what happens when you neutralize the white balance for both shots (also fixed the contrast and brightness to show it better):












Can you tell which one was the high-CRI shot and which one wasn't?
Take a closer look at the color chart. Any differences in the saturation of any particular patch? Or its tint?

What does that tell you? It tells me the _exact same_ amount of color information was "picked" off the scene by BOTH lights. The only difference was the color balance. And that's what's wrong with comparisons like this and the way CRI is defined. 

It favours certain color temperatures and CAN'T really tell you much about the color reproduction of two lights with DIFFERENT color temperatures. It's ill concieved for that particular task. What it CAN tell you is how two lights of the SAME temperature compare to eachother, though.


----------



## tebore (Dec 7, 2008)

orcinus said:


> This is all nice and well, and i really appreciate the high-CRI emitters that have started to spawn out lately, so please don't take this as bashing. Please read the whole post carefully before flaming...
> 
> The photos posted in this thread tell you absolutely NOTHING about the color reproduction. Nothing at all. You could've just as easily set the white balance to favor the colder light and get a Nichia high-CRI shot that lacks as much in the blue part of the spectrum as the "normal" shot in the first post lacks in the red part of the spectrum.
> 
> ...



That's why I'm saying to use a locked custom one if you want to show the difference. Otherwise you can manipulate it, it gets skewed or isn't a true representation. You need to lock it so you can actually see the difference. You're right about the CRI system. I'm just saying even for a quick and dirty compare you should lock a CWB. I'm talking about comparing color rendering. 

And I'm gonna say the top is the high CRI based on the way some of the reds actually have different shades.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Dec 7, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> Just as we have become accustomed to incadescent lights and prefer often the warm way they colors our interiors over more accurate colder daylight, many of us prefer warmer sound systems which emphasize the low midrange and bass. . .


This is a great analogy and one I've considered often. Audio and flashlights are two of my main hobbies, so I was amused when I realized they had both progressed in the same direction: towards high quality and accuracy, but just slightly to the warm side of neutral.



BabyDoc said:


> Outside of the home, we are thrilled to carry our IPODS with us and listen to inferior sound through tiny earbuds just because we can carry 100s of recording in a device smaller than a pack of cigarettes.


Just because you listen to music on an ipod doesn't mean you are stuck with inferior white earbuds. I know plenty of people who have upgraded to something that will provide quite nice sound (I'm one of them, my headphone collection is worth more than my flashlight collection; I've settled on the Shure SE530 for mobile use  ).



BabyDoc said:


> The bottom line of all this is, I don't personally believe there will be a big push to have high color resolving flashlights. The average guy just can't or won't appreciate them, or pay a premium to buy them. Since we are reading this thread and are therefore not the average guys, it is hard to imagine I am correct.


I agree with this completely and don't find it hard to imagine. However important the little details that make our expensive lights worthwhile might be to us, it's still pretty obvious that most people won't notice or care about quality once it gets past a certain level of acceptable decency. And that's fine, we can't all be connoisseurs of every delicacy. Somewhere there's an Atwood fanatic who thinks I'm very ignorant for not appreciating pocket prybars, nevermind that I just don't have sufficient use for one to care about it. In other words, I don't see this as a lamentable condition; it's the state of the world and I'm just glad there are higher quality options for those of us who want them.


*Orcinus*: Interesting experiment... And I'll play your game too, is the second one the 083? Even if I'm wrong, at least now you have a runner in both lanes.


----------



## BabyDoc (Dec 7, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> Just because you listen to music on an ipod doesn't mean you are stuck with inferior white earbuds.  ).


 
Perhaps you missed my point. Even an IPOD with the best earphones, is a comprise, because the very compressed sound files used in an IPOD are missing a lot of sonic information present in a real live performance, if you are lucky enough to hear one. You only have to compare the sound reproduction of an IPOD to that of a a Super AUDIO CD recording played back on a quality sound system to hear what is sonically missing. Sure better earphones, like better speakers, make some difference, but they will never replace the weakest link in the chain, which in the case of IPODS is the compressed recorded file. (Garbage in, garbage out may be a bit of an exaggeration for you, but for a real audiophile, it isn't. Audiophiles spend a fortune to have as close to a live sound experience in their living rooms as they can get. The trouble is there is so little REAL live music with which to compare. A lot of the sound we hear is synthesized, distorted, and poorly amplified even before it is recorded. So that's where the garbage reallly starts, and why it often difficult to distinguish mp3 files from less compressed sound formats. The only real live music left in abundance is classical music or jazz, by which you can judge the qualitfy of sound recording and reproduction.) Perhaps, in some way it is a good thing we don't have real live performances. It is a lot easier and lot cheaper when we don't know what we are missing with our IPODS. 

The same can be said of the average flashaholic. Until he actually uses a light like a SunDrop, he doesn't know what he is missing. He thinks he has it all with what he has. If he is happy, who is such a snob that he should should say he shouldn't be?


----------



## mudman cj (Dec 7, 2008)

I also think the second shot is the 083 because the first shot has bluer eyes. But the difference between these shots is negligible IMO. To me, this proves just how well computer software is now able to manipulate color information and correct for an imbalance in the spectrum relative to some standard such as the sun. I don't agree that the photos tell you nothing about color reproduction.

If color balance is set to 'daylight', then doesn't it stand to reason that the shots can reveal deficiencies or differences in a light source relative to the spectrum of the sun? And the great feature of the high CRI 083 that is being celebrated here is the fact that it is more like sunlight than any other LED spectrum to date. Setting the camera's color balance to favor the cool white light would not portray the way it looks to the observer that is taking the picture. Using sunlight balance with the high CRI 083 makes the photo look as close as possible, by my eyes anyway, to the actual scene: it also portrays the difference between it and other LEDs. Photos taken with sunlight color balance and equal saturation can go a long way towards giving someone an understanding of the difference between LEDs IMO. 

Will it be the same as though they had them in their hands? Of course not. That has been well established due to factors like different monitors, monitor settings, inherent monitor phosphor limitations, etc. so I think we can move past that. Still, to say that nill value denies that it can show that two light sources are different. And if a poster puts up two shots taken with equal color balance then I can get some information about how different the two light sources are and I appreciate them taking the time to share the information.


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 7, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> So by now seeing this GOOD light source, it begs the question about availability and use. Are they so new that McGizmo really is the only person to lay his hands on some? Are they so new that there is no wide distribution yet? And of course, what about this LED in a much much cheaper host?
> 
> I hope this thread keeps getting updated about this new source.



wacbzz,

I don't think the 083 High CRI would be considered "new" relative to the LED changes and advancements we are aware of here on CPF. I purchased these 11 months ago. The Nichia rep who I consider a friend at this point, told me that he had some customers who were quite pleased with the High CRI 083 LED's they were using. That puts these into play last year.

I don't know who the customers are that the rep was commenting on but I'm willing to bet that they aren't flashlight manufacturers!

Flood has always been important to me because my primary need and use of artificial light sources is in applications where I want an even field of illumination, in relatively close. Flood beams are a small niche in flashlights, IMHO. For generations, we have been exposed to flashlights with tight collimation and tiny spots of light that could reach out some distance. I think SF made some serious headway for users familiar with their offerings by providing very intense lights that had larger spot beams and less collimation because the flux was great enough to allow this. But the Mag light was still the industry standard and given the limited flux, you had a highly polished reflector throwing out a tiny spot and this was the standard, if not only option for many of us. And many of us do need to illuminate objects in the far field so all is good.

In many situations, a portable light source is applied to situations no different than fixed lighting. In fixed lighting a very small niche is that of a real tight and collimated beam. In most applications, flood and even distribution of light is desired and used accordingly. A goofy thought just came to mind. Consider a football or baseball stadium. Think of the energy savings and reduced ticket prices if the stadium had computer controlled spot lights assigned to each player and could effectively track them across the field. The ball could be tracked as well. I visualize a bunch of white circles of intensity at the ends of visible beam shafts in a dark field of shadow. The beam shafts cross and spots move around and everyone would demand their money back! 

The Mule was a revisit to the original McLux and all about clean flood. With the higher flux LED's a flood beam now can reach that much further and indeed benefit from variable and reduced output levels even. When I played with some samples of the High CRI 083, I realized that given a reduction in flux relative to the Cree and Seoul, one could enjoy a quality of light in terms of color rendition that was an obvious improvement over the others. Some users like Baby Doc don't just want better color rendition, they need it. This is a niche though.

I think the SunDrop is a small niche light and I think it will take the industry a long time, if ever, to address such a niche for the casual flashlight user. I would anticipate higher CRI LED's showing up in higher end portable light sources and probably in lanterns and headlamps and other portable devices designed for near field, flood type illumination. There are presently premiums involved in getting high CRI LED's and from talking to some LED reps and manufacturers, the perception is that the market is not willing to pay such premiums. It seems that much of the industry is not concerned beyond color temperature. Flux and tighter tint or CCT control are the primary focus I believe. Quantity and consistancy are the target for improvement and advancements for the most part, it seems.

Even here in our community of flashaholics, color rendition is not a high priority and I am not saying that it should be. It is a niche though that I think has its place and one where I could be active without being trampled by big guys and economies of scale well beyond my scope. :shrug:

Will the flashlight market demand excellence to the point that color rendition is a parameter that needs to be addressed? The cynic in me says that most markets demand cheap and "loud" and quantity over quality and I don't see the flashlight market being any special case.

I happened to be exposed to the Zebra Light here on CPF and after seeing some pictures of it, I bought one. I don't need it or use it for that matter but only because I have my own lights that serve in similar fashion. I think it is a great light with wonderful utility. I know there are some here on CPF who would agree but would such a light ever enjoy mass appeal? I think it would be a good host for the High CRI 083 but will this ever happen? A reel of 083's consists of 1400 LED's. Would Zebra consider committing to a run of 1400 High CRI models that would have to compete with their existing light that enjoys much greater flux numbers? :thinking:

I only hope that the LED manufacturers see justification and some reason to address full and quality spectrum LED's and put some R&D into them. My dream is for a 6000k High CRI LED or better yet 6000k High EVS LED. I just made up the EVS which stands for Equivalent to Visible Sunlight. I have sampled some next generation LED's that I can't discuss and shouldn't even mention, but wanting it all, I asked if these LED's would be made with high color temperature and good color rendering phosphors and the answer was a disappointing maybe.

Demand driven markets suffer when those making the demands don't know the options or have a good understanding of what they are asking for! :green:


----------



## orcinus (Dec 7, 2008)

tebore said:


> And I'm gonna say the top is the high CRI based on the way some of the reds actually have different shades.





mudman cj said:


> I also think the second shot is the 083 because the first shot has bluer eyes.



The bottom one is the high-CRI shot. You win a (virtual) cookie! 



mudman cj said:


> To me, this proves just how well computer software is now able to manipulate color information and correct for an imbalance in the spectrum relative to some standard such as the sun.



Believe it or not, there's an even better piece of software doing the very same thing, sitting behind your eyeballs. 

Anyway, my point was this - if there were any significant differences to the way the individual colors were represented AFTER the white balance was tweaked, that would've said something (significant) about one lights color reproduction vs. the other (not i wrote "color reproduction" here, not CRI). Namely, that one light has significant "holes" in its spectrum compared to the other and can't reproduce some color patches, or reproduces them in a muted or tinted fashion (even after a WB correction).

There are a few caveats here... The first is the way human eyes detect color - the cones in our eyes aren't really "red", "green" and "blue" photodetectors, but "yellow-greenish", "cyanish" and "blue". The "true color" image gets reconstructed from that color space into what we see and percieve courtesy of the forementioned software (or rather wetware) between our ears. That fact (probably) means our eyes will natively have the highest dynamic range in the green parts of the spectrum (which they do), i.e. offer the greatest margin for corrections there without running out of headroom.

At the same time, we have a bias (naturally) toward the sunlight's spectrum, which contains a LOT more reds (along with a lot of greens) compared to most current LED lights. So we're inclined to see similar spectrums as "more natural". Even though they, perhaps, don't use our eye's dynamic range most effectively. (i don't have any scientific basis for this conclusion, but it sounds logical to assume the optimal spectrum for a light would be a mix of the sun's spectrum with the cold daylight spectrum)

In conclusion: yes, we're inclined to "like" warm light. No, we do not necesserily discern color under such lights the best. No, CRI won't necesserily tell you much about how one light compares to the other where colors are concerned IF they are light sources of different temperatures. And yes, you probably will find a high-CRI light "easier on the eyes" (if there is such a thing), especially when doing things like preparing food, walking through the woods or observing skin tones.


----------



## mudman cj (Dec 7, 2008)

While it is widely accepted that we adjust to the light spectrum, I know myself and many others feel that even after the adjustment period there is still a palpable difference that matters to us.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 7, 2008)

A bit OT, but still interesting:
When having a Cyan lightsource as the only lightsource for some time, coming back to "normal" light will make everything look very red for some minutes until the brain re-adjusts.
Eery.


----------



## orcinus (Dec 7, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> I only hope that the LED manufacturers see justification and some reason to address full and quality spectrum LED's and put some R&D into them. My dream is for a 6000k High CRI LED or better yet 6000k High EVS LED.



YES YES YES!!! 
That's exactly what i want!

Better yet, make that a 6500K high CRI LED.
Based on something better defined than the CRI...


----------



## orcinus (Dec 7, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> A bit OT, but still interesting:
> When having a Cyan lightsource as the only lightsource for some time, coming back to "normal" light will make everything look very red for some minutes until the brain re-adjusts.
> Eery.



Yeah, and it works equally well with other colors too - (almost) regardless of whether they lie on the black body spectrum or outside it. Try it with purple and green, it's even eerier


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 7, 2008)

I only have Cyan in sufficient horsepower


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

orcinus said:


> This is all nice and well, and i really appreciate the high-CRI emitters that have started to spawn out lately, so please don't take this as bashing. Please read the whole post carefully before flaming...
> 
> The photos posted in this thread tell you absolutely NOTHING about the color reproduction. Nothing at all. You could've just as easily set the white balance to favor the colder light and get a Nichia high-CRI shot that lacks as much in the blue part of the spectrum as the "normal" shot in the first post lacks in the red part of the spectrum.
> 
> ...



orcinus,

The fact that you have been able to digitally adjust both of these pictures, by changing the white balance and brightness and contrast, so that they are nearly indistinguishable, does NOT say that the _exact_ same amount of color information was picked off by both light sources (that's a fairly absolute statement, that is!). In my opinion, it says that both sources are full enough spectrum, with no holes and spikes present in the important areas, _for this set of images_ that _nearly_ the same amount of color information is present in both of the pictures I posted in the first post of this thread.

But, what if the images were of a painting with many different shades of red? And what if the observer were an artist or art critic? What then? Then, I would be willing to bet, this fancy digital footwork would not be enough. Or if there were colors near some of the spikes and rough parts of the Cree's spectrum (or 083's, for that matter)? Read back in this thread to BabyDoc's first post where he was able to see something with the 083 that he wasn't able to with a Cree. For most of us, the Cree may be more than good enough. Hell, I use a Golden Dragon or Nichia 3mm LED's for most of my daily flashlight tasks, and they are good enough for my purposes. Few people _need_ more, as today's LED's are full enough spectrum that the information is there. I essentially agree with you, here, I think.

So, let me go further: let's say you're right. Let's say I concede the point that the full information is there in both images, and just needs to be processed.

What does that matter? I'm not an instant computer running Photoshop! My eye sees what my eye sees. And if that is an image that is yellowy due to a low CCT light source, or of an image that is cool bluish due to a very high CCT light source, then _it matters!!!_ (And the fact that people prefer some form of sunlight isn't just arbitrary. We evolved seeing under that light source.)

This is EXACTLY the reason that so many people have been trashing incans all these years, wondering when they would die, and what was the point, and who would be stupid enough to want such **** yellow light! Despite the fact that the spectral curve was an almost perfect plankian black-body curve, people didn't like it. It was too low a CCT, too yellowy. And remember the binning of the Luxeon LED's, with the spot in the four letter code that was expressly for deviations from the PBBL (Plankian Black Body Locus)?

The fact that "the information is there" doesn't mean that it's just as good as any other light source where the "information is there" also.

Not good enough. CCT is important. And once you have that, deviations too far away from a black body spectral curve--holes or spikes--are also important. Our brains adjust to things, it is true, but it still matters.

To say that the white balance of the light is unimportant for color reproduction is a bit crazy. Of course it's important, which is why we have all these tools to keep track of it and adjust for it, _so that all images come out looking as if they had been photographed with natural light_.

So you made the Cree image look almost indistinguishable from the 083? So? I didn't have to do ANY processing to make the 083 image look like a daylight image.

And THAT is the point.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

tebore said:


> That's why I'm saying to use a locked custom one if you want to show the difference. Otherwise you can manipulate it, it gets skewed or isn't a true representation. You need to lock it so you can actually see the difference. You're right about the CRI system. I'm just saying even for a quick and dirty compare you should lock a CWB. I'm talking about comparing color rendering.
> 
> . . .



No.

The white balance was manipulated _to make each image LOOK LIKE WHAT I SAW WITH MY EYES_. It was not manipulated in order to skew the image. It was not arbitrary.

Locking the WB would indeed have shown a _much_ greater difference, but it would have been totally unnatural and would not have corresponded with what I had actually seen.

*I* am the standard. Me. My eyes, my judgement. To the extent that someone trusts me and my perception, they will trust those pictures. That far, and no more. Many, it is true, feel that the camera "tells the truth" (somehow) because it is an objective, repeatable source. That if you just lock all the settings and run with it, that's what it _really_ looks like.

Not true. Check out any of the many conventional beamshots with the bright hotspot surrounded by darkness, then take the exact same light out into the field (or to the white wall) and turn it on. Do you see what is in the beamshot? No. Not really. And that's because the camera has a much lower dynamic range than the eye. The camera is not the eye.

I dispense with all such objectivity when it strays from fidelity. I want my pictures to be as close as I can possibly make them to _what I see with my own eyes_. It's not perfect, it's somewhat subjective, *but it's a whole lot better than locking all the settings*.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

mudman cj said:


> While it is widely accepted that we adjust to the light spectrum, I know myself and many others feel that even after the adjustment period there is still a palpable difference that matters to us.



+1.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

orcinus,

I've been studying the images, and I would say that the top image is the 083.

Is that really the Cree? If so, WOW. Impressive.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Dec 7, 2008)

JS, I apologize for contributing to dragging things off course. I know you've already had to step in once in this thread; if I've gone too far in giving a full response here, please let me know and I'll edit it down for you. For everyone else here for the CRI discussion, you may disregard this tangent and you won't miss any valuable contribution.



BabyDoc said:


> Perhaps you missed my point. Even an IPOD with the best earphones, is a comprise, because the very compressed sound files used in an IPOD are missing a lot of sonic information present in a real live performance, if you are lucky enough to hear one. . .Sure better earphones, like better speakers, make some difference, but they will never replace the weakest link in the chain, which in the case of IPODS is the compressed recorded file.


Hm, that seemed more contentious than called for. I made a friendly post in response to a topic I also enjoy, so I hope I wasn't as offensive as the tone of this response suggests and I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm reading more into it than was intended. Perhaps you missed my point: _you're making a good analogy and I agree with it_, but I'd like to interject a quick and polite comment on the reality of the view presented, since it's something that interests me and the one you provided is skewed a little to work better within the context of your analogy. To extend your "best earphones/compromise" back into the analogy of audio and flashlights, would it also be fair to say that even a pocketable flashlight with the best LED is still a compromise because it runs on low-quality, off-brand, PRC-manufactured CR123s? Of course not. It may still be a compromise (it's not the actual sun), but it's not entirely because of what it's filled with, though that is one potential problem. The user has the option of putting batteries of adequate quality in it, and they do exist. Perhaps somewhere you missed your own point? You're using a view that is generally true to broadly paint every member of a very large and diverse group. So, neverminding the fact that ipods and many other players can play lossless formats that make your argument against their compression irrelevant... Garbage in garbage out is true, obviously. If you're pushing a badly compressed file through a great system, you're only going to hear the flaws more clearly. But have you compared current generation mp3 files at various bitrates using audiophile quality home gear and reference headphones? Are you qualified to make such categorical judgments? Maybe you have. I have too. Maybe you're speaking based on your own unbiased test results, in which case it's perfectly valid, but only for you, and you'd be an exceptional case from the majority. Not only are my LAME encodings good, they're better than I'd ever need portably (whatever gear I might be using) since they're encoded with the idea that it can also be used as a more convenient home source hooked up to bigger gear without a huge loss of quality. They're not the weak link. So, as someone who has done too much time on head-fi, I can confidently say you're flat out wrong on that point. Compression will, by definition, reduce the quality of the audio file, but it has come a long way and it's no longer accurate to simply say that you lose "a lot," as long as you allow them the bitrate they need. In the case of an ipod, the bottleneck is not necessarily the encoded file, it's more likely the quality of the player's built in amp (but there are ways around that, of course). And in a home environment with solid equipment, I've found it does not take long before the limiting factor is actually the quality of the original recording (followed by quality of normal human ears). Not the compression, not the gear, not ignorance of what is objectively correct; the recording on the CD. Sometimes this is caused by a low budget (low quality equipment and engineers). More often this is caused by too high a budget (big record companies telling the mastering company to ruin it). That's actually what allowed me to reach something of an end in that hobby; I found a combination I liked the sound of and realized that the recordings I mostly listen to are already not as good as what I'm listening with, so there's no longer very strong justification to keep moving up the ladder. It's like having a flashlight that can already project across the longest distance you'll ever encounter in your daily world; why look for more throw. In the end, the hobby is about the music and the gear is only the medium between. Just as the flashlight hobby is, to me at least, about the illumination and use, not the highest specs and pursuit of the latest almost imperceptibly brighter led.



BabyDoc said:


> You only have to compare the sound reproduction of an IPOD to that of a a Super AUDIO CD recording played back on a quality sound system to hear what is sonically missing.


Yes and no. This assumes that the original master is good enough for SACD to provide benefit and that the listener has good enough ears and enough listening experience to pick up on the subtleties. I have mp3, I have CD, I have SACD, I have DVD-A, and I've worked on 96k/24bit in a professional studio. A better quality medium will provide better sound, naturally, but whether it is perceived by the listener is another matter. We're talking small detail differences if everything is done correctly and fairly. I've found in the past that I had a tendency to fool myself with "novel" formats. SACD blew my mind at first... until I later tried the same recording on CD and had to admit that the vast majority of what I was hearing was just that it was a fantastic recording to begin with, just as any legitimate SA recording should be. Since then, I've found more enjoyable CDs that are astonishingly well recorded than I've found SACDs of music I'm interested in listening to, so I've given up on the format, technically impressive though it is. To over-stress the obviousness of high res differences seems to go against your earlier point, that it can be difficult for someone inside a hobby to understand the insignificance of its finer details to those not on the same wavelength. The hi-res difference is dramatically smaller than the sundrop difference. In truth, both are rather insignificant to all but a few buyers/users, as you already were starting to say earlier.



BabyDoc said:


> Audiophiles spend a fortune to have as close to a live sound experience in their living rooms as they can get.


Again, this is basically true but a narrow-minded generalization of what it means to be an audiophile. If that's what it means to you, that's absolutely fine and perfectly valid, and I would even agree that what you're describing is the most pure form of audiophilia. However, it can take many forms in either direction from that. I long ago read that there are many audiophiles in, I believe, Hong Kong who don't even listen to music. They buy the gear and test it on tones and reference vocal samples, not music. That's pure gear fetishism and it disgusts me a little since it cuts out what I see as the most important aspect of the hobby, but I have to acknowledge that it is also a very pure expression of one aspect of the same thing. It could even be argued that it's the purest form, though I'd disagree simply because it removes it entirely from what I perceive to be the original intention, cutting out a fundamental aspect. On the other side, where I've ended up, are those who focus on euphony and want excellent quality with a focus on the music more than a pursuit of some objective audio truth. I think it's elitist and condescending to try to exclude those who vary from one parochial view of the hobby, just as you would probably not like the test tone fellows saying their way is the one true way and your chosen form is heretical, and just as I don't care for the suggestion that my path is impure because it openly accepts personal preference and tastes instead of standing firm on only hardline neutrality. Your view is accurate in a generalized sense, but limited in scope.

That said, it should be acknowledged that we both have our biases. You seem to have a focus on pure, objective neutrality in order to reproduce what you hear in live music. I also find live music to be best (and dislike the plastic-sounding sterility of overly produced studio work), but I have no problem admitting that I sometimes enjoy the clarity of a well recorded live performance over the more natural sonic blending of actually being there. That's the human element, not just on the performer's side but on the listener's as well; there is no sin in not making the utmost effort to plug the mic feed directly into your temporal lobes. We do it for enjoyment and should make a priority of our enjoyment.



BabyDoc said:


> A lot of the sound we hear is synthesized, distorted, and poorly amplified even before it is recorded. So that's where the garbage reallly starts, and why it often difficult to distinguish mp3 files from less compressed sound formats. The only real live music left in abundance is classical music or jazz, by which you can judge the qualitfy of sound recording and reproduction.) Perhaps, in some way it is a good thing we don't have real live performances. It is a lot easier and lot cheaper when we don't know what we are missing with our IPODS.


A lot of modern music is synthesized, but I don't think that justifies passing judgement over it as not "real" music. Is jazz not real because it makes use of an electric guitar? There's a big difference between an amplified instrument and a synthesizer, but judging one to be fake because of that difference requires choosing where to draw the line, which usually ends up being nothing more than a reflection of our personal tastes. Many who do not care for jazz might question whether it is "real" music, but for very different reasons. It sounds like you'd disagree with the line their tastes have drawn.



BabyDoc said:


> If he is happy, who is such a snob that he should should say he shouldn't be?


Agreed. Exactly.

And I've reached the point where I realize we're just thread crapping now. But I'm really curious, why do you make it sound like we live in some live music free dystopia? Is there really so little wherever you are? I attend and record live concerts pretty regularly (much of it unamplified classical guitar lately) and could go to far far more if I desired. I've never viewed that as so uncommon, or the live music scene as so dead, but maybe I'm in a fortunate area. I'm curious to hear an answer to that last part, but if you feel like you must continue the rest of this discussion further, please do it privately so we don't splash any more mud on JS's fine thread. Sorry that ended up being such a rant; I just want to get my points across and respond to what I take issue with, but I have a couple years of stupid head-fi bickering bottled up.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Dec 7, 2008)

mudman cj said:


> I also think the second shot is the 083 because the first shot has bluer eyes. But the difference between these shots is negligible IMO.


That's also something I looked at, but I ended up making the call based on the coloration of the side of the table. Second one just seemed to have a more natural range of color to it, to me.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 7, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> wacbzz,
> 
> I don't think the 083 High CRI would be considered "new" relative to the LED changes and advancements we are aware of here on CPF. I purchased these 11 months ago. The Nichia rep who I consider a friend at this point, told me that he had some customers who were quite pleased with the High CRI 083 LED's they were using. That puts these into play last year.



By using the term _new_, I was really meaning to both me and - it seems - CPF as well. Perhaps I missed out on all the other lights that happen to use this LED, but I don't think so. Being "aware of" an LED advancement and it actually being used are really two different things. The lack of flashlights using this LED is really a testament to what I am saying. 

I personally like the color rendition from this LED. I, however, am not financially able, nor am I willing, to pay what I consider an extreme price for a flashlight. This is not a knock on the Sundrop at all. I understand why it commands the price that it does. But every one of the lights that I have are very much users and I personally would not use a light that I paid that much for every day. I don't put my lights in a box and then hope to sell them when times get tough for an high premium. 

I hardly think the price for this LED is keeping it out of the hands of manufacturers that can produce a light that is waaay under $400. That is the light I am looking for.

That is way I stated that I hope this thread is kept updated...:twothumbs





McGizmo said:


> I happened to be exposed to the Zebra Light here on CPF and after seeing some pictures of it, I bought one. I don't need it or use it for that matter but only because I have my own lights that serve in similar fashion. I think it is a great light with wonderful utility. I know there are some here on CPF who would agree but would such a light ever enjoy mass appeal? I think it would be a good host for the High CRI 083 but will this ever happen? A reel of 083's consists of 1400 LED's. Would Zebra consider committing to a run of 1400 High CRI models that would have to compete with their existing light that enjoys much greater flux numbers?



Zebralight seemingly does enjoy mass appeal. Simply look at the dealers that now carry the light as opposed to when it first arrived on the scene so to speak. But this is exactly what I am talking about. Are we so sure that they _do_ know about the 083's? All of their lights are not specifically concerned with the "super high output" and I feel that they would benefit from using a light source like the 083. 

Just one man's opinion, but I am definitley looking for another light that uses this seemingly awesome LED...:thumbsup:


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

Guys,

If this is mud splashing, call me a pig! BRING IT ON! As the orginator of this thread, I approve of this line of discussion. Perhaps it would indeed best be split off into a separate thread and moved to the CAFE, and that can certainly be done with a few clicks and keystrokes, but for now, let's keep it here unless people object.

What I like about this is that it seems to be making my point earlier, to some degree. Both sound and color are partly (or wholly!) subjective affairs, and people disagree even over benchmarks and standards. It's not a clear, rational, objective realm.

SaturnNyne,

I too have recently been spending a lot of time over at head-fi, and been learning all about AAC and ALAC and DAC's and AMP's and 24/96 and all that. It all started when I bought my Macbook Pro. I won't go into the whole story, but I've been tracking down all the various components of the sound quality in an effort to improve things, and I've done careful listening back and forth between the 256k bit-rate ("best" setting for AAC in iTunes) and AIF (linear, no compression whatsoever), and while I think I can hear a difference, it isn't much of a difference. I have an NAD preamp and amp, a Rotel CD player, Grado SR-225 headphones, and Energy 22 speakers.

But one thing I _do_ know for sure: high fidelity is not dead! iPods, even with the lower rate AAC files, sound a whole heck of a lot better than the portable tape-decks I had growing up. And better even than my crappy record player that came with my first stereo. AAC may not be for audiophiles, but it's actually pretty darned good, and is highly unlikely to be the limiting factor in the chain for most people. But then, most people aren't audiophiles either.

Go to head-fi, though, and you'll see that a great many audiophiles have amazing portable systems built around an iPod touch using ALAC (lossless compression scheme), with maybe a portable amp like an iBasso D3, and with some serious in-ear-headphones like the Shure SE530 or ER-4P or even one of the Ultimate Ears models. Or if not portable, you will find a lot of people using their computers as the audio source sending digital info via USB or FireWire or TOSLINK to a DAC, to a headphone amp, to a serious pair of headphones.

High fidelity is far from dead! It's as strong as ever, as far as I can see, and for the average person, fidelity has improved over the last 20 years. It's spotty, and it's a generalization; -- but, in general, I think it has.

Just my two cents.

Oh, and SaturnNyne, I'm getting an Apogee Duet in a few days! Looking forward to bypassing the DAC/AMP in my MBP, I can tell you that.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Dec 7, 2008)

Wow JS, that's a very nice setup you've got! :twothumbs As you said, fidelity is not dead at all; and it's actually within easier reach than ever. With good quality sound now available at a price that allows almost anyone with some dedication to get started in it, it seems more people than ever are showing an interest in what they put between their ears.

I think my best tip (not _the_ best tip, just the best I've found) for comparing different bitrates is to listen to splash above the fundamental sound of a well recorded cymbal. I've found that a LAME mp3 at 128 has a dull splash with no real decay, just a drone and then silence. At 192 it begins to sound natural again. By 320 I'm unable to distinguish it in direct comparison with the source CD.

I don't have experience with most of the stuff you have, but I've tried out the SR-225 and own the similar HF-1; fantastic rock headphones! Also really beautiful on intimate acoustic recordings, such as string quartets, and I think Grado does violin quite well. My own portable system is usually pretty minimal these days since I don't listen all that much when on the go, but my home setup is much as you described. Either NAD CDP or computer as source, digital feed by coaxial or usb into Headroom Micro DAC, Cardas cable to HR Micro Amp with desktop module, usually powering a Beyerdynamic DT880. Then, when using the cdp, I have another line running to a cheap sub to add in when I feel like adding some color. Here's the complete list, if you're curious: 
http://www.head-fi.org/.../saturnnyne/

So, would you say your audio tastes also follow your light tastes, as mine do?


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

orcinus,

Just to be clear, I really appreciate your posts in this thread! And thanks so much for taking the time to play with those images to make your point.

--they ARE made from the two _different_ images in my post, right?-- Impressive.

I wanted to be stress that I do largely agree with you, but not entirely. It's funny, because tebore is suggesting that CCT matters so much you just shouldn't correct for it at all, but should lock it to show the difference in the two sources. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that the brain, like photohop, can and does just simply adjust to the CCT, and thus it doesn't really matter for color reproduction.

I think the truth is in between. I think our eyes, our brains, do adjust, which is why if I take a picture with my camera set to daylight, under incandescent lighting, the picture will be outrageously yellow compared to what I actually saw (or perceived, if you will). However, I don't think we can adjust so much that viewing an amazing painting by candlelight will yield exactly the same experience as viewing it by sunlight, direct or indirect.

Undoubtedly, the sunlight quality of the 083 isn't such an huge plus that everyone is going to start switching to them for all uses, all cases, against the disadvantages. I will continue to EDC my LunaSol 20, for example. However, I can tell you that if Don gave me a choice between an LS20 that had Sundrop quality light (or CCT light) and one that didn't, then I would pay a premium for it in a second.

Anyway, it seems to me that if you truly hold that the brain more or less completely adapts to CCT, then you should hold that CRI is _all_ that matters, and one can compare CRI's of different sources against each other without bothering to worry about what the CCT of each one was. Right? Explain to me why you disagree with that. I must be misunderstanding your position somewhat here.


----------



## BabyDoc (Dec 7, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> Hm, that seemed more contentious than called for. I made a friendly post in response to a topic I also enjoy, so I hope I wasn't as offensive as the tone of this response suggests and I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I'm reading more into it than was intended. .


 

Hmmm... I am sorry if what I wrote seemed contentious. It was not my intention. You see again, using this text media, you can't tell always tell the tone of what I am saying. There is missing information in the text, just like there is missing information in compressed files. You fill in the gaps, but not always the way it was originally intended. Perhaps, I should have apologized for my original post, that I didn't make myself more clear.
In any case, because this discussion has more to do with audio than light, I think we should carry this on as PM. I publicly, however, wish to apologize to you, if I in any way I offended you even inadvertently.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

SaturnNyne,

Yes, that's exactly where I thought I could hear the difference: way up high in the overtones. Cymbals, sibilence, and electronic effects up there. But I specifically had to listen for it. The high bit rate AAC is supposed to be just as good as, or better than, the 320 MP3, so I'm hoping that I don't have to re-rip all my CD's to lossless, but we shall see what happens when I get my Duet.

As for the Grado's and my musical taste, I love rock, pop, R&B, acoustic, alternative, but also classical, especially piano and string ensembes, such as quartets and symphonies. My system isn't really anywhere near high-end, but I enjoy it, and that's the most important thing. It should be all about the music, in my opinion. I tend to drift into being a gear-head and getting all analytical and losing the music. I mothballed my system for a year once because I kept not enjoying the music for worry about a defect in the sound (output solenoids in the NAD 2200 were going), and I listened to a crappy CD boombox for a year. The sound was bad. Bad to the point where I stopped focusing on it, and just got into the music. Since then, I've been able to do both, and it was an amazing thing to return to my Energy's and NAD 2200.

Anyway, I'll check out your head-fi listing!


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

BabyDoc,

I appreciated your posts as well, by the way! I actually think that the ensuing discussion was/is profitable, and does relate to the whole color rendering issue. But it's fine to move everything to PM or to the CAFE.


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

So, I just spent 10 minutes or so with the same setup and with the same two lights, going back and forth in various intervals, and first of all, I am standing by the pictures I posted in the first thread. Those two images are very close to what the reality looks like to me.

Second, I wonder, what would happen, orcinus, if you left the 083 image alone, and only modified the Cree one? Both of the images in your post are more highly saturated and brightened and have different contrasts than the reality. It reminds me of British TV vs. American, like old All Creatures Great and Small landscapes vs. the saturated, processed images on modern nature programs and such-like. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that artificially processing both images so much may have degraded the fidelity and made it harder to identify the higher CRI light source image.

Also, it occurs to me that both of the jpg images in your post have been compressed three times. Once in the camera, once in the re-sizing for posting on CPF, and then once more after your processing. JPG is a lossy format. That also could be another source of the difficulty of ascertaining which is which.

And, then, of course, they are just plain low-res images, 800 pixels wide vs. the almost 4,000 pixels of the original.


----------



## orcinus (Dec 7, 2008)

js said:


> In my opinion, it says that both sources are full enough spectrum, with no holes and spikes present in the important areas, _for this set of images_ that _nearly_ the same amount of color information is present in both of the pictures I posted in the first post of this thread.



YES! That's exactly what i was trying to say too!
Haven't i? 



js said:


> But, what if the images were of a painting with many different shades of red? And what if the observer were an artist or art critic? What then? Then, I would be willing to bet, this fancy digital footwork would not be enough.



Ah, but here's where the key part comes to focus - the CRI has been defined almost exactly the way you took your photos! Except for the white balance, of course, but let's forget that for the moment.

It's been defined as a test of color reproduction of a set of color patches. In fact, it has recently been redefined to use practically the very same color patches you've used (xrite). Furthermore, it's been defined in a very dubious manner - it uses one color space for evaluation of light sources colder than 5000K (planckian black body) and another for the evaluation of light sources warmer than 5000K (CIE or its variations).

I am NOT trying to debate the validity and usefulness of high-CRI emitters, i'm debating the way we evaluate them and demonstrate their advantages.



js said:


> What does that matter? I'm not an instant computer running Photoshop! My eye sees what my eye sees.



That's exactly what you are! An instant computer running a bunch of very complex electrochemical routines that optimize what you're looking at into what you're seeing. And no, not all of them happen in the brain. Quite a lot of them are inherent to the way eyes, rods, cones and whatnot, work.

While i'm on the subject, here's another thing that's been bothering me. People claiming they "see what they see" after putting two differently tinted emitters next to eachother. You won't be able to judge a THING that way, because your eyes and brain will always train on one of them and proclaim the other as worse. You have to try using and evaluating them one by one, letting yourself accomodate to a single light source without the other one in the picture! Anything else and you're back to posting photos with white balance fixed to favour one of the light sources 



js said:


> And remember the binning of the Luxeon LED's, with the spot in the four letter code that was expressly for deviations from the PBBL (Plankian Black Body Locus)?



You seem to have misinterpreted my post... Which isn't that odd, considering it was written in a pretty chaotic manner.

I _never _said anything agains light sources adhering to the black body spectrum. In fact, it's the only thing i find relevant beyond any point of doubt in the whole issue of color reproduction. However, i think that, for example, deviations into green aren't necesserily a bad thing - in fact, they can be beneficial in some applications like outdoor flashlights.

The spectrum of sun, after all, does not precisely follow the black body curve it should for its temperature - the green and yellow parts are a bit higher then they should be, while the blue and violet parts are lower. And that's _before _it even hits the atmosphere. But that's beside the point...



js said:


> So you made the Cree image look almost indistinguishable from the 083? So? I didn't have to do ANY processing to make the 083 image look like a daylight image.
> 
> And THAT is the point.



Actually, you did do some processing. The moment you've chosen a daylight white balance setting, you've processed your picture. In the same way i've reprocessed it later on when i changed the white balance.

We do NOT live in a world where daylight white balance is an absolute. It's an artificial standard, not some magical etalon of what is right and truthful (colorwise) and what is not. Why daylight? Why not a "cloudy" daylight setting? Why not a shadow daylight setting? Oh, and which daylight are we talking about? The 5000K one? 5500K? 6000? 6500? See where this is going? 



js said:


> Anyway, it seems to me that if you truly hold that the brain more or less completely adapts to CCT, then you should hold that CRI is _all_ that matters, and one can compare CRI's of different sources against each other without bothering to worry about what the CCT of each one was. Right? Explain to me why you disagree with that. I must be misunderstanding your position somewhat here.



No, i'm trying to say that both are ill suited for comparison of two lights by themselves. CRI of two sources with different CCT don't mean a thing. Or, at least, i think it shouldn't. Why? Because CRI seems to be geared towards favoring a flat spectrum filtered through (/weighted by) some standardized notion of "what-is-right-and-what-is-not". CIE color space has its basis planted in _industry,_ not the way people see and percieve. CRI might be useful for evaluation of lights as they pertain to, say, photography or video, but i'm not convinced it is relevant at all where human (subjective) visual perception is concerned.

Apparently, i'm not the only one:
http://www.knt.vein.hu/staff/schandaj/SJCV-Publ-2005/521.pdf


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Dec 7, 2008)

With all this talk of color rendition and accuracy you might head over to this thread: What's your color IQ? It has a link to a very cool test.

-LT


----------



## mudman cj (Dec 7, 2008)

The heart of this discussion is the reason why I am excited about this new color rendering scale being developed by NIST. :twothumbs


----------



## orcinus (Dec 7, 2008)

js said:


> Second, I wonder, what would happen, orcinus, if you left the 083 image alone, and only modified the Cree one? Both of the images in your post are more highly saturated and brightened and have different contrasts than the reality. It reminds me of British TV vs. American, like old All Creatures Great and Small landscapes vs. the saturated, processed images on modern nature programs and such-like. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that artificially processing both images so much may have degraded the fidelity and made it harder to identify the higher CRI light source image.



No "untoward" changes have been done in my first post. No saturation changed, just brightness and contrast increased a bit (as the originals are a bit underexposed in the color patch area).

Anyway, here they are again, with only the Cree edited:












I think i was off on the white balance a bit this time (i've realized it after i've uploaded the pics), but nevermind. Load both in Photoshop or another similar app, put them both in a single document in two layers and try switching between them quickly to see the main differences in color reproduction (_not _accuracy).

The Cree favours the greens and yellows, while the Nichia favours magenta and blue (coincidentally, the exact opposites of the PBBL and it's perpendicular spectrum). The differences are slight, but they are there.

*Edit:* BTW, i hope everyone here understands by now that the main reason these pics are getting so much attention and Photoshop action is because of js' taste in magazine covers... er i mean color reproduction test subjects


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

orcinus,

I think we're coming closer.

But if you knew the first thing about me, you'd know that I am all about the live-with-it-for-a-while approach. I did NOT base what I am saying in this thread on a few five second tests. Nor did I always start with the same light in my comparisons. On the contrary.

And, I didn't set my camera to daylight WB! I made sure to capture what I was seeing. And yes, it is somewhat subjective, but no, it is not arbitrary, and it is not just an artifact of an ill conceived testing methodology. Honestly, do you seriously think that I don't know enough not to always start with the same light? And that I didn't live with both lights for months and don't have a pretty good baseline of experience?

People do in fact "see what they see", and this does in fact add up to something real given enough time, experience, and consideration.

The adjustments my brain can make are nowhere near extensive enough to render the two light sources indistinguishable, even if I wait for hours or even days. This is what I meant when I said it wasn't running photoshop. And I stand by that.

I also stand by my shades-of-red example. If a light source allows you to distinguish finer and finer shades of color, vs. another which doesn't, then I think that's a pretty good measure of color rendering ability. Is a doctor able to pick out a case of strep throat with a given light? If BabyDoc can with the 083, but _can't_ with the Cree, then that clearly says that the 083 is better. If your eyes and brain just "adjust" like a photoshop program doing its thing, then why didn't his eyes adjust? Why did he need to switch to the 083? Are you going to tell me he didn't see what he saw? That his experience proves nothing?

But, in any case, I take your point about the flaws in how we measure and quantify CRI. But, keep in mind that my pictures _were not any kind of proof of superior color rendering ability_. They simply captured, in my opinion, the difference in light coming from the 083 vs. the Cree. I rigged it up to show this. It was simply a visual example _that lined up with and exemplified what my experience with the 083 has been_.

As for daylight, it's far from being an "artificial" standard! It's the most prominent and ubiquitous and abundant source we have, with a long tradition and history behind it (all of history, in fact). If it didn't matter, if it was arbitrary, then you wouldn't always find photographers preferring it to everything else when they can get it.

But, let's change tacks here.

If you're not debating the usefulness and validity of high CRI emitters, then can I infer that

1. you _do_ find them useful and valid?

and

2. you have a different way to demonstrate and evaluate that usefulness?


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

orcinus said:


> No "untoward" changes have been done in my first post. No saturation changed, just brightness and contrast increased a bit (as the originals are a bit underexposed in the color patch area).
> 
> Anyway, here they are again, with only the Cree edited:
> 
> ...



OK. Thanks for doing this yet again! Nice work!

And this time, I am definitely going to go with the top picture as being from the 083.

Is that right?

p.s. oh yeah, I am certainly not tired of looking at these photos! That's for sure! LOL!


----------



## holeymoley (Dec 7, 2008)

Wow, you guys sound like you really know what you're talking about

My 2 questions are simple:
Where can I buy a 083? And what would be a good host to drive it at ~1 lumen for extended runtimes?


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

holeymoley said:


> Wow, you guys sound like you really know what you're talking about
> 
> My 2 questions are simple:
> Where can I buy a 083? And what would be a good host to drive it at ~1 lumen for extended runtimes?



"Sound like" is the operative phrase here!

I posted a link (above) to the sales thread in the McGizmo forum, and there is good discussion there. Check it out, and good luck!


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 7, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> By using the term _new_, I was really meaning to both me and - it seems - CPF as well. Perhaps I missed out on all the other lights that happen to use this LED, but I don't think so. Being "aware of" an LED advancement and it actually being used are really two different things. The lack of flashlights using this LED is really a testament to what I am saying.
> 
> I personally like the color rendition from this LED. I, however, am not financially able, nor am I willing, to pay what I consider an extreme price for a flashlight. This is not a knock on the Sundrop at all. I understand why it commands the price that it does. But every one of the lights that I have are very much users and I personally would not use a light that I paid that much for every day. I don't put my lights in a box and then hope to sell them when times get tough for an high premium.
> 
> ...



I am not aware of other lights using the High CRI 083 or any 083 for that matter. Is this because the manufacturers are not aware of the LED's or because they feel there are other LED solutions which are better for their purposes? My guess is the latter but it is just a guess.

These LED's have a lot going against them. High Vf, low flux and poor efficacy relative to the LED's using the Cree EZ100 chip. These LED's are a cluster of 6 dice and not a single chip. A projected image of them is not an eye pleaser. 

Most of the flashlights are about throw and intensity. Will a manufacturer sacrifice throw and intensity for a LED that is better at color rendering? Is color rendering that important in a collimated beam? Now if Nichia's phosphor were available to Cree or Seoul and we could get LED's from them that take a hit on flux but at the gain of color with all other considerations near equal, then this could be a different story and I would expect we would see more manufacturers involved. The 083 is best suited in a flood beam and that removes a whole bunch of interest right there, IMHO.

If I may be so bold in the use of terms, the 083 allows one a drop of sunshine. I think the majority of flashiholics and flashlight manufacturers will become interested if and when a LED allows one a ray of sunshine.

40 lumens in a flood type beam has its limitations regardless of the quality of the beam but within its range, it can be quite effective, if not popular.

How about 160 lumens from the 083 High CRI?







The execution of this prototype leaves much to be desired and improvements would be rather obvious but the beam is certainly one that would please a number of people in a number of real applications.






I think js's thread here is more about the Nichia 083 High CRI than it is about the specific host. In that vein, I offer an even goofier host but with the advantage of a number of drops of sunshine available.

And for the audio portion of this post, an iPod with Bang and Ollifsen ear buds was integrated into the hard hat for some of the trials but ultimately eliminated when I kept shaking the hat off. :nana:


----------



## holeymoley (Dec 7, 2008)

Thanks for the link Js, I guess the jury is still out on proper hosts. I want to build a reading light with a warmer color rendition than with the E01 I'm currently using. I guess I will have to wait for bare emitters to come along so I can put it in a LF2x or something.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 7, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> I am not aware of other lights using the High CRI 083 or any 083 for that matter. Is this because the manufacturers are not aware of the LED's or because they feel there are other LED solutions which are better for their purposes? My guess is the latter but it is just a guess.



Ok. So where do I find the person with access to this LED that will build a drop in for my CL1H/6P/etc/etc host? A flood beam for me is almost a perfect light. And obviously for a lot of other people as well...look at the number of M60F's that Gene sells. 

All I'm saying is that there has to be something other than a TI Sundrop that can be a vehicle for this LED that won't set me back an arm and a leg...




McGizmo said:


> How about 160 lumens from the 083 High CRI?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While you joke of the host, to me that is an unbelievably awesome setup.  I only write about the host because it is only available in one very expensive (to me) host. Perhaps the market is not there yet for this type of inexpensive light, but I will be first in line if it comes. :sigh:


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 7, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> Ok. So where do I find the person with access to this LED that will build a drop in for my CL1H/6P/etc/etc host? A flood beam for me is almost a perfect light. And obviously for a lot of other people as well...look at the number of M60F's that Gene sells.
> 
> All I'm saying is that there has to be something other than a TI Sundrop that can be a vehicle for this LED that won't set me back an arm and a leg...
> 
> ...



I don't know the answer to your question. None of my stuff is inexpensive for any number of reasons and I don't expect my pricing to be acceptable to a good number of people for very good and legitimate reasons. Perhaps this thread will spur someone or some manufacturer on to addressing the market as you would like to see. There are economies of scale that need to be enjoyed and they require a commitment that may or may not be justified. I can't play in those leagues and I haven't paid attention to who the players are or how receptive they are to niches or new ideas.

I will probably do a few lights in aluminum using some left over Aleph McMules as hosts but these are still quite expensive, relatively speaking. Not an arm and a leg but perhaps an arm or a leg. (half the price of the SunDrop) :shrug: I say probably because until I get some converters back, it's all vapor.

I should point out that the entry fee here is quite steep for a little guy! 1400 LED's and a custom run of MCPCB's is a commitment in itself.


----------



## js (Dec 8, 2008)

orcinus,

After sleeping on it, I think I am seeing things more and more from your point of view.

Thank you for your contributions here!

OK. So, let's say that the difference between the Cree and 083 High CRI LED _is only CCT_ and that adjusting the WB on your camera, or with your digital editing software, _can completely compensate_ for that difference. Where does that leave us? In my opinion, there are three main points left to be disputed:

1. Can your eyes and brain completely adjust given time and lack of contrasting light? If all you could see by, for the rest of your life, was 1700K CCT candlelight, would you just get so completely used to it that you never felt a lack? Would all of your magazines and paintings and clothing look just as good to you as if you had to live entirely with 6000K CCT daylight? Personally, I think a difference exists, and would remain, and that there would be a lack. In other words, I think CCT matters.

2. Given that sunlight is always going to be in most people's lives, and that they will be exposed to it on a regular basis, and have a contrast available, doesn't it make sense that the goal of general purpose indoor lighting should be a similar CCT to sunlight?

3. Can we find any more excuses to re-process and re-post the GQ pictures? I think not, sadly. Seriously, though, I do concede that you're right. All they show is the CCT difference of the two light sources. I just think that's still significant.


----------



## orcinus (Dec 8, 2008)

js said:


> orcinus,
> But if you knew the first thing about me, you'd know that I am all about the live-with-it-for-a-while approach. I did NOT base what I am saying in this thread on a few five second tests. Nor did I always start with the same light in my comparisons. On the contrary.



I'm not claiming you did that. What i'm trying to say is, that looking at a light of one temperature, then switching to another withing a few minutes or even tens of minutes isn't enough. And that even switching the light order might not be enough, as people sometimes give advantage to a particular temperature - it's enough to think of the warmer one as "more pleasant" and you'll start finding dozens of flaws in the colder one. Or vice versa. There is people who prefer colder whites to warmer whites as well...

Of course, you could argue that finding the light source that's "more pleasant" is exactly the point of the test. But that's a whole different story and there is absolutely no argument there.



js said:


> And, I didn't set my camera to daylight WB! I made sure to capture what I was seeing. And yes, it is somewhat subjective, but no, it is not arbitrary, and it is not just an artifact of an ill conceived testing methodology. Honestly, do you seriously think that I don't know enough not to always start with the same light? And that I didn't live with both lights for months and don't have a pretty good baseline of experience?



Honestly, i'm not trying to insult your knowledge or methods. I'm just trying to show that what you, me and everyone else is talking about _isn't_ the quality of color rendering, even if that's what it's called 

And that the so called high-CRI sources aren't the universal optimum, but sources most people find the most pleasant to look at and sources suitable to some applications, not all of them. While "plain ole" emitters that get shoved in the "low-CRI" drawer are more useful in other applications.



js said:


> I also stand by my shades-of-red example. If a light source allows you to distinguish finer and finer shades of color, vs. another which doesn't, then I think that's a pretty good measure of color rendering ability. Is a doctor able to pick out a case of strep throat with a given light? If BabyDoc can with the 083, but _can't_ with the Cree, then that clearly says that the 083 is better. If your eyes and brain just "adjust" like a photoshop program doing its thing, then why didn't his eyes adjust? Why did he need to switch to the 083? Are you going to tell me he didn't see what he saw? That his experience proves nothing?



No, his experience proves the 083 helps you resolve red details better. It tells you nothing about the overall accuracy of the colors it reproduces. Try that with a situation where better green or blue distinction is needed and it will fail miserably. Am i trying to say it's worse than a colder-tinted Cree or P4? No. It's better suited for some applications, not all of them. And then there's the problem of tint - not the color temperature, but true tint, along the magenta/green "axis" - to further dilute the matter.



js said:


> As for daylight, it's far from being an "artificial" standard! It's the most prominent and ubiquitous and abundant source we have, with a long tradition and history behind it (all of history, in fact). If it didn't matter, if it was arbitrary, then you wouldn't always find photographers preferring it to everything else when they can get it.



Yes, daylight is the most abandunt source, however... Once again, which daylight? On which day, under which conditions, what weather, time of day? There is, in fact, a multitude of rather widely spaced "daylight" baselines. And those are standardized as well. The color and tint of real daylight varies even wider. Try taking a photo at dusk, late afternoon, an overcast noon, or dawn 



js said:


> 1. you _do_ find them useful and valid?



Yes. But i'd love to see one that isn't as warm as the current offerings. And, ideally, i'd like to see an EDC flashlight witha tuneable temperature some day 



js said:


> 2. you have a different way to demonstrate and evaluate that usefulness?



Taking a shot of a very wide range of color patches and calibrating the white balance according to 50% gray for all the lights might show interesting things about color reproduction. Especially at the opposite sides of spectrum and with the "traditionally difficult" colors such as violet, magenta and skin tones.

Here's another one that would be pretty hard to pull off 100% correctly. A set of patches covering the whole color space of human vision, but with two (colorwise) very closely spaced patches for each color. A minimum tint separation that's still observable to an average person should be determined. Then the patches would be lit by the light sources one by one (with sufficient time in between) and checked which ones are still discernible as different. Also, some sort of correction "bias" and additional patches would have to be made in cases when a light offers superior color reproduction in one part of the spectrum and inferior in another.

As far as i recall (i might be wrong), Don did a few comparative shots of the 083 with other light sources in which the white balance wasn't fixed, using a few difficult subjects as an example - violet and yellow/green, i think. Comparisons such as this are a pretty nice showoff of the emitters' advantages...

Finally, i hope you're not taking this whole thread as an argument or flame. I really enjoy it (the thread, not arguing and flaming ).


----------



## orcinus (Dec 8, 2008)

js said:


> 1. Can your eyes and brain completely adjust given time and lack of contrasting light? If all you could see by, for the rest of your life, was 1700K CCT candlelight, would you just get so completely used to it that you never felt a lack? Would all of your magazines and paintings and clothing look just as good to you as if you had to live entirely with 6000K CCT daylight? Personally, I think a difference exists, and would remain, and that there would be a lack. In other words, I think CCT matters.



Nope, they can never adjust _completely._ There are limits, of course, as with anything else. And the difference between your 083 and Cree shots is not _only_ in CCT, but most of it seems to be. As i wrote earlier, 083 seems to lack in the green parts of the spectrum, while the Cree lacks in the magenta department. The difference might have been bigger and more noticeable if the subject was different.Here's what i'd really like to see compared - an 083 next to a non-high-CRI emitter of a similar CCT. Or a high-CRI 6000K or 6500K emitter next to a Cree. Then the CRI comparison would make sense. To me, at least.


js said:


> 2. Given that sunlight is always going to be in most people's lives, and that they will be exposed to it on a regular basis, and have a contrast available, doesn't it make sense that the goal of general purpose indoor lighting should be a similar CCT to sunlight?



Sunlight or sunlight + diffuse sky blue? Or how about overcast sunlight? 
The days have been very gray over here for the past few weeks and i'd most certainly prefer a warmer tint, closer to sunlight at the moment 



js said:


> 3. Can we find any more excuses to re-process and re-post the GQ pictures? I think not, sadly. Seriously, though, I do concede that you're right. All they show is the CCT difference of the two light sources. I just think that's still significant.



There are other low CCT emitters out there. The problem is, they have _worse_ color reproduction than the 083 - i.e. you're worse off with them than with a cold white source, even if you hate colder whites. That's the most significant... significance i see of the 083.

I have a Sony Ericsson smartphone i won at a contest, that coincidentally happened to have a high flashaholic appeal for me. It has two SMD LED's at the back that can be operated as a flashlight (it even has an SOS mode :naughty that seem to be of the high-CRI variety. They are colder than most "plain ole" warm white emitters i've seen (though still much warmer than the usual emitters), but they seem to be spot on the black body spectrum. Without a hint of a "sideways" tint of any kind. The usual warm white emitters look hideous next to it. That's what i see as significant where high-CRI emitters are concerned.


----------



## js (Dec 8, 2008)

orcinus said:


> . . .
> 
> Taking a shot of a very wide range of color patches and calibrating the white balance according to 50% gray for all the lights might show interesting things about color reproduction. Especially at the opposite sides of spectrum and with the "traditionally difficult" colors such as violet, magenta and skin tones.
> 
> ...



orcinus,

I'm enjoying this as well. No worries! Please continue. And please understand that if I get fired up, it doesn't mean I'm angry or annoyed (not in general, anyway).

I agree completely with your idea about patches of closely spaced tints for each important area (perhaps for each of the color checker squares). That would very quickly show up any holes or spikes in a spectrum, and would be a true test of color resolution via a given source.

I also agree with the "daylight" issue. I know there are different types of daylight. My point was just that they are rather different than either incans (or candlelight) or the majority of LED's (or fluorescents). i.e. CCT matters. I also agree that CCT isn't the same as CRI. But in terms of color "balance" and the somewhat illusory notion of what a THING "really" looks like, _pretty much any of the daylight conditions, apart from dusk and dawn, will do_. In other words, I would agree with you that the eyes/brain will completely adjust for any of those conditions and you will subjectively get the same perception of a painting or color checker chart. But, still, I don't think this invalidates your point. I have maintained for some time now that there really isn't a "standard", but have said that *if* there is one, it is some type of daylight. Probably indirect daylight from a cloudless sky at high noon, or something like that. But that's arbitrary, I agree.

I'm going to take some close up high-res shots of the color checker chart with the 083, candlelight, and the very blue beam from the A2 on low, and adjust each one for CCT, for WB, and see what sort of differences we can see. These will be, along your lines of thinking (which I approve of), a _real_ test of color rendering. (Or what would we call it? Color resolving?)

Anyway, great discussion, orcinus. Thanks again.


----------



## ICUDoc (Dec 8, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> . Garbage in, garbage out may be a bit of an exaggeration for you, but for a real audiophile, it isn't.


 oooh.


BabyDoc said:


> . Perhaps, in some way it is a good thing we don't have real live performances. It is a lot easier and lot cheaper when we don't know what we are missing with our IPODS.


This is true to some extent if you don't see live performances, but with torches and music we still all have some very solid references: people. We see skin tones every day, and we hear the human voice everyday. So we can use the ability of a sound system to reproduce a voice as a reference, and skin tones as a reference for lights. BTW I have tried the high CRI SSC LED quite a bit for picking changes in skin colour in pathology, and it kicks the tar out of the high-output cool LEDs like R2 Crees (and U-bin Luxs, for those of you old enough....). They really do seem to show up inflamed skin when it is present, whereas the others make everything a little washed-out and hide changes in blood flow. I also like the colour of the MC-Es in warm white, but haven't got them into practice in medicine yet. The Nichia high CRI sound good too, but harder to get.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Dec 8, 2008)

js said:


> And this time, I am definitely going to go with the top picture as being from the 083.


 Oh yeah, I almost forgot to play this round. I again say the second one is the 083, due to the range of tones in the wood grain. I may have also examined the... uh, previously mentioned "honey" tones in coming to my determination. Has he given the answer yet, I may have missed it.




McGizmo said:


> And for the audio portion of this post, an iPod with Bang and Ollifsen ear buds was integrated into the hard hat for some of the trials but ultimately eliminated when I kept shaking the hat off. :nana:


Ha! Very nice. But you should have integrated a more advanced audio system, turn the helmet into a complete audio-visual perception accuracy suite. Great job on the multi-083 headlamp though.

Hey Don, have you considered promoting the use of these 083s to a greater number of CPF-ers by using them in a run of your SF L1 heads? I have some nice LEDs that I find very satisfying, so I'm not sure I'd be able to justify even the price of one of those right now, but I'm sure quite a few of us would jump on them.


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 8, 2008)

I agree with both of you guys that CCT really makes a difference, BUT.

It also seems that the LED manufacturers have placed major significance in CCT to appease the architectural and landscape market but I believe the assumption by many is that the source is on the black body curve because this is what the lighting industry has lived with up until recently.

The majority of the high CRI LED's I have sampled and this includes a bunch of Nichia's have been so warm (low) on CCT that I was personally put off by them because they were just too yellow or warm for my liking. I am using "A" 083's and now Nichia is producing some "B" range which are significantly higher in flux than the A; at least by spec. I sampled some B 083's but again they were so obviously warm that the tint put me off.

These LED's in discussion are identified as High CRI and most of us agree that this is a legitimate means of measure but because it is based on a different animal than the LED, it has its shortcomings. By the same token, CCT is a legitimate means of measure but it too is based on a different animal than the LED. The closer to the black body curve a LED is, the better CRI and CCT apply to it.

Orcinus states: 



> Try that with a situation where better green or blue distinction is needed and it will fail miserably.


This is relative to what in comparison and based on what? The number assigned to CRI which is provided by the LED manufacturers is based on what I believe is actually CRIa where I am assuming that a stands for an average based on a number of specific color rendering indicies as measured on specific bands of light. Now I agree that a LED may score overall high on CRI and be miserable at a specific band. I also assume that this would be evidenced in a spectral graph of the LED where there was an obvious spike or null in its curve?!?

Ultimately though, perception is in the eyes of the beholder. I have found that I can personally live with the less than ideal CCT of the Nichia 083's I am working with and further that they provide excellent rendering of colors for me. I prefer high CCT but when it comes to identifying purples and skintones, I have not experienced a high CCT source that was up to the task. In the bathroom mirror, over the cook top and in a junction box with multi colored wires, I would want the High CRI 083 as a light source over the other LED's I have experienced.

My personal goal for quality light is 6000k sunlight. CCT and CRI are both factors. High CCT is no problem for LED's but associated high CRI is.

The computer may not be nearly as sophisticated as the human eye/brain but it is certainly easier to manipulate and work with a static image and delve into all the information recorded therein. The computer can filter at a key stroke. I can't do that with my visual perception. I can adapt but the control of this adaptation is not at my beck and call!!

js has tried to replicate what he saw with the images he has presented and these images have been tweaked by a computer to diminish the differences js has reported. Tweaking a recorded representation of what he saw does not alter what he saw at the time. Now if he can wear some glasses that can alter the perceived CCT then he might well view the scene and alter the CCT and claim that the differences are not so great after the alteration. If he looked long enough at the scene as illuminated by the different light sources, and after his eyes adapted to the CCT of the source, would he still perceive the differences he was aware of and reported? :shrug:

As a quick aside on sunlight and how it varies due to atmosphere and time of day I would like to add an observation. Most of the spectrums I have seen of sunlight don't show a graph curve similar to the black body tungsten curve where you see the curve shoot up to the right as you pass visible into IR. With my spectrometer and a fiber optic sampler, I took a look at sunlight. I found if I pointed the fiber directly at the sun, I could get the black body curve with the high climb at the right. If the fiber was pointed up at the sky and not directly on axis with the sun, I would get the curve more like what I have seen reported where the peak is somewhere in the greens, as I recall. I didn't pay attention to what the CCT was in these cases but suspect it would be different as well.

IMHO, typical incandescent is too low in CCT and there is too much red and not enough blue. With LED's the CCT can be up there where I like it but typically there is too much blue and not enough red and the camel hump low to the right of the blue spike likely messes up color rendering to an extent I can't easily identify or quantify. The spectral graph of the High CRI 083's I have been playing with is closer to fitting that of the indirect sunlight and perhaps in concert with this, I find the quality of light from the 083 to be better in many if not most cases where color rendering is of interest or concern.


----------



## orcinus (Dec 8, 2008)

*@Don*

Probably a bit off topic, but...
Have you tried experimenting with something like this:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2732315&postcount=12

A Rebel / Nichia 083 or WC Cree / Nichia 083 combo might flesh out the spectrum quite nicely and still retain a higher CCT. An 083 flood w/ Cree throw combo might be pretty interesting too. Lower CCT's seem to be particularly useful at close ranges (where flood is typically used), while higher ones are suitable for throwy applications. At least in my opinion.

A three stage or mode variant might be pretty convenient too! Stage 1 - 083; Stage 2 - 083 plus the high CCT emitter at lower brightness (for higher CCT up-close work); Stage 3 - high CCT emitter at full blast + 083 to fill it up.


----------



## js (Dec 8, 2008)

OK orcinus,

I'm going to have to cordially and respectfully disagree with you. I believe that--and perhaps I am a freak in this respect--but it is my repeated, tested, challenged, and overly considered opinion and experience that even with relatively full spectrum light sources, and even when giving myself plenty of time to adapt, I would say that a 6000K CCT source "feels" better to me, IS better for me, for working with colors.

I honestly am not sure what exactly I mean by this, scientifically speaking. Perhaps it is color balance, or color discrimination, or something else. I don't know.

But here's why I say this: I just spent the last hour sorting through literally hundreds of pieces of colored paper from my wife's color theory class, looking for sets of shades that were very, very close together. I had the Sundrop and the Mule with me, as well as somewhat dim incandescent room lighting. Here are my observations:

1. COLOR IS SO COOL! I love color. I felt like a kid sitting on the floor playing with all those squares of colors. It was really fun. Color is important to me. It's a wonder. Moving on . . .

2. There were a couple close cases where the Cree based Mule was right on the edge of not being able to provide the light needed to distinguish two cards. Curiously, they were pale pale lavender shades in one case, and (not so curiously) a maroonish/magenta in the other. But there weren't any cases I could find with the Sundrop. And I had reds, yellows, tans, pinks, greens, blues, violets, oranges, indigos, browns --the whole range, I suspect.

3. But even so, both the Cree Mule and the Sundrop enabled me to distinguish between even very close shades of papers. If that is the test of color rendering, both lights were better than I could test.

4. However, working with the Mule, or with the low CCT incandescent house lighting, just wasn't the same as working with the Sundrop. I know you're going to tell me that it's simply that I prefer a warmer light, and I admit that might be part of it, but I don't think it explains it all. The colors under the Sundrop were just more _alive, more vibrant, more real._ And that was for *ALL* of them. It was easier to sort through them and pick out close matches in an attempt to come up with sets that would work as a test like we wanted. I was able to find cards faster, and with less strain, mental or otherwise.

I don't know how you would qualify or quantify it, and I don't want to get into a semantics argument over it, but I'm telling you (and everyone else) that the Sundrop is THE artificial (non sun-based) light source in my house for any color work.

Period.

You can say it's just psychological or an artifact of my past history or something, but I don't buy it. And many others would have exactly the same experience if they sat down for an hour or two with a bunch of color theory cards, or pantone cards or whatever. You want to use the Sundrop. It's unquestionably better for color work.


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 8, 2008)

Orcinus,

With the multi LED, flood/spot LunaSol program, my primary concern, tint wise was to have the flood and spot be reasonably close in color temp so that there was no blatant difference right before your eyes. Color rendition was not a priority with these lights and I don't see making it a priority with any collimated beams until there are some better LED's out there to lend themselves to such. 

I do have a prototype array that has yet to be fired up:






The MCPCB on the left with one dragon and two 083's might be an interesting combo but I don't know yet.

For me, a collimated beam via a reflector is necessary if you want to deliver high flux at any distance but in such an application, I don't consider color rendition as that important and in terms of overall quality of light, you are typically creating shadows and other uneven distributions which may well allow you to see but don't strike me as eye friendly or pleasant to the point of competing in a high quality classification.

I think with my efforts and designs, the SunDrop provides the best quality light, albeit flood, and it is considerably better than any of the other lights. This is at the cost of near field limitation. The LunaSol 20 is a completely different light in terms of application and priorities. I believe it has more than adequate color rendering for when it is used and the CCT is reasonably matched across the LED's and higher where I prefer it. Throwing a white spot in the center of the SunDrop's beam makes you immediately aware of the difference in CCT. Certainly you can get past this if you are actually using the light to see objects and not focusing on the light itself. However, combining a 083 with another LED that uses a collimator in a package that will also give you a nice concentricity in beam is not trivial and not going to happen in a small package as you have mentioned.

I would love to have a LunaSol 20 with the 3 mm Nichias and the Dragon in the center where all were treated with the same phosphor used in the 083. I would gladly sacrifice some flux as well as drop down a bit in CCT if need be. Perhaps down the road....


----------



## js (Dec 9, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> . . .
> 
> The LunaSol 20 is a completely different light in terms of application and priorities. I believe it has more than adequate color rendering for when it is used and the CCT is reasonably matched across the LED's and higher where I prefer it. Throwing a white spot in the center of the SunDrop's beam makes you immediately aware of the difference in CCT. Certainly you can get past this if you are actually using the light to see objects and not focusing on the light itself. However, combining a 083 with another LED that uses a collimator in a package that will also give you a nice concentricity in beam is not trivial and not going to happen in a small package as you have mentioned.
> 
> I would love to have a LunaSol 20 with the 3 mm Nichias and the Dragon in the center where all were treated with the same phosphor used in the 083. I would gladly sacrifice some flux as well as drop down a bit in CCT if need be. Perhaps down the road....



I would say that the LS20 has more than adequate color rendering, and I really appreciate that the CCT of the 3 mm Nichias matches up so well with the Osram Golden dragon. The SF A2--my previous EDC--had a great disparity of CCT between the low-flood (5 mm "angry blue" Nichias) and high-throw (focused incandescent at 3300K CCT), and even after all the years I EDC'd it, I never got completely used to that disparity, always noticed it. The much better matching of the two beams in the LS20 was a welcome change from the A2!


----------



## BabyDoc (Dec 9, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> Orcinus,
> For me, a collimated beam via a reflector is necessary if you want to deliver high flux at any distanceI.
> 
> ....


 
Don, as you know I fitted my SunDrop with a acrylic hemisphere over the saphire lens, using a SureFire lens holder. If you will recall, the reason we did that was I needed a more focused columnated beam in order to use the light in the office for oral pharyngeal exams and not "blind" my patients with the wider flood of the unmodified SunDrop. In addition to a more focused beam, my perception is the intensity and throw of the light is dramatically increased without changing the color rendition, although because it is brighter there seems to be more contrasts in the colors.

While I think it would be prohibitively expensive to make a big saphire lens like the acrylic one, I do believe a more focused lens system option on the SunDrop would widen the appeal of the light to people who might not just want a weaker flood. My Sundrop still provides uniform illumination. It is still a flood, just a more narrow, stronger one. If I want the original wide weaker flood, I just remove the extra lens.


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 9, 2008)

Babydoc,
I qualified my statement with collimation via a reflector because of the consideration you bring up.

There is an optic consideration that I am surprised that we haven't seen yet and that is of using some lenses and/or grouping of lenses to give us a variable or zoom beam. I have seen a few examples but certainly nothing fantastic or well received. I found out early on that Leupold was doing a flashlight and my initial assumption which proved to be wrong was that they would use their lens and optic expertise to give us such a light. I used to bug PK on a regular basis for such a light. 

With a relatively large plano/convex lens, one can move the lens in and out from the LED and experience a widening and then tightening of the beam angle and associated intensity. At some point in collimation, focus gets sharp enough that you have a projected image of the die itself and there are artifact issues.

One of my primary design requirements is that of a good seal isolating the interior of the light from the outside environment. Designing a light that is sealed and can still have a lens move in and out is not trivial by any means and although I have given it some thought on and off for a few years now, I haven't come up with a good solution that would be within my means and i am not convinced that unless it was done quite well that it would be that well received. It was easier to go to two sources and configurations of LED's (LunaSol).


----------



## TedTheLed (Dec 9, 2008)

just a note that I tried out the Fenix light bar I meniioned previously and was disappointed..
It's just slightly blue at the highest setting, more so at lower setings.
Skin looks unnatural; alien, abd somewhat harsh, though less-so if there is some daylight mixing in with the LED light, or some other warmer source also on in the room..
But for a stand alone light source, well, let's just say the Fenix P1D and L2D are whiter..
Personally I feel Fenix shouldn't make the 'warm white llight' claim for this one.


----------



## orcinus (Dec 9, 2008)

js said:


> 2. There were a couple close cases where the Cree based Mule was right on the edge of not being able to provide the light needed to distinguish two cards. Curiously, they were pale pale lavender shades in one case, and (not so curiously) a maroonish/magenta in the other.



Did you take any shots?
It might be interesting to see how they'd turn out and if it's possible to catch the difference with a camera at all.



McGizmo said:


> With the multi LED, flood/spot LunaSol program, my primary concern, tint wise was to have the flood and spot be reasonably close in color temp so that there was no blatant difference right before your eyes. Color rendition was not a priority with these lights and I don't see making it a priority with any collimated beams until there are some better LED's out there to lend themselves to such.



I realize LunaSol wasn't meant as such a light, i've just used it as a basis because i like the form factor (from what i've seen on-line - never bought one).

Yeah, there certainly would be a lot of artefacts and all the colored shadows probably wouldn't be too... appealing. Still, it might be interesting and i'm really curious how that 2x083/1xGD MCPCB will work 



McGizmo said:


> For me, a collimated beam via a reflector is necessary if you want to deliver high flux at any distance but in such an application, I don't consider color rendition as that important and in terms of overall quality of light, you are typically creating shadows and other uneven distributions which may well allow you to see but don't strike me as eye friendly or pleasant to the point of competing in a high quality classification.



That's the thing... The idea i had was to use high-CRI warm source combined with just a dash of cold (or even without one) for close-up use (flood) and a regular, high-flux, colder collimated source for a second, throw stage.



SaturnNyne said:


> Oh yeah, I almost forgot to play this round. I again say the second one is the 083, due to the range of tones in the wood grain. I may have also examined the... uh, previously mentioned "honey" tones in coming to my determination. Has he given the answer yet, I may have missed it.



083 on the top, Cree on the bottom in this round


----------



## js (Dec 9, 2008)

orcinus,

I didn't take any shots, although I thought seriously about doing so, but I had already put in a bunch more time on it than I had planned. Plus, I didn't think it was close enough for our purposes. I like the idea of sets of very very finely differentiated shades, but it will take some custom work on my part to pull it off. I thought of using my color printer, but I disliked the idea of building up from primary colors. I figure I will take (for example) two blues that are reasonably close together, and paint a square with just the one blue (like cobalt blue--I always love that) and then paint another square with 95 percent cobalt blue and 5 percent some other blue, such that there is only the finest, barely discernable difference between them, and such that they are both real pigments, not composites of other colors. I will do this for blue, for green, for yellow, for red, for orange, for skin-tone, etc. etc. and create my own doubled version of the ColorChecker chart. Then we can see if we have a test that will separate the high CRI from the not-so-high CRI emitters, without just being a White Balance thing.



> 083 on the top, Cree on the bottom in this round.



Yippeeee! I win a virtual cookie!

Seriously, though, they are both so close together that your point on that front is established beyond a doubt. (For me anyway). Great contributions to this thread, orcinus.


----------



## TedTheLed (Dec 9, 2008)

that would be very scientific. you could end up with quantities that could be objectivly compared and replicated by others with similar equipment. (though still I suppose differences in individual's eyesight could come into play)
still though I feel the light has to pass my 'shine it on the hand' test to be sure the color is pleasing.. my 2 cents :shrug:


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 11, 2008)

[




















My Malkoff M60 stacks up pretty well, even if my camera phone is wek-sos


----------



## js (Dec 11, 2008)

N/Apower,

You don't know that because you don't have a Sundrop, or High CRI Nichia for comparison. As was so amply demonstrated by orcinus, you can take a picture with almost any conventional LED and adjust the balance to make it look warmer (or cooler). Your camera was set to some white balance, or was set to auto white balance, most likely. So the picture you took can't be compared in any meaningful way to the ones I took.

The pictures I took can be compared against each other because I was there--I took them--and I took pains to try to capture _the difference I saw_. If I had taken the pictures at different times, and no longer had both lights to compare against each other, all bets would be off.

This isn't to say anything against the Malkoff, it's just to say that you can make no claim about the Malkoff viz a viz the Sundrop 083 LED. Because you've never experienced it.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 11, 2008)

js said:


> N/Apower,
> 
> You don't know that because you don't have a Sundrop, or High CRI Nichia for comparison. As was so amply demonstrated by orcinus, you can take a picture with almost any conventional LED and adjust the balance to make it look warmer (or cooler). Your camera was set to some white balance, or was set to auto white balance, most likely. So the picture you took can't be compared in any meaningful way to the ones I took.
> 
> ...


 
Not trying to be abrasive, but the picture looks exactly like it looked to my eye. It was a camera-phone. Can they do what you are suggesting? Granted, I have nothing to compare it to. Perhapse I will get my original P60 bulb out and compare to test the camera-phone and it's compensation abilities.


----------



## js (Dec 11, 2008)

N/Apower,

I believe you!

But the question is whether or not it would have looked that way to _my_ eye. Everything is different here: different person, different picture, different camera, different camera settings. And you have never used a High CRI Nichia 083. So, to look at my 083 picture and then shine your Malkoff around and think "It stacks up pretty well to the 083" is untenable. There's just no way to compare the two!

My comparison was subjective, based on my own experience with the Cree and 083, and I tried to capture this difference I experienced with two photos. I am able to reference back and forth between my experience and the difference captured in the pictures, and to judge that it captures the subjective difference, the "feeling" of it, if you will. But it's not objective. This is both the strength, and the weakness, of my method here.

An objective measure, like lumens, can be compared across observers (if they own calibrating integrating spheres!). But a subjective thing, like the difference in color balance between two light sources, can't be so compared.

So, I am not questioning the fact that your picture looks like what _you_ saw. I am just denying that it allows you to make any claim about the 083 vs. the Malkoff.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 11, 2008)

js said:


> N/Apower,
> 
> I believe you!
> 
> ...


 

You are correct, there is no way to compare two things between two people. Even with lumens, one person may feel a 200 lumen light is "brighter" than a 220 lumen light due to a difference in hue or perception. 

My main point is that I have a P60 bulb, and everything looks wierd. Colors are muted and thrown off, as one user said, lichen on trees looks like some kind of blaze mark, ect.

My M60 renders color in a way that is natural and makes me feel like I have actually illuminated an object vs. rendered it visible.

I have not tried the light you have or one similar, funding at this point will not allow it either. My $200 flashlight combo ($300 with the LT606 mount for my AR) already raises eyebrows, lol


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 11, 2008)

You must not forget though that a Malkoff M60 is three times as bright as a P60 incan, which will alter your results in itself.


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 11, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> You must not forget though that a Malkoff M60 is three times as bright as a P60 incan, which will alter your results in itself.


 
+1, but the tint is different too (read below).
Also, I completely screwed up. SF numbers are like import car engine numbers to me and I get them all jacked up. What I meant was the stock LED in my 6P LED. Sorry.


----------



## js (Dec 11, 2008)

N/Apower,

I have absolutely no issues with you making claims about the Malkoff vs. P60, 

. . . except maybe to wonder if you are talking about the P60 incandescent module? And if so, the comments made earlier were in regard to an LED light vs. an incan light, with the incan light CORRECTLY illuminating the lichen, and the LED light making it look indistinguishable from a trail marker.

Personally, I find that incan light does an _excellent_ job with color. Before the Sundrop, I would never have chosen an LED light over an incan light when it came to such things.

But, YMMV, obviously.


----------



## js (Dec 11, 2008)

N/Apower said:


> +1, but the tint is different too (read below).
> Also, I completely screwed up. SF numbers are like import car engine numbers to me and I get them all jacked up. What I meant was the stock LED in my 6P LED. Sorry.



Ahhh . . . yes, that makes more sense to me!


----------



## N/Apower (Dec 11, 2008)

js said:


> Ahhh . . . yes, that makes more sense to me!


 
I wish I could get a 225 torch lumen Incan that did what I want, but until they make a 225 lumen incan that fits in a 6P sized light and delivers 75-100 yard throw with 1 hour + run-time, I will keep my Malkoff on my weapons. For throw, I would love a SF 961 w/ Turbo head, but my 961 was too bulky without it imho. So now I am running a 6P with a LaRue 606 QD mount. Much better balance. 4.5x the run-time with the same lumen output as the MN11 as well.


----------



## js (Jan 9, 2009)

I've been doing a little more thinking about this and about the pictures I took and which orcinus adjusted, and I think I've come to some conclusions.

First, yes the white balance can be adjusted to make light of any CCT yield an image that looks the same as that captured by another CCT light, or rather, such that the two different CCT light sources yield nearly identical images.

BUT, there's a cost involved in using (and compensating for) very low, or very high CCT light. I believe that the dynamic range of the image suffers.

And, I think this can be seen in the second sets of images that orcinus adjusted, where only the white balance was changed on the Cree image, and the saturation wasn't bumped up for both, as was the case with the first set. In that second set, the 083 image has a noticeably more intense grey scale, and slightly more color saturation. Can anyone else see that?

And in experimenting with different CCT light sources, it seems to me that the best pictures are achieved with bright sunlight. They pop more, without resorting to any photoshop-ing. There's a bit more information there--and I mean "information" in the broadest sense. It's not that you can't tell one color from another in another CCT light; it's that the range of intensities, _across the color spectrum_ in a sunlight source, is the highest, most dynamic. It's subtle, I admit. And software and other processing can do wonders. But a difference remains, I think. I'm still thinking about it and experimenting and researching, and maybe I'll change my mind in the future, but right now, that's where I am.

Just thought I'd share.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz (Aug 17, 2009)

Perhaps you need more pictures 

I would love it if someone came out with a small-source LED that had good color rendering. 

I don't have any 083 high-cri but pictures work best. skin tone and outdoors are best comparisons, I'd think, so your comparison subject was a good choice


----------



## jamie.91 (Aug 17, 2009)

WOW... Megan fox


----------



## mudman cj (Aug 17, 2009)

bshanahan14rulz said:


> I would love it if someone came out with a small-source LED that had good color rendering.



Well, Nichia also came out with a high CRI version of their 1/2 Watt 036 LED. They are used by McGizmo in the Titanium Sapphire AAA light. Unfortunately, they are not sold to the public except in reels. :mecry: I know, this is like dangling a lollipop over a toddler just high enough that they can't reach it. Forgive me! :devil:


----------



## Henk_Lu (Sep 2, 2009)

I have one of the new Sundrop XR-U with the Nichia 083B coming... 

It's my first McGizmo and I'm eagerly waiting for it. For the moment I'm totally confused about the real beam and tint of that jewel.

Don rates it at about 70 Lumen against about 40 for the Sundrop. As I was too late on the Sundrop, this one seemed to be the one not to miss. While I can only give my subjective impressions, it would be interesting to read an objective comparison between the 2 lights here in this thread!


----------



## shine brighter (Mar 14, 2011)

I'm liking the color on that beam, might have to start thinking of a build with it...


----------



## js (Feb 21, 2012)

So, at this point in my flashlight "career" I've gotten rid of almost all my lights, even my TigerLights, all my mods, my 100W USL, SF L2, Ti-PD-S, etc. And I don't miss any of them. But there is one light that I didn't buy when I had the chance that I dearly regret not buying:

*THIS ONE*.

This one. I wish I had bought this light from Don while I had it. He sent this light to me to check out, and I was so impressed I wrote this review, and I really really wanted to ask Don if I could buy it, but I just couldn't bring myself to spend so much money on another Titanium light. Now I wish I had. Ah well! I haven't kept up with what the latest SunDrop incarnation is (or if there even IS one) and I haven't stalked Custom and Mod B/S/T, so I don't know if I could get one now, but even if I could, now that I own a house, this kind of money on a light is even harder to justify. LOL! If only I had been stupid earlier! That would have been wise!

In any event, thank you so much, Don, for sending this light to me. It's a very bright and beautiful spot in my flashlight memories.


----------



## JMP (Feb 21, 2012)

The sundrop is still available. Now in the XRU flavor. With the new incarnation you can use any LED Don offers. He now has a different nichia emitter the 119 which is quite amazing. 

I still rock the 083 and love it. I Also have the 119 and it is probably the best HiCRI emitter out there. Specifically the tiny Don has exclusively.


----------



## cy (Feb 23, 2012)

hmmm sundrop...


----------

