# Is neutral/warm tint still necessary?



## Woods Walker (Apr 27, 2015)

I was out hiking comparing the relative pros and cons of tints between different led flashlights and headlamps. I got to thinking about the tints of today's lights compared to years ago. The tint lottery seems to be an issue of the past. Cool white appears to be actually cool white rather than angry blue or squid **** green. There was a time when you never know what you were going to get. Now it seems like things have settled down. Guessing 65% of the reason I would seek out tint specific lights was an attempt to avoid the lottery. I still prefer neutral but without the angry aspects of cool white are tint specific lights really worth the reduced efficiency at all levels?

Neutral white doing it's thing.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

I'm a neutral-white only person. A cool white lights things up like it's supposed to, but aesthetically it's just uglier IMO. Especially outdoors. 

When I'm hiking at night and trying to enjoy my backpacking trips, I want a nice pleasant tint.

I like the option and wish more companies would offer it.


----------



## NoNotAgain (Apr 27, 2015)

I posted yesterday to another thread that the human eye after becoming acclimated to a darkened area is very poor at determining color. Your pupils are fully dilated which means that color definition goes away to a large degree.

As for the tint lottery, I think what we are all seeing is that the led manufacturers are doing a good job at binning there offerings and have got to a point that they are able to produce a led with greater yield with much better color rendition. The light name brand light manufactures no longer have to accept whatever led is being sold because there isn't anything better offered. You can probably thank the better color rendition to the phase in of led's into house hold lighting.

I equate this to the PC semiconductor industry. When a new processor comes out, yield on high end processors is low. Once the process is worked out, yield improves and the prices drop. The LED guys are learning from past mistakes and we're getting more natural looking led's.


----------



## Gaffle (Apr 27, 2015)

Neutral to warm for me. I want a more politically correct color, as in whats natural (or at least close to it). The lumen war that was going on recently was putting cool up top, cool produces more light. I went in the opposite direction with my last flashlight. Lumens didn't matter so I went with the best tint. Higher CRI please! 

I like the fact that a lot more manufacturers are producing neutral to warm colors. Now it is all just a matter of opinion. If you like cool go for it. The same for neutral and warm. I will not go with a cool light anymore. I like me some warmer stuff.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 27, 2015)

When I compare cool white to neutral white, there's no contest. The neutral white is the clear winner, when it comes to showing colours. It's well worth giving up around 7% in brightness.


----------



## Wiggle (Apr 27, 2015)

I would almost spin this around to ask instead: With the great efficicacy we can achieve today is there a need for cool white LEDs by default ? The small performance hit is not a big issue IMO. I have a mix of cool and neutral/warm lights and I do show a preference to one type or the other depending on the scenario. But now that the performance levels are so high I can select my color without much regret for losing a small amount of lumen output.

In particular, I've been falling in love with 4000K. I have a vinh XP-E2 4000K P60 thrower and two compact Armyteks at this colour temp (Tiara A1 Pro and Prime C2 Pro, both warm) and I really enjoy it especially in the woods or in colour rich indoor areas. That being said I do also rather like a "diamond-white" like you might see in the 5500K to 6000K range, especially in the city. Depends on the scenario but I am glad to have the choice.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

I guess before we start another tint war, we need to focus no the OP asking if it's "necessary". Necessary for who?

1. The manufacturer? No, plenty are doing just fine without NW
2. The user? I would say yes, depending on the application. Not "life or death" necessary, but enough to make the task more enjoyable to easier due to the warmer tint.


----------



## nfetterly (Apr 27, 2015)

Neutral to warm for me.

I've posted a couple of times what happened when I had a 6500K SST-50 (Mac's EDC, not that matters) in a closed industrial site, _*no*_ ambient light. With my 6500K SST-50 there was no depth perception, which is some scary sh*t in an industrial facility. My superintendent fired up his magcharger and everything appeared in 3D. Sold the 6500K light and since then (~6 years ago?) I've been a neutral to warm tint guy. I had been in the facility before with warm LEDs or incans, no problem, I was using a 3x18650 WA1185 in a leef body with an AW 3 level soft start switch alot at the time, McGizmo Haiku (neutral LED), etc...


----------



## magellan (Apr 27, 2015)

I prefer neutral or cool white, with the occasional warm tint light just for variety.

NoNotAgain is right about the human eye and color perception. Even with a good flashlight, in the dark it's not very accurate.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 27, 2015)

nfetterly said:


> Neutral to warm for me.
> 
> I've posted a couple of times what happened when I had a 6500K SST-50 (Mac's EDC, not that matters) in a closed industrial site, _*no*_ ambient light. With my 6500K SST-50 there was no depth perception, which is some scary sh*t in an industrial facility.



I don't think cool white would literally take away depth perception, which is a function of binocular vision. What it does is take away colour contrast, which could make it much more difficult to detect objects. That could make it seem like you lost depth perception. For example, a red beam in the foreground may not stand out against a brown wall in the background. So, you miss it, and clunk!

In the end, it doesn't really matter. The point is that cool white LEDs, with their high colour temperature and poor CRI, make it difficult to separate objects that are of similar luminosity even if they have significantly different colours. Neutral or warm whites, along with their normally higher CRI, make this much easier, especially if a scene has a lot of reds, browns, and yellows.


----------



## RetroTechie (Apr 27, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I'm a neutral-white only person.





Gaffle said:


> Neutral to warm for me.


Same here.


WalkIntoTheLight said:


> When I compare cool white to neutral white, there's no contest. The neutral white is the clear winner, when it comes to showing colours.





Wiggle said:


> In particular, I've been falling in love with 4000K.





nfetterly said:


> Neutral to warm for me.


@markr6: what tint war? Everybody wants neutral, or even warm white. Case closed! :laughing: 

Granted, there may be specific uses where cool white is preferred by some. But for practically everything else, one might as well say that neutral white LEDs (or even warm white) are "better" light sources for us humans. And probably better in some _measureable_ aspects too (like CRI). With today's high-output LED lights, who cares if you lose a few % output in return for that.

I think cool white LEDs sell because
a) They're the most commonly available, cheapest, highest output option. And
b) Most people are either not aware of the issue, or don't care (enough).

Therefore cool white sells, reinforcing a). On average, LED tint has improved though. So the best LEDs today are much better than the best LEDs 10y ago. And poor / ugly cool white LEDs aren't _as_ poor / ugly as they used to be.


----------



## CUL8R (Apr 27, 2015)

I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't mind cool white. Most of my lights are cool and I don't have any issues with them at all. I use them actively for night hiking, backpacking and caving. And choosing warm is not always a small performance hit. Here is an example. These are 2 versions of a Vinh modified light (CW vs WW) as tested by jmpaul320. That is a huge performance hit in lumens and lux.

*Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR WW
* Sony vtc5
[email protected] turn on
[email protected] 30sec
2023 high
718 mid
61 low
1 firefly
Throw - 22,000 Lux

*Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR cool white*
Samsung 20r
[email protected] turn on
[email protected] 30 sec
2766 high
958 mid
108 low
1 firefly
Throw - 31,000 lux


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> @markr6: what tint war? Everybody wants neutral, or even warm white. Case closed! :laughing:



HAHA I wish!


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

CUL8R said:


> I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't mind cool white. Most of my lights are cool and I don't have any issues with them at all. I use them actively for night hiking, backpacking and caving. And choosing warm is not always a small performance hit. Here is an example. These are 2 versions of a Vinh modified light (CW vs WW) as tested by jmpaul320. That is a huge performance hit in lumens and lux.
> 
> *Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR WW
> * Sony vtc5
> ...



I think if you need those kinds of lumens with such an expensive light, then you don't care how crappy the light is. I would assume this kind of user is definitely worried about max output and throw to find...who knows what, at a pretty large distance.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Apr 27, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> ...
> 
> I think cool white LEDs sell because
> a) They're the most commonly available, cheapest, highest output option. And
> ...



non-flashaholics also like neutral white because:
c) higher lumens ... and the lumen number on the box does matter.
d) cool white LOOKS brighter than neutral or warm. Show a non-flashaholic a 200 lumen cool white light and a 500 lumen neutral or warm white and ask which is brighter? ... the non-flashaholic will usually pick the cool white.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Show a non-flashaholic a 200 lumen cool white light and a 500 lumen neutral or warm white and ask which is brighter? ... the non-flashaholic will usually pick the cool white.



I want to slap these people in the face so badly!


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 27, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I want to slap these people in the face so badly!



The problem is that the same light won't BE 500 Lumens for both, as it would have to be lower lumens to have the neutral tint.

I also see a LOT of assumptions that the cooler white has a lower CRI, and, for the record........ CRI ≠ Warmer Tint.

So, while many of us (me too) tend to PREFER the neutral white to cool white, its essentially an aesthetic preference.

IE: For the same power, in the same light, you see less with a neutral than a cool white version...because there is less total light to see with.

If truly dark adapted, you primarily see in black and white anyway, negating color perception as a variable.

If not adapted, sure, but you'll see less anyway because you will have crappy night vision, and so forth.


So, if I am talking a walk and I can take any light I want, so I can get whatever tint I want with whatever range makes sense, I go neutral.

If I am doing disaster response, and its about finding a lost person/looking for survivors/wreckage, etc....I go with whatever has the range and pattern appropriate for the scene, and, that means going cool if I need to maximize range, etc.

It doesn't matter if the woman is wearing a tan or yellow sweater if I can't see that there's a woman in a sweater.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Apr 27, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> The problem is that the same light won't BE 500 Lumens for both, as it would have to be lower lumens to have the neutral tint.
> ...



It's not just that.

Non-flashaholics tend to confuse cool white tint with "brighter".

I recall reading a posting one where a flashlight enthusiast showed a non-flashaholic friend a 100 lumen cool white light, and a much larger and brighter 1,000 lumen warm white light. He asked the friend which was brighter... the friend picked the cool white. It wasn't because of any difference in the beam pattern either... it was because of the tint. Cool white looks like it ought to be brighter to the uninitiated. 

Back in the 90s, I showed my first white LED flashlight to some relatives. It was one of the very first white LED flashlights available, powered by 3xAA batteries and made of translucent blue and white plastic. The light source consisted of two 5mm white LEDS. This was before white LED keychain lights became available. My relatives were ooing and aahing over this light. They'd never seen a flashlight with such a cool tint before and it "seemed" really bright --- even though it really wasn't. A 2xAA incan maglight was both smaller and brighter.


----------



## Gaffle (Apr 27, 2015)

Here is a question that just came to mind, what would happen if the cool LEDs went away? How many people would complain? Would the general public picking up a light from Home Depot be pissed off if they turned on a flashlight and instead of cool white, out came neutral? 

When I first joined CPF there were no warm or neutral lights. Like the OP said, everything was kind of white, blue, or green. It is true that now the cools aren't as crappy as they used to be. The process to make them has become a bit more refined. My question still stands though, what would happen if the cool went away?


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

Gaffle said:


> Here is a question that just came to mind, what would happen if the cool LEDs went away? How many people would complain?



Just people in this forum 

Sort of like a 30megapixel vs 20megapixel camera. Both are pretty rediculous for the average user. 10mpx is fine for whatever they are printing (4x6, 8x10, 16x24). But I'm sure camera techie people would miss zooming in to a 7000-pixel-wide image in photoshop and analyzing every last detail.

I would rather have a nice, sharp photo taken with a 10mp camera with amazing subject matter opposed to a blury, boring photo taken by someone with shaky hands.

OK, not a great comparison with millions of ways to disect it and argue. But simply put, I want *quality over quantity*.

You'll always have people that walk into Best Buy, look at a chart, and buy the camera with the highest megapixel count shown in a table on the marketing piece. That, and the price, may be all they look at.

I just hope everyone eventually pulls an EagleTac and offers two, three or even FOUR different emitter options for the same light.


----------



## RetroTechie (Apr 27, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> I also see a LOT of assumptions that the cooler white has a lower CRI, and, for the record........ CRI ≠ Warmer Tint.


Good point! :thumbsup: That said: for similar LEDs, CRI tends to go up towards the warmer tints. Or the other way around: high-CRI LEDs tend to be _mostly_ neutral or warmer tinted ones.



> IE: For the same power, in the same light, you see less with a neutral than a cool white version...because there is less total light to see with.
> 
> If truly dark adapted, you primarily see in black and white anyway, negating color perception as a variable.


One of my prime flashlight uses is as a bicycle light. For that purpose, I prefer having enough light to look ahead >10m and still tell apart some colors. But also not so much light that nightvision is blasted away on dark stretches of road (and batteries need charging too often  ). There seems to be an optimum there, _in the order of_ ~100 lumens works well for me.

But you know what: using a cool white LED, I find I'm having trouble telling some things apart. Is that a mouse crossing the road, or just a regular piece of dirt? Is that a frog, or just a leaf? Is that a puddle of water, or just a dark patch of tar? I find that using a neutral white LED, subtle differences like these are much easier/quicker to tell. My mind simply doesn't have to work _as hard_ to determine what I'm looking at. Regardless of actual lighting level. So in this use, _to some degree_ it's a safety issue as well.

Another use for me is some extra local lighting for electronic jobs (like repairs). What did I find there? That NW (or WW) makes it much easier to tell wiring colors apart. Again, regardless of actual lumens used.

Together with "more pleasing to the eye", "not so washed out colors" it makes cool white LEDs something to avoid for me. The few cool white LED lights I have, _for some reason_ they mostly stay in their box/bag/whatever. 

So yes, a lot depends on personal preference & what you're used to. But aside from that, there are real differences. Possibly measurable.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> That said: for similar LEDs, CRI tends to go up towards the warmer tints. Or the other way around: high-CRI LEDs tend to be _mostly_ neutral or warmer tinted ones.



Yes, I always focus on this. The standard rather than the exception.

Neutral white flashlights are not as common, so I'm not really interested in what's possible in theory. Instead, I focus on what is more common when buying one; usually a higher CRI with a warmer tint (<5000k)


----------



## geokite (Apr 27, 2015)

I'm torn between the two. On my local hiking trails (San Diego) the cool white brings out the colors of the foliage better than the neutral. But the neutral brings out the color of the dirt better. I go back and forth between the two, and currently could go either way.

Steve


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 27, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> The problem is that the same light won't BE 500 Lumens for both, as it would have to be lower lumens to have the neutral tint.



Yes, typically about 7% for Cree LEDs. I doubt most people could even tell apart a 7% difference, unless they were doing it under very controlled conditions.



> I also see a LOT of assumptions that the cooler white has a lower CRI, and, for the record........ CRI ≠ Warmer Tint.



It is for Cree LEDs, which is what you're using if you want to sell lumens. Sure, you can get high CRI daylight LED tints, but if you're that picky about tint, you sure don't want a regular (low CRI) cool white.



> So, while many of us (me too) tend to PREFER the neutral white to cool white, its essentially an aesthetic preference.



It's not just aesthetics. It's about increasing colour contrast, which helps identify objects regardless of brightness.



> IE: For the same power, in the same light, you see less with a neutral than a cool white version...because there is less total light to see with.



Only if the scene is essentially colourless. If you're on the moon, you may as well go with cool white. Here on Earth, there are all kinds of different colour tones. Those colours are far easier to pick out with a neutral white (regardless of CRI, but is even more pronounced with higher CRI which generally comes with neutral tints).



> If truly dark adapted, you primarily see in black and white anyway, negating color perception as a variable.



That is only true under VERY LOW lux levels. Moonlight mode, at most. Again, the whole point of cool white is to maximize lumens, so you're certainly not illuminating stuff at such low levels.


----------



## scs (Apr 27, 2015)

CW flashlights and car lights that have a noticeable blue tint seem brighter to me because I perceive a lot of light being reflected back. And that's about it: things appear brighter but I'm not seeing more, if that makes any sense. It's almost as though I might as well just have someone shine a light in my face.

With WW lights, my experience is the opposite: there's a lot of detail but my brain keeps telling me I need more light because it feels dark. To me, shadows appear darker under WW: there's more contrast between lit and dark areas under WW lighting.

Neutral in the range of 4500-5000k seems perfect for me.


----------



## Marv. (Apr 27, 2015)

The higher the CRI, the better. So, a neutral-to-warm white is preferred.

One big reason or rather problem, that we have many cool white lights in the market is that the slightly higher lumen outputs just work better in marketing. As others have noted, it is the same as the mega-pixel race. 
IMHO, the slightly higher lumen output of cool white isn't really much of an advantage in real-life.


----------



## cland72 (Apr 27, 2015)

I'm of the opinion that you don't have to hold yourself to one or the other exclusively.

If I want raw power, I'll take cool white. For example, my "thrower" is a Barracuda in CW, my "tactical" handheld is a 6P with M61, and my home defense setup has a TLR-1 HL.
If I am doing task type work, I'll take warm/neutral. For example, my general house light is a Nailbender 219A P60 in a Solarforce clicky host, my headlamp is a Surefire Minimus Vision, and my camping/hunting light is a C2 Centurion with a M61L 219A.


----------



## cerbie (Apr 27, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Just people in this forum  Sort of like a 30megapixel vs 20megapixel camera. Both are pretty rediculous for the average user. 10mpx is fine for whatever they are printing (4x6, 8x10, 16x24). But I'm sure camera techie people would miss zooming in to a 7000-pixel-wide image in photoshop and analyzing every last detail. I would rather have a nice, sharp photo taken with a 10mp camera with amazing subject matter opposed to a blury, boring photo taken by someone with shaky hands.


The MP race is done, at least for photos. It's now mostly down to sensor and optic quality (some of which is actually DSP in the camera!). If each sensor pixel is smeared together with those around it, how much did you actually gain by having more?

More of the spectrum filled in, and more evenly so, is as useful as ever. I recently decided to try a neutral white XP-G2 torch, and it was no better than cool white. It did not compare well to medium/high CRI emitters I normally stick to, even being close in color temperature. Nichia's 219 models with higher CRI have a magic balance for my brain, but the Cree >85 CRI emitters are also much superior to the common <=80 CRI models. The reduced output is very small, compared to the improvement in visibility, even when it's 30% or more.



cland72 said:


> I'm of the opinion that you don't have to hold yourself to one or the other exclusively.
> 
> If I want raw power, I'll take cool white. For example, my "thrower" is a Barracuda in CW, my "tactical" handheld is a 6P with M61, and my home defense setup has a TLR-1 HL.
> If I am doing task type work, I'll take warm/neutral. For example, my general house light is a Nailbender 219A P60 in a Solarforce clicky host, my headlamp is a Surefire Minimus Vision, and my camping/hunting light is a C2 Centurion with a M61L 219A.


The 219A M61L was an amazing drop-in. I ruined mine by using bad batteries (One of two Tenergy LFPs died, and the whole unit heated up enough to kill something, plus warp the lens, and now it runs unregulated, with clearly damaged phosphor), and regret it a great deal. Treat it well!


----------



## CUL8R (Apr 27, 2015)

I admit to being a lumen (and Lux ) junkie.:naughty: That is why I have a number of flooders that will do 5000 to 8000+ lumens and throwers over 500K lux. If you haven't tried them then you can't understand. On the other hand I have many smaller lights and headlamps suitable for whatever I need them for. Headlamps for caving, night hiking and backpacking. Many single 18650 lights for many purposes with max outputs from 600 to 1400 lumens. Small edc pocket lights utilizing 123, IMR 16340, or IMR 18350 batteries. My current favorite EDC is a short little single IMR16340 powered d25Cvn with over 1k OTF lumens available. So while I primarily use the two lowest setting at work when in the back of workstation or server racks, I still have a lot of lumens available when/if I ever need them. Remember, I'm a lumen junkie!.

So what is my point? I could care less about the color of the led as long as I can do whatever I need to do with the light I have. Back in the day, way before there were LEDs, I was caving with what now seem woefully underpowered incandescent headlamps and backups. Did I mind they were "buttery" yellow colored? No. I could do what I needed with them. Today it seems to me there are all types of snobs out there, and especially lots of car, computer, and now light snobs. People that say their way or no way. You must have warm tint or you don't know anything, or maybe just lack taste, or just are not educated enough. That is unfortunate, and that is snobbery. I do like all four of my MTG2 emitter lights, and they are all warm tints, as are my dedomed throwers, and several other lights I have in the 4- 5k temp range. But I also like my cool whites. They do everything I need a light for.


Would I miss them if all the CW LEDS went away? Not if I could get the power, and beam characteristics, etc. that I desired in a warm LED for the same cost.

Would I mind if all the warm LEDS went away? No, same as above.

Actually I'd hate to see either cool or warm LEDs go away as it would limit options.

I think its great we have all these options available today, not just in cool/warm tint, etc, but in battery types and light sizes, and available LEDS and outputs. But I really have to stress that whatever a person finds works best for them is a personal choice and doesn't make him/her better or worse then anyone else that made a different choice.

Snobbery: the behavior or attitude of people who think they are better than other people


----------



## moshow9 (Apr 27, 2015)

My order of preference: 

1) Warm White (2900K - 3900K)
2) Neutral White (4000K - 4500K)

I am okay with cool white but that is my least favorite option in tint.


----------



## cland72 (Apr 27, 2015)

Dream_Evil said:


> The 219A M61L was an amazing drop-in. I ruined mine by using bad batteries (One of two Tenergy LFPs died, and the whole unit heated up enough to kill something, plus warp the lens, and now it runs unregulated, with clearly damaged phosphor), and regret it a great deal. Treat it well!



I'm sorry you ruined yours! It was definitely a limited time engagement.

I have bought and sold MANY flashlights and drop ins, but the M61L 219A is one that I'll never part with. It is the perfect mix of tint, brightness, runtime, and throw.


----------



## jjf427 (Apr 27, 2015)

I'm going to side with CUL8R on this one. My primary need for a light is to simply see what I want to see. My brain is perfectly capable of adapting to variations/distortions of color rendition due to the tint of the light. I just don't think it is that difficult. I am not into night photography or any thing like that, where I could understand it could be a problem. I am fine with cool white.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 27, 2015)

Just got my first cool white in a long time today. Threw up in my mouth a little, but I'm better now.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 27, 2015)

Well if somebody could help me with an Armytek Prime A2 Pro Warm, I'd have already ordered one by now. Armytek wants 2-4 weeks shipping from China, GoingGear is back ordered..


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 27, 2015)

RetroTechie said:


> I think cool white LEDs sell because
> b) Most people are either not aware of the issue, or don't care (enough).


Actually not even a little bit true, unless we're only talking flashlights here.

There is not a single person in this country not familiar with cool/warm/bright and how it affects the lighting in their homes. Cool is still the most popular choice for work areas like kitchens and workshops.



Fireclaw18 said:


> ... the non-flashaholic will usually pick the cool white.


Sure wish this old wives tale would go away. I have to agree when you say usually but there is a mistaken notion that non-flashaholics can't be picky, or be photographers, or have a strong preference for ambiance when it comes to lighting.

I think there is room for all tints and that whatever choice someone makes, it must have been the right choice for them, at least at the time.

I've got a cool white Titan that I'll never have modded, even though I almost did several years ago. While most of my lights are neutral to warm, and I really prefer the warm tints 90% of the time, there are some gentle floody lights with cool white emitters that are absolutely perfect for their given purposes.


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 28, 2015)

I have tested multiple neutral, cool white and warm LEDs in about every outdoor condition. I do find some neutral tints like cool white differ. My XM-L 2 example seems cooler than XP-G 2 both in "neutral tint" however they work equally well in nature. Human perception differs so what I say applies only to me. 

1. Warm tint doesn't really seem more effective than neutral at most things. In some cases it's less so.

2. Beam profile seems to matter more than tint when dealing with snow, fog and rain. The worst are floody headlamps the best flashlights and they vary with beams. Sometimes brighter isn't better. 

3. My eyes adjust to cool white. I prefer neutral for general good feelings but it seems unless something is really extreme all road lead to Rome over time. 

4. In the dark breakup patterns are even more effective. Rattlesnakes and the like. 

5. Some tints seem a bit more effective at penetrating moving water.

Ok lets take a walk......

I have done this hike for several nights in a row. Always use the GPS to get a rough idea of distance when adding something new.





Everything tonight was illuminated with a XM-L U2 Neutral at around 50 lumens using first a 1xAAA then 1XAA NiMH battery. No flash. The photos look very very near what my eye seen. The other night I compared XM-L 2 neutral to XP-G 1 cool white with headlamps which tend to have floody beams.





From tonight. First thing. Lack of depth perception? Gosh I jumped from rock to rock, scramble over boulders and avoided branches. I don't see it, pun intended. Tint really didn't matter.







Spiders are ok outside my shelters but creepy inside.





Color rendition. Back in the days of angry blue so much of the woods looked...... Well blue. This made distinguishing colors harder. On a side note loss of color vision? I don't think so but have noticed some issues with shades of the same color which can be a problem.

This neutral white clearly shows red and yellow. Cool white or any other tint would as well.





No even the angriest blue tint could mix these two up.





This white looks good as well under neutral tint.





Ok, lets get a little sporty.

Is this a white trail marker telling me to take a turn off a red trail? No that isn't how it's commonly done. The direction doesn't go any place and the color is very near stuff growing on the tree. But who knows?






Below is not a marker but at distance it's less clear. Back in the day it could appear white or blue. I have been turned off trails during leaf/snow cover following stuff like this at distance,





What about this? Is the marker under the red one blue, white or something else? Like all the rest it's illuminated under neutral white. The photo shows color about the same as I remember in real life.





It's actually been intentionally grayed out.

Would the real trail marker please raise your hand.


















Blue can be all over the woods.





Back in the day cool white could be an issue but honestly it's closing ground with neutral in many ways as the tint lottery has been mitigated. I still prefer neutral because I like every little possible advantage but wonder if it's more psychological than based on facts there days. All of the above is IMHO.


----------



## StorminMatt (Apr 28, 2015)

jjf427 said:


> I'm going to side with CUL8R on this one. My primary need for a light is to simply see what I want to see. My brain is perfectly capable of adapting to variations/distortions of color rendition due to the tint of the light. I just don't think it is that difficult. I am not into night photography or any thing like that, where I could understand it could be a problem. I am fine with cool white.



If I'm, say, on a night hike, I can see just fine with a cool white light, too. But I just don't like the way a cool white light renders colors. If I'm out in nature at night, I just prefer the more natural color rendering of a warm/neutral light. It's really more about the way it FEELS to use a warm/neutral light vs a cool white light. Cool white lights just seem overly harsh and unnatural to me. And to me, this degrades the experience of being out in the wilderness at night. Say what you want about lumens and efficidncy. The fact is that the difference these days is small. For instance, an SC600 puts out 1100 lumens vs 1020 lumens for an SC600w. Given the fact that the 1020 lumen SC600w is not really visibly brighter than the 930 lumen SC62w, I can't see that there would be much (if any) difference between a 1020 lumen SC600w and an 1100 lumen SC600.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 28, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I guess before we start another tint war, we need to focus no the OP asking if it's "necessary". Necessary for who?
> 
> 1. The manufacturer? No, plenty are doing just fine without NW
> 2. The user? I would say yes, depending on the application. Not "life or death" necessary, but enough to make the task more enjoyable to easier due to the warmer tint.


This. 

I wish, markr6 wishes, most other participants in this thread wish for good CRI neutral tint. Problem is we're a veritable drop in the market bucket. Most suppliers that have experimented with neutral tints around 4000K have found that they sell _far_ slower than cool white tints in the vicinity of ~6500K. Cool white spits out a few more lumens, simultaneously seem to be perceived as brighter for the same lumens, and it's what the market seems to think LED should look like. Change this market dynamic somehow and perhaps more manufacturers will start making more neutral white flashlights.

There's also what the CPF enthusiast uses flashlights for vs the general market. We tend to use them as portable all-around lighting thus are more concerned about color quality. The general market uses them to resolve an inconvenient lack of light and thus quality is not as important for an occasional-use item.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 28, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> the non-flashaholic will usually pick the cool white.





kaichu dento said:


> Actually not even a little bit true, unless we're only talking flashlights here.





Fireclaw18 said:


> ... the non-flashaholic will usually pick the cool white.





kaichu dento said:


> Sure wish this old wives tale would go away. I have to agree when you say usually but there is a mistaken notion that non-flashaholics can't be picky, or be photographers, or have a strong preference for ambiance when it comes to lighting.


A few retailers have relayed their experiences with this subject on CPF both in terms of simple sales numbers (cool white tints sell better) and observation of customer side-by-side comparisons (they prefer the cool white, often because it's brighter). I recall that the main exception is headlamps where neutral white sells better than in other flashlight categories - perhaps because of its association with caving and more detailed/prolonged task work where color accuracy is much more important.

Naturally, general-purpose lighting is different with at least the North American and European residential markets preferring warm tints.

I wish there were more options between 3000K and 4000K in both cases, but the consumer numbers just don't seem to be there in the markets.


----------



## cerbie (Apr 28, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> Back in the day cool white could be an issue but honestly it's closing ground with neutral in many ways as the tint lottery has been mitigated. I still prefer neutral because I like every little possible advantage but wonder if it's more psychological than based on facts there days. All of the above is IMHO.


The CCT itself is not doing too much, though will favor yellows and browns as it becomes lower. A neutral XM-L2 could have a typical 70-75 CRI, or it could be up into 80-85 CRI. The latter would be the better one for outdoors (and will handle your point 5 better, as would any with CRI appreciably higher than another, except for very cool whites). Even so, 10 years ago, we were lucky if we got 70 CRI from a white emitter, regardless of the color temp and coloring of the tint. Today, it's only >85 CRI that mandates dropping down into the neutral range, much less warm. CRI is not perfect, but it's basically what we have to go by, and reasonably approximates how well filled-in the spectrum is.

FWIW, the "warm" (4000K nominal) XM-L2 in my Armytek Prime C1 does not look anywhere near as good in person as those photos do on my PC monitor, and makes everything with any yellow look kind of orange, makes oranges look brownish, light blues are hard to tell from grays or tans, and everything has that flat look that most people think of as an inherent trait of LEDs. But, my cool (5500K nominal) Prime C1 Pro's XM-L2 looks very good, like your photos, and is only a little bit worse than my Nichias, in terms of color. Without getting specific emitters for it, effective color rendition for a given sample is as much a lottery as white wall tint quality.


----------



## Chaitanya (Apr 28, 2015)

Last year when I purchased my first light it was a cool white as all the 1x18650 lights available with my dealer were Cool white. After using that light during foggy monsoon nights in Western ghats and comparing it with a neutral white tint under same conditions. I was converted to Neutral white lights. Now a days only Cool white tint lights that I use are in my office and edc lights for city usage. All my lights for photography, trekking and herping purposes are Neutral whites or High CRI ones(I don't care about slightly reduced runtimes or output).


----------



## RetroTechie (Apr 28, 2015)

kaichu dento said:


> RetroTechie said:
> 
> 
> > I think cool white LEDs sell because
> ...


I was talking flashlights there. 

Possibly there's some kind of 'conditioning' going on:

For a long time people have lived with incandescent flashlights. And gotten used to its yellowish light, poor output, and batteries going out at once. :candle: Then LED flashlights come along, almost exclusively cool white, and much much brighter for same size/battery input. See that for a few years, and it's easy to get an automatic association between "cool white" and "brighter". Even in situations where it's not. :duh2: For brick & mortar retailers it's a no-brainer: cool white sells. Customers that really _want_ a warmish flashlight, can still go for a light based on glowing bulb (and still have those at home). So not a big market for neutral or warm white LED lights. And thus, they don't show up on shelves.



> There is not a single person in this country not familiar with cool/warm/bright and how it affects the lighting in their homes.


Logical since the average person spends so much time at home, all day, every day. And thus athmosphere, lighting etc matters, and people wouldn't put up with something they don't like. How different from flashlights, that are only used occasionally. And I suppose, not enough for people to give it a 2nd thought, or complain if they don't like the beam color. Looking for something in that dark shed? Grab flashlight, find item, job done. Same with bicycle lights.



> Cool is still the most popular choice for work areas like kitchens and workshops.


Indeed, but now _that_ is interesting! :thinking: I would assume it's a combination of wanting the lowest electricity bill, not spending enough time in such places to bother much with the light color, and what you're used to (and for workplaces, the boss footing the bill). But I'd really like to see some proper research on why people pick what they pick for places like kitchens, garages, etc.

Now fast forward a # of years, and it wouldn't surprise me if people get 'conditioned' to LED flashlights being mooooorrrre than bright enough for their uses. And start looking at other aspects. And perhaps find they like neutral white better. If I were a retailer, at least I'd stock _some_ neutral white LED flashlights. And keep doing so. Simply to get a feel for how buyer's preferences change over time.


----------



## avernite (Apr 28, 2015)

Given the choice I prefer a warmish-neutral tint over cool white because it feels more comfortable to my eyes. The woods can look ghostly/spooky when illuminated with cool white.

Also, in my experience warmish tints produce less "blowback" when their hotspots pass over nearby tree trunks and they seem less destructive to night vision than the cool whites.

Can't wait for the Archer 2C V2 NW to come out


----------



## markr6 (Apr 28, 2015)

avernite said:


> The woods can look ghostly/spooky when illuminated with cool white.



That is so true, especially if everything is covered in snow. Feels like you stepped into some kind of frozen hell. No need to everything to be blasted with operating room lighting; I'll take a nice neutral white.


----------



## Chicken Drumstick (Apr 28, 2015)

I know what tint I prefer:


----------



## markr6 (Apr 28, 2015)

Almost not even fair comparing others with the Nichia


----------



## avernite (Apr 28, 2015)

Nice comparison shots! I like your Convoy S2+ the best, though it could do with a bit less green in it.


----------



## Chicken Drumstick (Apr 28, 2015)

Agree 

Although the 5A2 XP-G2 is actually very nice and quite hard to tell from the Nichia219B in person.


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 28, 2015)

cerbie said:


> The CCT itself is not doing too much, though will favor yellows and browns as it becomes lower. A neutral XM-L2 could have a typical 70-75 CRI, or it could be up into 80-85 CRI. The latter would be the better one for outdoors (and will handle your point 5 better, as would any with CRI appreciably higher than another, except for very cool whites). Even so, 10 years ago, we were lucky if we got 70 CRI from a white emitter, regardless of the color temp and coloring of the tint. Today, it's only >85 CRI that mandates dropping down into the neutral range, much less warm. CRI is not perfect, but it's basically what we have to go by, and reasonably approximates how well filled-in the spectrum is.
> 
> FWIW, the "warm" (4000K nominal) XM-L2 in my Armytek Prime C1 does not look anywhere near as good in person as those photos do on my PC monitor, and makes everything with any yellow look kind of orange, makes oranges look brownish, light blues are hard to tell from grays or tans, and everything has that flat look that most people think of as an inherent trait of LEDs. But, my cool (5500K nominal) Prime C1 Pro's XM-L2 looks very good, like your photos, and is only a little bit worse than my Nichias, in terms of color. Without getting specific emitters for it, effective color rendition for a given sample is as much a lottery as white wall tint quality.



I was surprised as to how good the xml-2 neutral looked in the woods. On my wall compared to a XRE and XPE neutral white it looked too cool. Was even cooler than the XPG 2 neutral. But in the field it really shined pun intended. Have considered a Nichia 219 (hope I got the number right) but the hit in output compared to other options seemed like too much. Maybe one of these days.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 28, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> Have considered a Nichia 219 (hope I got the number right) but the hit in output compared to other options seemed like too much. Maybe one of these days.



Even my tintsnobbiness allows for a good XM-L2/XP-L/etc neutral white over the Nichia 219  I particularly like the tint of my SC600w II L2 - PERFECTLY white, _almost _wanting to lean towards cool. My SC62w on the other hard is a bit dingy (slight yellow-green) in comparison, but not horrible...and only in comparison.

If we were comparing 300lm to 450lm I would always go with the Nichia. But since we're talking about triple the output or more, I'm fine with a good tint XM-L2 90% of the time. And of course it depends on the application.


----------



## Chicken Drumstick (Apr 28, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Even my tintsnobbiness allows for a good XM-L2/XP-L/etc neutral white over the Nichia 219  I particularly like the tint of my SC600w II L2 - PERFECTLY white, _almost _wanting to lean towards cool. My SC62w on the other hard is a bit dingy (slight yellow-green) in comparison, but not horrible...and only in comparison.
> 
> If we were comparing 300lm to 450lm I would always go with the Nichia. But since we're talking about triple the output or more, I'm fine with a good tint XM-L2 90% of the time. And of course it depends on the application.


The Nichia will give a lumen drop compared to an XM-L2. But it'll also be more throwy than the XM-L2 in most cases. Not as throwy as an XP-G2 mind.

Horses for courses. I have a number of Nichia219 lights and they work well at 2.5-3.0amps.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 28, 2015)

Chicken Drumstick said:


> The Nichia will give a lumen drop compared to an XM-L2. But it'll also be more throwy than the XM-L2 in most cases. Not as throwy as an XP-G2 mind.
> 
> Horses for courses. I have a number of Nichia219 lights and they work well at 2.5-3.0amps.



A Nichia 219A isn't much more than half as efficient as an XM-L2. Maybe 60% (at most) as efficient as a neutral white XM-L2. I really like the Nichia 219A for small lights that don't need to be really bright. But for EDC, I prefer to go with a neutral XM-L2 for the extra brightness and efficiency. It's a trade-off.

I'm surprised you can pump 2.5-3.0 amps into a Nichia 219. I thought that would fry it.


----------



## 18650 (Apr 28, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> I was surprised as to how good the xml-2 neutral looked in the woods. On my wall compared to a XRE and XPE neutral white it looked too cool. Was even cooler than the XPG 2 neutral. But in the field it really shined pun intended. Have considered a Nichia 219 (hope I got the number right) but the hit in output compared to other options seemed like too much. Maybe one of these days.


 If you don't like angry blue, I'm not sure if you'd like the angry pink of the Nichia. Contrary to the opinion of many others, I feel the browns and reds look quite "unnatural" under the 219.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 28, 2015)

18650 said:


> If you don't like angry blue, I'm not sure if you'd like the angry pink of the Nichia. Contrary to the opinion of many others, I feel the browns and reds look quite "unnatural" under the 219.



Oooooo I have to completely disagree. Even if one did find it too pink, I'm sure the 5000K Nichia 219B would be a hit.


----------



## cerbie (Apr 28, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> I was surprised as to how good the xml-2 neutral looked in the woods. On my wall compared to a XRE and XPE neutral white it looked too cool. Was even cooler than the XPG 2 neutral. But in the field it really shined pun intended. Have considered a Nichia 219 (hope I got the number right) but the hit in output compared to other options seemed like too much. Maybe one of these days.


If you want high output and long runtime, a heavy P60, or other light on the big side for EDC, is really going to be necessary. If you want throw along with it, you'll need 3-4 with an optic, because you'll basically have to throw lumens at that problem. I'm definitely in the Nichia fan club, but they will not take care of all scenarios, unless you want to put down some real money just for the sake of quality tinting (since there are commercial 3x 219B P60 dropins, clearly some people want to do just that! ).

I hardly ever need more than 100lm day to day, but when I do, I usually want 1000lm or more to light up an area, so I don't find it to be a problem. That my eyes receive more useful wavelength info to process makes up for a having to change batteries slightly sooner ten times over (I don't like incan flashlights, but I do see better with high-CCT incans...which are low-CCT in LED terms). But, if you want 500 or more lumens in a handheld flashlight, that isn't too heavy, and has good runtime, the Crees are definitely a better bet.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 28, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Oooooo I have to completely disagree. Even if one did find it too pink, I'm sure the 5000K Nichia 219B would be a hit.



I don't find the Nichia 219A pink at all. However, I do find that all Cree emitters tend to be a little green (some more than others). So, perhaps it's just my eyes (pink looks white to me, which makes white look green?).


----------



## markr6 (Apr 28, 2015)

I understand what people mean when they mention the pink thing. I wouldn't say pink, and, don't see that. I like the "rosy" word better. It's just hard to describe. Whatever it is, I find it to be an absolutely great thing.

If anyone is interested, do a comparison with any other LED and the 219A, 4500°, 92CRI on a wooden table or simply a piece of 2x4 lumber. I think you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 28, 2015)

18650 said:


> If you don't like angry blue, I'm not sure if you'd like the angry pink of the Nichia. Contrary to the opinion of many others, I feel the browns and reds look quite "unnatural" under the 219.



LOL! The multiflora rose syndrome. A rose with a mean streak.:laughing: Forgot to add that one to the list. Yup a neutral/warm which is too rosy/pink could be an issue.


----------



## wjv (Apr 28, 2015)

moshow9 said:


> My order of preference:
> 
> 1) Warm White (2900K - 3900K)
> 2) Neutral White (4000K - 4500K)
> ...



I prefer the Neutral White range


----------



## martinaee (Apr 28, 2015)

I think you could say the efficiency (or maybe more specifically the efficacy) is slightly less, but is that really an issue even these days? We literally have lights running on one lithium-ion 18650 battery that can put out over 1000 lumens. And neutral emitters in those lights that basically do the same visually.

Tint will ALWAYS be important to those who want a specific kelvin temperature to their lights or lighting products. Especially people like myself who are photographers here on CPF. I like both cool white and neutral white these days, but more than anything I hope the CRI of all emitters continues to improve.

Also I've pointed this out before, but from my unscientific observations you get some of the best led lighting with mixed tint emitter lighting. That is, when you have a light source with multiple emitters that are both neutral and cool white. Sunlight has a huge range of wavelengths and thus basically the best CRI you can get. You can see certain colors better with neutral tint emitters and some things better (maybe contrasts) with cool tints so you get the best of everything when you start combining tints at the same time on whatever you are trying to light.

This is why I'm still waiting for my "ultimate" light from Fenix that is say a 6 emitter xm-l2 style light with 3 neutral emitters and 3 cool white emitters. Actually doesn't the TK76 do something like that already? I'll have to look it up, but isn't the floody emitter in that light neutral and the main thrower a cool white? It's an interesting light, but I don't know if it is selling well so maybe it's too futuristic for many people


----------



## fresh eddie fresh (Apr 28, 2015)

I prefer warm tints... are they necessary? Not really, I can still find my way around in the dark with a cool light, but I just like the warm tint better.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 28, 2015)

martinaee said:


> This is why I'm still waiting for my "ultimate" light from Fenix that is say a 6 emitter xm-l2 style light with 3 neutral emitters and 3 cool white emitters. Actually doesn't the TK76 do something like that already? I'll have to look it up, but isn't the floody emitter in that light neutral and the main thrower a cool white? It's an interesting light, but I don't know if it is selling well so maybe it's too futuristic for many people



IIRC, the Imalent SA04 does pretty much what you want, but with only 2 LEDs (a warm white and cool white). You can dial in any tint between warm and cool that you want. IMO, it's more gimmicky than useful, but perhaps photographers might get some use out of it.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 28, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> IIRC, the Imalent SA04 does pretty much what you want, but with only 2 LEDs (a warm white and cool white). You can dial in any tint between warm and cool that you want. IMO, it's more gimmicky than useful, but perhaps photographers might get some use out of it.



I actually felt bad for them when I saw that, thinking _noone is going to buy this_!!


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 28, 2015)

This has gotten so much more enjoyable than just a few years ago when talk of tint would get really heated. Now we're sharing differing views without so much trouble and all the beamshots are great to see too.


----------



## recDNA (Apr 28, 2015)

Surefire lights still often have a green tint.


----------



## jjf427 (Apr 28, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> If I'm, say, on a night hike, I can see just fine with a cool white light, too. But I just don't like the way a cool white light renders colors. If I'm out in nature at night, I just prefer the more natural color rendering of a warm/neutral light. It's really more about the way it FEELS to use a warm/neutral light vs a cool white light. Cool white lights just seem overly harsh and unnatural to me. And to me, this degrades the experience of being out in the wilderness at night. Say what you want about lumens and efficidncy. The fact is that the difference these days is small. For instance, an SC600 puts out 1100 lumens vs 1020 lumens for an SC600w. Given the fact that the 1020 lumen SC600w is not really visibly brighter than the 930 lumen SC62w, I can't see that there would be much (if any) difference between a 1020 lumen SC600w and an 1100 lumen SC600.



I will grant you that cool white is harsh, it most definitely is. But I think I can see better with cool white rather than warm or neutral white, even if harsh.

I also agree with your comment about the "feeling" a specific tint engenders. I think that what many of us would really like is an LED that mimics sunlight (wouldn't that be WAY cool?). But I don't think such an LED/light (would probably need multiple LED's) exists. Perhaps in the future...


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 28, 2015)

kaichu dento said:


> This has gotten so much more enjoyable than just a few years ago when talk of tint would get really heated. Now we're sharing differing views without so much trouble and all the beamshots are great to see too.



That's so strange. Glad it's a thing of the past.



recDNA said:


> Surefire lights still often have a green tint.



The only SF LED I own is a P60L which came angry blue and missing a chip of reflector coating. Malkoff + SF = good.  However the P60L works just fine and tint is within the eye of the beholder. I tend to fault real issues which can effect the actual operation of a gear item not cosmetic stuff which can be personal preference or point of view.


----------



## martinaee (Apr 29, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> IIRC, the Imalent SA04 does pretty much what you want, but with only 2 LEDs (a warm white and cool white). You can dial in any tint between warm and cool that you want. IMO, it's more gimmicky than useful, but perhaps photographers might get some use out of it.



Yeah I've seen that light. Pretty sweet, but I think I'd prefer a light with no touch-screen.


----------



## Chicken Drumstick (Apr 29, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> A Nichia 219A isn't much more than half as efficient as an XM-L2. Maybe 60% (at most) as efficient as a neutral white XM-L2. I really like the Nichia 219A for small lights that don't need to be really bright. But for EDC, I prefer to go with a neutral XM-L2 for the extra brightness and efficiency. It's a trade-off.
> 
> I'm surprised you can pump 2.5-3.0 amps into a Nichia 219. I thought that would fry it.


Was referring to the 219B not the 219A.


----------



## avernite (Apr 29, 2015)

wjv said:


> I prefer the Neutral White range



Does sunlight really have such a cool tint? On a cloudy day maybe but direct sunlight looks more yellowish to me (in the 2,700 to 3,000 range).


----------



## markr6 (Apr 29, 2015)

avernite said:


> Does sunlight really have such a cool tint? On a cloudy day maybe but direct sunlight looks more yellowish to me (in the 2,700 to 3,000 range).



That's a nice photo, generalizing the temps, but no photo will ever be a 100% perfect representation of real life.

Then you get the marketing guys throwing fun words like "daylight" and "bright white" around and you're in for a big mess.


----------



## twistedraven (Apr 29, 2015)

avernite said:


> Does sunlight really have such a cool tint? On a cloudy day maybe but direct sunlight looks more yellowish to me (in the 2,700 to 3,000 range).



The appearance of direct sunlight being yellow compared to shadows and/or overcast is a product of color bias and your brain fooling you. When you're outside, you quickly grow accustomed to the high color temperature of the diffused sky and adapt to that being true white, while the warmer direct sunlight will look yellow in comparison. In actuality, direct sunlight at say, midday, is in the color temperature around 5-5500k, while indirect daylight is far cooler. 

From my experience and tastes, I prefer a neutral white light that can mimic midday sunlight, so I prefer tints at 5000k. Anything cooler looks ghastly, while anything warmer looks like an incandescent.


----------



## markr6 (Apr 29, 2015)

twistedraven said:


> From my experience and tastes, I prefer a neutral white light that can mimic midday sunlight, so I prefer tints at 5000k. Anything cooler looks ghastly, while anything warmer looks like an incandescent.



I have to say, the *XP-L V6 bin with 3D tint *in my lastest light is just amazing. VERY close to mid-day light. Reminds me of the Luxeon 5000K when I had a Zebralight SC62d, just a billion times brighter


----------



## avernite (Apr 29, 2015)

twistedraven said:


> The appearance of direct sunlight being yellow compared to shadows and/or overcast is a product of color bias and your brain fooling you. When you're outside, you quickly grow accustomed to the high color temperature of the diffused sky and adapt to that being true white, while the warmer direct sunlight will look yellow in comparison. In actuality, direct sunlight at say, midday, is in the color temperature around 5-5500k, while indirect daylight is far cooler.
> 
> From my experience and tastes, I prefer a neutral white light that can mimic midday sunlight, so I prefer tints at 5000k. Anything cooler looks ghastly, while anything warmer looks like an incandescent.



Yes, I think what you're saying is accurate. It is a strange phenomenon. I did some comparisons and the tint of my PD32 UE is similar to direct sunlight, and I believe it to be around 5,000K.


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Apr 29, 2015)

I will agree that cool tints in general seem to have improved greatly over the past several year, but I still prefer warm/neutral tints with a high CRI, so as far as I'm concerned, they're still necessary since I will never be entirely satisfied with a cool tinted LED.


----------



## jorn (Apr 29, 2015)

The tint of sunlight is constanly changing depending on how mutch atmosphere it has to go trough before it hit you. When the sun is low in the horisont it has to go diagonally trough the atmosphere, and the tint gets warmer. I prefer the neutral to warm tint.


----------



## chuckhov (Apr 29, 2015)

Very Nice Color Match!

Thanks!
-Chuck


----------



## the.Mtn.Man (Apr 29, 2015)

jorn said:


> The tint of sunlight is constanly changing depending on how mutch atmosphere it has to go trough before it hit you. When the sun is low in the horisont it has to go diagonally trough the atmosphere, and the tint gets warmer. I prefer the neutral to warm tint.


For decades, photographers have always been drawn to the Golden Hour, the period of the day just after sunrise and just before sunset when sunlight has a rich, warm tone that makes colors "pop".


----------



## StorminMatt (Apr 29, 2015)

the.Mtn.Man said:


> For decades, photographers have always been drawn to the Golden Hour, the period of the day just after sunrise and just before sunset when sunlight has a rich, warm tone that makes colors "pop".



Another characteristic of the golden hour is that there is no direct beam radiation. It is completely diffuse. This means that everything is illuminated without anything being 'blown out' (as often happens during midday). Also, the diffuse lighting of the golden hour means that there is ALOT less shading. So detail in shaded areas is not lost. So while warm tint is certainly a big part of why photographers like the golden hour, even illumination is certainly also a big part.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Apr 29, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Another characteristic of the golden hour is that there is no direct beam radiation. It is completely diffuse. This means that everything is illuminated without anything being 'blown out' (as often happens during midday). Also, the diffuse lighting of the golden hour means that there is ALOT less shading. So detail in shaded areas is not lost. So while warm tint is certainly a big part of why photographers like the golden hour, even illumination is certainly also a big part.



IMO, the diffuse light, along with the ability to backlight or sidelight a subject, is 99% of the part. Sure, the warm tones are nice, but today most of that can be created in software post-processing.


----------



## twistedraven (Apr 29, 2015)

I thought photographers just liked seeing pink on their mountains. I'm looking at you Galen Rowell.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 29, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> That's so strange. Glad it's a thing of the past.


I don't know if it's strange so much as that there seems to be a bit less of the I'm-right-so-therefore-you're-wrong-and-should-shut-up type of posting that used to be associated with any tint related talk.

Great sunset/campfire pic Jorn!


----------



## markr6 (Apr 29, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> IMO, the diffuse light, along with the ability to backlight or sidelight a subject, is 99% of the part. Sure, the warm tones are nice, but today most of that can be created in software post-processing.


Nailed it. Noon = weird shadows


----------



## Heron (Apr 29, 2015)

Yeah, I'm a neutral white only person as well. Nothing gives me a headache faster than trying to read by blue glow in the evening. Yuck!


----------



## NoNotAgain (Apr 30, 2015)

Chicken Drumstick said:


> The Nichia will give a lumen drop compared to an XM-L2. But it'll also be more throwy than the XM-L2 in most cases. Not as throwy as an XP-G2 mind.
> 
> Horses for courses. I have a number of Nichia219 lights and they work well at 2.5-3.0amps.



I could be wrong, but can you name one light that Vinh produces with a Nichia 219 that's a thrower? I can't. I'd think that if the Nichia 219 were more throwy, that Vinh would be using them instead of the XM-L2 or the newer emitters.


----------



## blah9 (Apr 30, 2015)

I definitely prefer a warm/neutral tint, but for some lights I don't mind going cool white for some extra power. However, I have yet to try a high CRI light, so it looks like that is the next type of emitter I'll need to try out.


----------



## recDNA (Apr 30, 2015)

I need neutral in lab but I actually see better in the field with 6200k even at the lower luminosity.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 30, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I need neutral in lab but I actually see better in the field with 6200k even at the lower luminosity.


I really like slightly cooler tints when they've got a smooth, floody beam pattern, especially when relating to work of most any type, but when it comes to normal usage I enjoy the warmth of warmer tints and what benefits they bring in giving life to what I see in front of me.


----------



## fnsooner (Apr 30, 2015)

I was driven to neutral/warm a few years ago by some ghastly blue and green cool white lights that I had purchased. I haven't purchased a current regulated cool white flashlight since. 

I did go through a budget light phase and found that I could tolerate cool white LEDs PWM driven. When I first notice this, I couldn't figure out how cheap budget lights could repeatedly give me a more pleasant cool white beam than the non budget current regulated lights. I briefly thought there was some sort of conspiracy until I realized how current regulation affects tint and creates shifts in tint at different lumen levels. 

I still can't think of a single instance where I would choose cool white over neutral or warm. Cool whites stress my eyes more than neutrals. 

I would love to purchase a higher end light like my ZL SC62w, except with a 4000kish tint and driven by PWM to eliminate tint shift...Efficiency be damned.


----------



## recDNA (Apr 30, 2015)

kaichu dento said:


> I really like slightly cooler tints when they've got a smooth, floody beam pattern, especially when relating to work of most any type, but when it comes to normal usage I enjoy the warmth of warmer tints and what benefits they bring in giving life to what I see in front of me.


I don't care if what is in front of me has life. I just want to see it so I don't trip over it. I find I see rocks and holes better with at least 5000k color. It's odd because most say they see better outside with warmer tint lights. My eyes do not work that way. Indoors I need to see colors accurately sometimes and 219b provides that even with cheesy fluorescent lights overhead. Bio labs should use come kind of high cri lighting but I've never worked in one that did.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 30, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I don't care if what is in front of me has life. I just want to see it so I don't trip over it. I find I see rocks and holes better with at least 5000k color. It's odd because most say they see better outside with warmer tint lights. My eyes do not work that way. Indoors I need to see colors accurately sometimes and 219b provides that even with cheesy fluorescent lights overhead. Bio labs should use come kind of high cri lighting but I've never worked in one that did.


Well I do, and although I can see well with a wide range of lights, unlike you some of us have a preference for differing tints, beam patterns and output levels dependent upon what we're doing at the time.

Luckily for you you have one favorite tint but most of us got here because we're picky in one way or several and thankfully there are choices enough to satisfy most within the given constraints of present limitations.


----------



## Woods Walker (Apr 30, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I don't care if what is in front of me has life. I just want to see it so I don't trip over it. I find I see rocks and holes better with at least 5000k color. It's odd because most say they see better outside with warmer tint lights. My eyes do not work that way. Indoors I need to see colors accurately sometimes and 219b provides that even with cheesy fluorescent lights overhead. Bio labs should use come kind of high cri lighting but I've never worked in one that did.



I care if what is in front of me has life at night. Sometimes stuff which is alive doesn't want to be seen. As for tint to each their own IMHO.


----------



## LedTed (May 1, 2015)

I asked a similar question before. From research on CPF and CPF member feedback from my question, I found three needs: grilling meat, some detailed inspection, and triage.


----------



## BeastFlashlight (May 1, 2015)

Gaffle said:


> Neutral to warm for me. I want a more politically correct color, as in whats natural (or at least close to it)



Politically correct color?? Huh?


----------



## recDNA (May 1, 2015)

kaichu dento said:


> Well I do, and although I can see well with a wide range of lights, unlike you some of us have a preference for differing tints, beam patterns and output levels dependent upon what we're doing at the time.
> 
> Luckily for you you have one favorite tint but most of us got here because we're picky in one way or several and thankfully there are choices enough to satisfy most within the given constraints of present limitations.


I told you I do not have 1 favorite tint. I prefer hi cri indoors and 5000k - 6200k(similar to 5500k sunlight at noon) outdoors.
I want to see the snake but I don't care if colors are accurate at night outdoors. Heck, it isn't natural to see colors well outdoors at night.

Heck, I wish I could afford a sundrop for indoor use. Outdoors I just light bright. I understand it is a personal choice. I'm not suggesting it is better, just better for me.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 1, 2015)

Nowadays I can't stand cool white.

So much so, that any cool white light I get immediately gets an ledectomy.

My newest light is a Nitecore EC11, less than a week old, and now sporting a much more pleasant XML2 4D tint.


----------



## recDNA (May 1, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Nowadays I can't stand cool white.
> 
> So much so, that any cool white light I get immediately gets an ledectomy.
> 
> My newest light is a Nitecore EC11, less than a week old, and now sporting a much more pleasant XML2 4D tint.


I had my TC-R2 led changed to a 219B. I love it. Some would consider it too cool.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 1, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I had my TC-R2 led changed to a 219B. I love it. Some would consider it too cool.



I did that with my Jetbeam TCR01. Except that I replaced the original emitter and reflector with a triple-Nichia 219B with Carclo 10507 optic. The light looks awesome as a triple. Tint is very pleasant, but I still find the slightly warmer tints to be superior.


----------



## recDNA (May 1, 2015)

Oh I wish I had a pocket sized triple 219B! I asked Vinh if he could do a jetbeam triple for me but no luck.

Maybe you should have done 219A? It is a little warmer. 

I do have a Z2 Host with a nice triple in it but too big to carry.


----------



## Amelia (May 1, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I'm a neutral-white only person. A cool white lights things up like it's supposed to, but aesthetically it's just uglier IMO. Especially outdoors.
> 
> When I'm hiking at night and trying to enjoy my backpacking trips, I want a nice pleasant tint.
> 
> I like the option and wish more companies would offer it.



This is exactly how I feel about it. I like light that's nice to look at, and easy on the eyes. Cool white is neither. The only cool white light left in my "collection" at this point is the Nitecore SRT3, snd it's getting modded to Nichia 219 just as soon as I can find someone who knows how.
It's to the point that I won't even consider buying a light unless it is available with a Neutral or High-CRi emitter option - I feel that strongly about it.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 1, 2015)

Amelia said:


> It's to the point that I won't even consider buying a light unless it is available with a Neutral or High-CRi emitter option - I feel that strongly about it.



Same here. It's been quite awhile since I've bought any cool white lights. I won't even consider a light unless it's available in neutral (or warm) white. High CRI is nice (i.e., above 90), but optional for most of my purposes.


----------



## tscott999 (May 1, 2015)

I have a lumapower vantage warm and I use it for camping. It is a great light for relaxing and still getting great definition and throw. I would never use it at work but it's a great all round light and I love the warm, almost traditional incandescent like glow. I hope warm LEDs don't disappear completely.


----------



## chuckhov (May 1, 2015)

Scott,

Welcome to CPF!

-Chuck


----------



## kaichu dento (May 1, 2015)

recDNA said:


> Heck, it isn't natural to see colors well outdoors at night.


Lol, that would make a great signature line!

That's one reason I still like my Titan with its cool moonlight tint, because it doesn't render colors well and makes me feel that with it in my hand I've got full moonlight anytime I want.

On the other hand, I really like my incan-looking V10R Ti...


tscott999 said:


> I have a lumapower vantage warm and I use it for camping. It is a great light for relaxing and still getting great definition and throw. I would never use it at work but it's a great all round light and I love the warm, almost traditional incandescent like glow. I hope warm LEDs don't disappear completely.


Exactly!

I still feel that some of the older hCRI P4's and XP-G's were like holy grails of the LED kingdom and would love to have some of them back again.


----------



## BeastFlashlight (May 2, 2015)

I got a quad XPL from Vihn and he recommended to me that he have 2 of the LEDs 4000K and the other 2 LEDs 5700K, I really like the tint alot!! Does anyone else like to mix up tints in multi LED lights?


----------



## Brasso (May 2, 2015)

I prefer a 3700-4200 K tint light. And will always go high cri when possible. In fact, I rarely buy a light that isn't high cri anymore unless it's an emergency back up light. Then I don't really care as long as it's very rugged and dependable. But for everyday carry, always high cri with a 3700-4200 k tint.

I really love the 3700k high cri xpg emitters the best. I wish they could still be found.


----------



## Swedpat (May 2, 2015)

In my opinion: not necessary, but desirable. Even if the eyes are adaptable to tints and I can stand a cool white if it's not too cool, I would like to say:
neutral white provides better color rendition and is superior especially in the wilderness.

And if I compare a cool white to a neutral white and change from the cool to the neutral my reaction will be: NICE! When I change the other way around my reaction will be: NO! Change back!


----------



## BeastFlashlight (May 2, 2015)

Swedpat said:


> In my opinion: not necessary, but desirable. Even if the eyes are adaptable to tints and I can stand a cool white if it's not too cool



Is 6500K too cool, and is 5700 bearable? I don't mind cool white, i'm thinking that 5700K would be the best of both worlds for me, it's still bright cool white yet it will be a tad bit warmer than pure white light!


----------



## Swedpat (May 3, 2015)

BeastFlashlight said:


> Is 6500K too cool, and is 5700 bearable? I don't mind cool white, i'm thinking that 5700K would be the best of both worlds for me, it's still bright cool white yet it will be a tad bit warmer than pure white light!



I think that corresponds pretty well to what I perceive. And 5000K I find a nice neutral to the cooler side while 4000K is neutral on the edge to the warm.


----------



## Woods Walker (May 5, 2015)

There is a quote/saying, "vote with your feet". Noticed a sale on ArmyTek Predator v2.5 flashlight from Illumination supply. I went right for the neutral white and got the last one but they still had 7 cool white left, some cool white pro versions and ignored the rest of their sale items. If there was no neutral white I might not have made the purchase. Not sure what that says beyond I like the tint of the XP-G2 Neutral despite still wondering if there is a BIG advantage over cool white without angry blue or squid **** green tint.


----------



## markr6 (May 5, 2015)

3D tint...that's where it's at. Perfect! Definitely my new obsession.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 5, 2015)

markr6 said:


> 3D tint...that's where it's at. Perfect! Definitely my new obsession.



4D


----------



## Fireclaw18 (May 5, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> 4D



Agreed. I've tried both 3D and 4D. 

I prefer 4D.


----------



## markr6 (May 5, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Agreed. I've tried both 3D and 4D.
> 
> I prefer 4D.



Probably a good chance I would agree if I tried one of those as well.


----------



## chuckhov (May 5, 2015)

Anyone ever tried a 4A? - I have never seen a light offered for sale with one.

Right in between 3D and 4D on the chart.

Thanks,
-Chuck


----------



## thedoc007 (May 5, 2015)

Best tint ever? Certainly a conversation starter...


----------



## jon_slider (May 5, 2015)

apologies if these lights dont belong in this thread.. no experience with customs









The e01 has a very purple color in the center, that does not show in the photo. If thats what Cool White looks like, I am not a fan.

The Thrunite has a terrible green tint. I have two of them, the other is even worse.

The Maratac has a very pleasant color. I would call it warm, but don't know the official color name.

can anyone post examples of known colors, CW, NW, WW.. Im new and just trying to understand what color names mean, and what the 3 lights I posted would be called.

Also really appreciate the first hand feedback about hiking and biking and the importance of CRI. The Kelvin scale info is also very interesting. Anyone know the Kelvin and CRI of the lights I posted?



moshow9 said:


> 1) Warm White (2900K - 3900K)
> 2) Neutral White (4000K - 4500K)



thanks for the education, I was about to ask the Kelvin values for CW, NW, WW




Marv. said:


> The higher the CRI, the better. So, a neutral-to-warm white is preferred.





Marv. said:


> One big reason or rather problem, that we have many cool white lights in the market is that the slightly higher lumen outputs just work better in marketing. As others have noted, it is the same as the mega-pixel race.
> IMHO, the slightly higher lumen output of cool white isn't really much of an advantage in real-life.



I agree marketing emphasizes quantity over quality. I would like to learn more about your comment that CW and NW only differ "slightly", can you offer an example of two lights to compare throw or lumen output in percentage?




CUL8R said:


> I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't mind cool white. Most of my lights are cool and I don't have any issues with them at all. I use them actively for night hiking, backpacking and caving. And choosing warm is not always a small performance hit. Here is an example. These are 2 versions of a Vinh modified light (CW vs WW) as tested by jmpaul320. That is a huge performance hit in lumens and lux.





CUL8R said:


> *Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR WW*
> Throw - 22,000 Lux
> *Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR cool white*
> Throw - 31,000 lux



the cool white has 41% more throw. Uneducated consumers think thats the best one to buy. In some situations, runtime matters more than CRI. That is what I like about the Thrunite. otoh, the Maratac produces a much nicer color.
I hope people will post more pics to illustrate the colors being discussed. I love pics 

If a caver can deal with CW, and a bicycle rider says they can't tell a frog from a leaf, well, maybe theres no frogs or colors in the cave .. priorities vary with circumstances.


----------



## chuckhov (May 5, 2015)

"_*Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR WW*_
_Throw - 22,000 Lux_
_*Thrunite TN36vn 3x MKR cool white*_
_Throw - 31,000 lux"


This is NOT at all typical. Never have I seen such a spread within the same light.

Expect a NW to have about 93% of the output of a CW within same emitter class, but only when the NW is binned a step below.

If Cree bins them the same (I.E. XM-L2 U2) then the output will be the same... Of course there is also an U3 and U4 CW, and they will be apx 7% brighter for each bin increase.

Thanks,
-Chuck_


----------



## jorn (May 6, 2015)

It wont wave 41% more throw. 41% more lux, is not 41% more throw.
200 lux wont have twice the reach as 100. Only 25% more reach.


----------



## jorn (May 6, 2015)

Same with lumens. We need 4 times the lumens to precive it as twice as bright. 2000 lumens is just a little bit brighter than 1000 to the eye. So a 7% increase is nothing to the eye. We cant see lumens. Its the lux we precive as light.


----------



## flatline (May 6, 2015)

My favorite tints seem to fall into the 3700-4500K range.

It's much easier to find lights in this range than it was just 5 years ago.

It does seem like the standard run of the mill LED light has a nicer tint and color rendition than they used to.

--flatline


----------



## masterP (May 6, 2015)

does anyone know how many Kelvins a Malkoff M61 is? and the M60?


----------



## eh4 (May 8, 2015)

I can see better with neutral or warm side of neutral light. Less squinting and more noticing details in center and peripheral. 
It might be people inherit different concentrations of cones and rods, this could be part of the differences in personal preference.
We still don't have a way to know if one persons "red" is really the way that red looks to others. 

For a defensive light set up with high and strobe I'd definitely want cool white. 
To see comfortably with less light I want neutral to warm.


----------



## KITROBASKIN (May 8, 2015)

eh4 said:


> I can see better with neutral or warm side of neutral light...
> 
> For a defensive light set up with high and strobe I'd definitely want cool white.



This 'defensive lights should be cool white' is a bone of contention for some. If you can see better with neutral, why would you hamper yourself with cool white? The increased brightness is, in my opinion, not enough to matter.


----------



## markr6 (May 8, 2015)

I really don't get the defensive thing in general...but that's another topic 

I guess if there was a threat, I doubt they would stop for a moment and say "hey, that looks like a neutral white...940lumens instead of 1050lumens...that doesn't scare me...give me your wallet!"


----------



## recDNA (May 8, 2015)

It's only defensive if mounted on a handgun.


----------



## Amelia (May 8, 2015)

recDNA said:


> It's only defensive if mounted on a handgun.



Or mounted on the back of a bicycle you're rapidly peddaling away on!


----------



## KITROBASKIN (May 8, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I really don't get the defensive thing in general...but that's another topic
> 
> I guess if there was a threat, I doubt they would stop for a moment and say "hey, that looks like a neutral white...940lumens instead of 1050lumens...that doesn't scare me...give me your wallet!"



Yeah. When I did security in the 80's, we had a spotlight mounted on the driver side windshield riser. The bulbs were short lived (months) and one time we got (what was said to be) an aircraft landing light that was very blue/cold but powerful with more throw than we had seen from the previous incandescents. It did not last long either and when I requested another, the boss said it was not worth the expense. But I loved the cool look; made us look more serious, I thought.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 8, 2015)

It only works on Shelob.


----------



## scs (May 8, 2015)

KITROBASKIN said:


> This 'defensive lights should be cool white' is a bone of contention for some. If you can see better with neutral, why would you hamper yourself with cool white? The increased brightness is, in my opinion, not enough to matter.



Maybe cool white, especially when it has a noticeable blue tint, causes more eye discomfort than neutral white. If this effect is noticeable when illuminating with the light, then the effect is likely magnified when looking INTO the light. If this is indeed the case, then there is logic in using cool white for the purpose of shining it in someone's face in defensive situations. You want to induce maximum visual discomfort and disorientation. Of course, beyond a point, there's enough lux delivered on target that the intensity of the light by itself, regardless of tint, is already enough to cause discomfort and disorientation.


----------



## scs (May 8, 2015)

Out of the blue, I compared my eagletac 4300k against an incan and discovered that the incan light is more "3D", providing more contrast between light and shadow, and visual depth. The 4300k in turn is superior in that sense to my CW E12. I think I'll try some incan dropins just for the heck of it.


----------



## snowman3 (May 8, 2015)

IMHO this:


KITROBASKIN said:


> If you can see better with neutral, why would you hamper yourself with cool white? The increased brightness is, in my opinion, not enough to matter.



Not this: there is logic in using cool white for the purpose of shining it in someone's face in defensive situations.

Well, at least maybe.  It depends if you care more about your point of view or the other guys point of view. Did some fantastic night training shooting steel plates painted various colors: black, dark blue, dark red, dark green, etc. It was amazing how some lights just would not show a target. Can't remember which color my O-light didn't pick up. But pretty crazy/scary to see 4 of 5 targets and KNOW that the fifth one was right there... yet I just could't see it. Some lights would show everything, some not much at all. Lots of variance based on lumens, throw, type of bulb, etc. 

But that "enlightening" experience makes me lean toward wanting the best color rendition (best for me) vs worrying about what the other guy finds more annoying.


----------



## scs (May 8, 2015)

snowman3 said:


> IMHO this:
> 
> 
> Not this: there is logic in using cool white for the purpose of shining it in someone's face in defensive situations.
> ...



If you're shining your light and ACTIVELY SEARCHING for and identifying targets to neutralize, then yes, you're right; who cares what your target sees; you're trying to kill it, target acquisition is key. Good lord if you think this is a defensive situation.

If there's clothing of specific colors that potential targets can wear and becoming invisible to your O-light, so you can't see and shoot them, then yes, you're right again.


----------



## eh4 (May 8, 2015)

I've strobed myself and shined myself on high in mirrors to see the effects, with room lights both on and off. On high I could see through the glare, since I'm illuminated by the light. On strobe it is much more difficult, nearly impossible to see, and I can feel the fatigue of the tiny muscles in my eyes trying to dilate, contact, dilate, in attempt to adjust to the strobe. It's unpleasant and feels like it could be harmful if kept up very long. 
With room lights on I could see myself with strobe or high but again the strobe was much worse, difficult to process the view. 
This was just with an 120 lumen CRI HDS at about 3' to mirror and 3' reflected back, so 6'. I think 200 lumens of cool white would be more than enough. 
Cool light does feel more glaring and since our eyes are so sensitive to it, it makes sense that the pupil constriction response should be stronger with cool, but warm, cool, whatever is bad if it's too bright and being shined in my eyes. 

All that I'd want from a light as far as defense goes is an angle, if someone can't see well at all for just 5-10 seconds that's huge if it's fight or flight rather than spending those seconds hanging around playing with flashlight settings. 
Not a phaser, just a distinct momentary advantage.
And really I was just throwing a bone to cool white anyways, I'm perfectly happy with a warm side of neutral strobe if I ever need to run for my life or break a chair.


----------



## cerbie (May 8, 2015)

scs said:


> Out of the blue, I compared my eagletac 4300k against an incan and discovered that the incan light is more "3D", providing more contrast between light and shadow, and visual depth. The 4300k in turn is superior in that sense to my CW E12. I think I'll try some incan dropins just for the heck of it.


Try a high CRI LED, if you can find one . A warm high-CRI Cree may have an ugly tint, but it will work well outside.


----------



## scs (May 8, 2015)

cerbie said:


> Try a high CRI LED, if you can find one . A warm high-CRI Cree may have an ugly tint, but it will work well outside.



Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look into a Nichia. LF has some claimed 90 cri LEDs. I'll look into those as well.


----------



## StorminMatt (May 9, 2015)

cerbie said:


> Try a high CRI LED, if you can find one . A warm high-CRI Cree may have an ugly tint, but it will work well outside.



I wouldn't call the tint of a high CRI XM-L2 ugly. It's just VERY orange. In fact, it looks very much like an incandescent.


----------



## AmperSand (May 9, 2015)

Ive been going on upgrade mayhem lately.
Most of my stuff is now between 4000k and 4500k XM-L2 or XP-G2. Just did my Sunwayman T60cs with XM-L2 3D tint U2 bin, more output than standard and neutral to boot, whats not to like?


----------



## Nicrod (May 21, 2015)

My personal favorite's are: 
4000K XPE2's
4000K XPG2's
4500K N219 a or b ( can't really tell diff)
5000K XML2's

And I have other Tints just for variety. 

I tried a 3000K XML one time, and while it is beautiful, it's too orange for my liking. 

I do own some cool white tints in triples for that WOW factor. But in general EDC duties, I need a neutral to warm tint please.


----------



## jon_slider (May 21, 2015)

Yes I think neutral/warm tint is still necessary, IF they come with High CRI. (85+)



Nicrod said:


> My personal favorite's are:
> 4000K XPE2's
> 4000K XPG2's
> 4500K N219 a or b ( can't really tell diff)



Among those, which offers the highest CRI in an off the shelf single AAA light? (non custom)

Here is my guess on coolest, lowest CRI first, up to warmest and highest CRI:
Titan A LED?
Fenix E05 2014 XP-E2
Thrunite Ti3 Titanium XP-L
Olight i3s XP-G2
Thrunite Ti3 Warm White XP-G2
D25AAA N219B and L3 Illumination L08 N219B
Prometheus Beta N219A

Does that look like a reasonable sequence, or do you have a different order you think more accurate?


----------



## StorminMatt (May 21, 2015)

Is COOL WHITE tint still necessary?


----------



## ahtoxa11 (May 21, 2015)

After suffering for years with Princeton Tec's cool blue headlamps, I ditched all that and now the only lights I use and have are neutral white. Especially headlamps; I find it much better in the woods too, rather than cool white.


----------



## WarRaven (May 21, 2015)

When I put lights up in my garage I didn't notice kelvin, went back got a couple more sets of flouro tubes to see better, or so I wouldn't be reaching for trouble light to see in corners. 
Buddy suggested 6500 instead of 4800, now I can leave an entire set of over heads off an feel more comfortable seeing in nooks an crannies on my shelves or under cars. Warm colors to me an my wife who helped in this, like an old 40watt incandescent in a poker room, dirty dingy an only lit if in direct view of it. I guess my old eyes an my wife prefer bounce back of cooler light against the naturally yellowing corona's of our eyes. Which I'm told yellow pretty significantly every twenty years of aging, so a person younger then myself has a greater intake of light then myself as I'm led to believe by those that know much more then myself on the matter. 
TLDR, if warmer, I need more light sources, if way cooler I feel less strained to see stuff by firelight temp lighting.

Same goes in house an with my flashlights, I'm not pretending I can see better with cool lighting, I can an get less headaches due to less straining an squinting to make out details in dark.
Jmtc, but I only buy cooler lighting, and now avoid warm lighting unless getting drunk an smoking a cigar on porch maybe but that's only time I may want or endear sleepy lighting. 

Have a great day.


----------



## StorminMatt (May 21, 2015)

ahtoxa11 said:


> I find it much better in the woods too, rather than cool white.



Neutral/warm just works alot better out in nature than cool white. I still remember several years ago when I got my first real (if you want to call it that) LED flashlight, a Lenser P14. This light was quite a bit smaller and brighter than Mags I carried before that. I felt like I should have been REALLY happy with that light. But somehow, I just didn't enjoy it much out on night hikes. I couldn't really put a finger on what was wrong with it. It was kind of like it just put light on everything, but without really allowing anything to be seen. This just seemed puzzling to me, as I didn't know at the time about such things as tint or the ability of higher CRI light to better resolve details or make things look less monochromatic. But I continued to use this light (and other cool whites I got later) because they were so much brighter than the old Mags. It was only when I decided to try some neutral whites that I could REALLY see the difference. Even the rather messy first generation SC52w was MUCH better in this respect. Of course, the newer neutral XM-L2, Luxeon T, Nichia, and MT-G2 emitters are even better. Needless to say, I will not hike at night with a cool white again. Even though it basically does the job as far as allowing me to find my way down the trail at night, hiking at night is not just simply about being able to find your way down a trail.


----------



## chuckhov (May 21, 2015)

Guys,

I hope that this is at least somewhat on topic:

Last night I drug out my old 4D Incan Maglite, just for old times sake. - That tint really is a mess on a white wall, but boy did it do a job on some trees!

Question: With fresh Alkaleaks, what is the CCT? Around 2700?

What is the CRI? Close to 100?

Whatever - If it were 1,000 lumens with a decent size hotspot, I would be in Love

I'm thinking that next trip to Wal-mart I might just pickup a New 2D 27 Lm Incan Mag, just to time-travel with. (I'm 65)

http://maglite.com/shop/flashlights...maglite-2-cell-d-flashlight.html#.VV5vf_lViko

Sometimes you can't really appreciate what you have now to it's fullest, if you don't go back and have another look at where you came from...

Thanks,
-Chuck


----------



## StorminMatt (May 21, 2015)

chuckhov said:


> If it were 1,000 lumens with a decent size hotspot, I would be in Love



Consider a high CRI XM-L2. You get basically the same tint as an incandescent, and with a CRI of over 92. You won't get 1000 lumens at 3A. But 500-600 isn't too shabby. It's a little hard to get anything with this emitter. But Nailbender makes a P60.


----------



## MrJino (May 21, 2015)

I have a nice LED lighting system for my 120 gallon aquarium, and has very nice warm color that mimics sunlight, it's actually customizable but I leave it at peak settings around 5000k.
I didn't know flashlights could achieve the warm sun colors either, having only the cool whites that fenix and most flashlights offer.

The cool whites are bright, but are annoying during an evening hike or night walking with my dog.
Got a neutral white color flashlight and will never look back to cool white.


----------



## markr6 (May 21, 2015)

ahtoxa11 said:


> After suffering for years with Princeton Tec's cool blue headlamps, I ditched all that and now the only lights I use and have are neutral white. Especially headlamps; I find it much better in the woods too, rather than cool white.


Oh man, those big brand plastic headlamps! I used a Black Diamond for backpacking before I found out there was actually good stuff available. I think the model was Spot? Cool blue, dim, pwm. I look back and think "WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING!?"

I like my Zebralight H600w II L2 so much, I usually plan on arriving at the trailhead well after sunset to hike a few miles in the dark. With the neutral white it is such a pleasure.


----------



## ahtoxa11 (May 21, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Oh man, those big brand plastic headlamps! I used a Black Diamond for backpacking before I found out there was actually good stuff available. I think the model was Spot? Cool blue, dim, pwm. I look back and think "WHAT THE HELL WAS I THINKING!?"
> 
> I like my Zebralight H600w II L2 so much, I usually plan on arriving at the trailhead well after sunset to hike a few miles in the dark. With the neutral white it is such a pleasure.


At least I'm not alone. Ever since I got my h52w and then later h600w I have done many more night hikes and trips than before. 

I remember back in December I was on a backpacking trip with a friend. We were to start off after sunset. That's when I realized how inferior my plastic Princeton tec quad was, compared to other quality headlamps. 

And now here I am. I used that Quad just last week for giggles (at the house) and it is so underwhelming that it's funny.


----------



## ahtoxa11 (May 21, 2015)

In fact, I was so frustrated (unknowingly) with the nasty cool blue and low output, that I hardly used the headlamp unless I had to. 

Now, I use my h600w every single day.


----------



## holygeez03 (May 21, 2015)

Should be default... "cool white" is a niche preference.


----------



## chuckhov (May 21, 2015)

For the most part (outside) I agree.

Thanks,
-Chuck


----------



## MrJino (May 21, 2015)

Well I understand why cool white is more popular, it's cheaper I believe.

But they should still offer warm or neutral white for the people who know what they want (usually not cool white).


----------



## StorminMatt (May 21, 2015)

MrJino said:


> Well I understand why cool white is more popular, it's cheaper I believe.
> 
> But they should still offer warm or neutral white for the people who know what they want (usually not cool white).



Cool white isn't cheaper. It's the same price.


----------



## MrJino (May 22, 2015)

Then it makes no sense to have majority cool white...

Is cool.white a tactile thing? It does hurt the eyes more than warm.


----------



## thedoc007 (May 22, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> Should be default... "cool white" is a niche preference.



You are ignoring plentiful evidence to the contrary. On CPF, cool white may well be a minority preference...but as Going Gear has explained, it is an overwhelming majority preference among the buying public. CPF is not a representative sample!


----------



## UBERSOLDAT (May 22, 2015)

*Cool white* is for pure power(throw), urban and indoor.
*Warm white* is for outdoor, nature (color rendering), underwater and not-clear atmosphere environment (dust, snow, ash, smoke, rain, falling plant leaves ...)

*Neutral white..* is a sweet spot!!

Simple is that....


----------



## StorminMatt (May 22, 2015)

thedoc007 said:


> You are ignoring plentiful evidence to the contrary. On CPF, cool white may well be a minority preference...but as Going Gear has explained, it is an overwhelming majority preference among the buying public. CPF is not a representative sample!



But as I said, I don't think MOST people who buy cool white do so because they actually prefer the tint. Most people who buy cool white do so because they believe they're getting a few extra free lumens. They either don't know and/or don't care about the tint difference. So you can't really call cool white a preference.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 22, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> But as I said, I don't think MOST people who buy cool white do so because they actually prefer the tint. Most people who buy cool white do so because they believe they're getting a few extra free lumens. They either don't know and/or don't care about the tint difference. So you can't really call cool white a preference.


+1

Very well worded too.


----------



## markr6 (May 22, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> But as I said, I don't think MOST people who buy cool white do so because they actually prefer the tint. Most people who buy cool white do so because they believe they're getting a few extra free lumens. They either don't know and/or don't care about the tint difference. So you can't really call cool white a preference.



+2

And the fact that they are marketing suckers and go for the extra 50 lumens or whatever it may be; unnoticable to the eye. Or they're used to the cool white from the $3 flashlights they've be in awe of from the checklane at Walgreens.


----------



## Woods Walker (May 22, 2015)

markr6 said:


> +2
> 
> And the fact that they are marketing suckers and go for the extra 50 lumens or whatever it may be; unnoticable to the eye. Or they're used to the cool white from the $3 flashlights they've be in awe of from the checklane at Walgreens.



Suckers? Just because someone doesn't share the same priorities as another shouldn't imply they're suckers IMHO. Also I have noticed that tint specific lights can appear less bright than the same model in the same LED using cool white with higher ratings. Never enough that it effects the actual field use but I see it. Granted people can say it isn't so but what I see is my perception so it doesn't really matter. I bet most buyers don't really care about tint or don't care enough about the topic to know if they should care about it. Issues such as battery type, UI, price and reliability are also factors. I think the actual marketing data supports my supposition. I own lights in cool, neutral and warm but prefer neutral however this is "my" preference. To each their own.


----------



## thedoc007 (May 22, 2015)

markr6 said:


> +2
> 
> And the fact that they are marketing suckers and go for the extra 50 lumens or whatever it may be; unnoticable to the eye. Or they're used to the cool white from the $3 flashlights they've be in awe of from the checklane at Walgreens.



*snob

noun: snob; plural noun: snobs

a person who believes that their tastes in a particular area are superior to those of other people.*

It is a preference, people! I don't think you are foolish to choose warm, or neutral. Why do so many insist on calling people who prefer cool ignorant, or suckers, or naive? Snobbery is alive and well. While there is nothing wrong with expressing your preference, when you begin to denigrate other people for their choices, you are not helping the situation.


----------



## lemlux (May 22, 2015)

I'm part of the 6% of the male population with color deficient vision. (red-green color-blind is the common phrase - Reds blend into browns - Browns blend into greens - Reds never look Green - Red and Yellow traffic signals differ only in brightness)

fwiw, my vision seems to resolve what I'm seeing much better when illuminated between 3200K and 4500K than when below 3200 K or above 5500 K. and somewhat better than when illuminated between 4500 K and 5500 K. 

For me, resolution (I'm still 20-15 in both eyes at a distance) is more important than color rendition.


----------



## markr6 (May 22, 2015)

^doc/woods walker posts....getting WAY too serious/technical for me to reply with a lengthy response. We use 'snob' here all the time in own way, don't pull out the dictionary.

"suckers" was a joke, marketing tactic for some. I'm not calling all cool white users "suckers" Get over yourself.

Man, life is hard!


----------



## holygeez03 (May 22, 2015)

Go find 10 random people... show them a neutral tint and a cool tint of similar brightness... see what they like better. Everyone I know has preferred neutral or doesn't care. Someone should conduct an experiment with 1,000 people... I'd be willing to bet that the highest percentage will be "don't care", then "neutral", then "cool white". If true, then neutral should be default since it covers the neutral preference and the don't cares.


----------



## recDNA (May 22, 2015)

I disagree. I think most people prefer warm light in fixtures indoors however even at exactly the same luminosity cool white looks brighter to healthy human eyes. Now add the the cool white variant actually IS brighter the difference is significant. When using a flashlight for a brief period of time and the purpose is simply to "see" cool white wins. I think this is especially true when compared with 4000k and lower. 5000k is not really cool white but it has the "brightness" that allows good vision in the dark. You won't be able to accurately name the color of the rose but you won't trip over it either. 

I like high cri when color is important but to just find my way in the dark I'll take a brighter 5000 - 6000k every time.

Remember in the dark we have evolved to depend upon the rods in the retina that do not discern color at all. 

You put those 1000 people out in a field in the dark and tell them they have to find their way through the woods to the car most will grab the light that looks brightest to their eyes - cool white. You present them with a city scenario involving maneuvering through scary dark alleys and sidestreets in a black out again they will choose flashlight that "looks" brightest not comfortable. That will likely be the cool white imo. 

If you were right, led lights would have never caught on in the first place. At first they were all cool white but were also brighter. It's the same reason some people prefer those annoying blue white led car headlights. They blind the oncoming drivers but the guy in the car perceives he has a brighter look at the road.

I should add... This is just my opinion. I do not believe there ia "right" answer.


----------



## holygeez03 (May 22, 2015)

I know plenty of people that hated "LED lights" in general when they first started showing up on the market because of the associated cool/blue tint... If we are talking about pure survival, then I become a "don't care" in that scenario, just give me light... but given a choice, I would pick neutral/warm in any scenario I can imagine, so long as the brightness/runtimes/durability/UI are effectively similar.

I would like to conduct such an experiment to see if there are regular everyday people that actually _prefer _the cool tint (CPF posters don't count since we are much more informed about what's out there and very strongly opinionated)... unfortunately, I don't have any cool tinted lights outside of a few keychain models and one very old Fenix. And I certainly don't have any two lights that are essentially the same except for color temperature/tint. My Neutral Quark may have a mode that is pretty close to a mode on my older Fenix, I may conduct some "research".


----------



## markr6 (May 22, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> I would like to conduct such an experiment to see if there are regular everyday people that actually _prefer _the cool tint (CPF posters don't count since we are much more informed about what's out there and very strongly opinionated)... unfortunately, I don't have any cool tinted lights outside of a few keychain models and one very old Fenix. And I certainly don't have any two lights that are essentially the same except for color temperature/tint. My Neutral Quark may have a mode that is pretty close to a mode on my older Fenix, I may conduct some "research".



I should do that with my EA4 and EA4w. And that would be a great test because the EA4w actually has one of the nicest tints of all my lights. And better yet, the cool white is actually pretty nice with less blue that usual. Imagine that, some of the cheapest lights I own have the best tints!


----------



## recDNA (May 22, 2015)

I bet DARPA has already done a study like the one discussed earlier.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 22, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I disagree. I think most people prefer warm light in fixtures indoors however even at exactly the same luminosity cool white looks brighter to healthy human eyes.



That doesn't make much sense, since the lumen scale is specifically designed to take into account how our eyes perceive light intensity at different wavelengths. 1 warm lumen is the same perceived brightness as 1 cool lumen, because that's how a lumen is defined.


----------



## Woods Walker (May 22, 2015)

markr6 said:


> ^doc/woods walker posts....getting WAY too serious/technical for me to reply with a lengthy response. We use 'snob' here all the time in own way, don't pull out the dictionary.
> 
> "suckers" was a joke, marketing tactic for some. I'm not calling all cool white users "suckers" Get over yourself.
> 
> Man, life is hard!



Nope not serious at all. Just sayin to each their own. We are just talking about flashlight tint after all.


----------



## davidt1 (May 22, 2015)

My latest light has a Vinh modded XPL 5000K. The tint is a very neutral white. Yet I would prefer a warmer 4500K or even 4000K.


----------



## Lynxx (May 23, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I just hope everyone eventually pulls an EagleTac and offers two, three or even FOUR different emitter options for the same light.



Thoughts from a newbie:

Good discussion here. I'm just received an OL i3S, cool (only choice) and a TN Ti3, neutral (from a choice of cool or neutral white.) 

When they arrived, I compared the beams from the two lights and immediately loved the tint of the Ti3. The two were so different; that's when I remembered I had ordered the neutral emitter for the Ti3 and realized that neutral was my preference. Anyway, my long way of saying that I agree that choice of emitter is good and would like to see more manufacturers offer it. 

L3 Illumination offers choice: XPG2 or Nichia 219. When I order the new L11, I'll choose the Nichia, for the neutral tint.


----------



## Lynxx (May 23, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> If I'm, say, on a night hike, I can see just fine with a cool white light, too. But I just don't like the way a cool white light renders colors. If I'm out in nature at night, I just prefer the more natural color rendering of a warm/neutral light. It's really more about the way it FEELS to use a warm/neutral light vs a cool white light. Cool white lights just seem overly harsh and unnatural to me. And to me, this degrades the experience of being out in the wilderness at night.



Well said. I'm a newbie and have found that I prefer a more natural neutral/warm light over the CW.


----------



## Lite_me (May 24, 2015)

um.. Yes


----------



## Valmet62 (May 24, 2015)

For some reason I have always preferred warm white, leaning towards the 3000K range. I don't miss the sheer output of cool white lights when I am hiking or walking through the neighborhood. I find that most of the time i keep my lights on the lower output, only at times kicking them up to medium to identify some object. All my lights have been converted to warm white, this is just my personal preference.....


----------



## 18650 (May 24, 2015)

But as I said, I don't think MOST people who buy neutral white do so because they actually prefer the tint. Most people who buy neutral white do so because they believe they're getting a few extra free lumens. They either don't know and/or don't care about the tint difference. So you can't really call neutral white a preference. Warm white or bust. The way lighting is meant to look.


----------



## lumentia (May 24, 2015)

I have noticed my eyes seem more fatigued after using a cool white flashlight, especially if it has some green or purple in it. Cool white makes me want to squint because of the glare or bounce back. 

I've also found 5000k mtg2 to have nearly the perfect tint. I've had a few and comparing them side by side the warmer of them I find perfect. Probably 4800k is the sweet spot for me. 

Cool tints don't seem to throw as well to my eyes; things lit up with cool white light seem harder to discern.

Even my non-flashaholic girlfriend prefers neutral to warm white because it's easy on the eyes.


----------



## twistedraven (May 24, 2015)

People are still really wow'd by a good well-done and clean cool tint. I was showing my buddy a Nichia 219B 4500k, Luxeon T 5000k, and C4 (unknown cct but it's at least 7k). He liked the near white Luxeon T and Nichia, but he was wow'd by the brilliance of the really cool white C4. The cool white of some XMLs I've seen in comparison is sickly green.

Cool white is also abundant in movies and is seen being used by cops, investigators and agents. I am still also wow'd at times by the brilliance of a well done cool white.

Also, there's probably a subconscious feeling that cool blue is something more than a yellowy incandescent-- something much more powerful and pristine. Diffused, indirect daylight as it comes through your windows during the day is a cool blue, and it makes pure white paint or whatever inside your house look like a cool white with blueish cast, and we attribute that as a pure, pristine white. In the same way, a good cool white led can come off as pure and brilliant.

I think we can all agree on that we universally don't like green or purple tint shifts, but anything that falls inline with the natural spectrum of sunlight from red to blue can be well-received. We also don't like having a lack of CRI, and the technology isn't quite there yet for having super high CRI in high CCT lights. I'm betting that once a light comes out with no green or purple tint shifts and with 90+ CRI on something in the 5500k range, everybody would universally like it.

I prefer warm to neutral (4-4500k) for indoor use because it more closely resembles the incandescents that we're used to for indoor lighting. I prefer neutral to cool (5000k-6000k) for outdoor use because it more resembles direct sunlight and/or indirect diffused sunlight and daylight. Never has a warm light looked natural to me outdoors, because the only time the lighting outdoors is on the warm side is about 30minutes at sunrise and 30 minutes at sunset, everything else in between is either white or cool white.


----------



## LedTed (May 25, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> I know plenty of people that hated "LED lights" ... (EDITED)
> 
> I would like to conduct such an experiment to see if there are regular everyday people that actually _prefer _the cool tint .. (EDITED)



Looking at things the other way, with my non-CPF member wife, I've shared LED tints from about 3,200 to 5,700 K. She will only use incandescent lights.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (May 25, 2015)

LedTed said:


> Looking at things the other way, with my non-CPF member wife, I've shared LED tints from about 3,200 to 5,700 K. She will only use incandescent lights.



The vast majority of Joe Sixpacks just don't care. They only use a flashlight for a few minutes a couple of times per year.


----------



## G. Scott H. (May 25, 2015)

I previously didn't think much about tint. All of my led lights thus far have been at the cooler/whiter end of the spectrum. A few weeks ago I got a Nichia 219 4500k drop in for my Solarforce L2E from Mtn. Electronics. I figured I'd see what this whole neutral/warmer light thing was all about. Upon firing it up, I was blown away. The light coming out of this thing was beautiful! I'm totally sold on neutral/warmer LEDs now.


----------



## MrJino (May 25, 2015)

Yeah, now that I have warm tint lights, I'm looking to gift all my cool white flashlights.


----------



## chuckhov (May 25, 2015)

Why?

Don't you like the recipients?

Just kidding... 

-Chuck


----------



## G. Scott H. (May 25, 2015)

I'm slowly going to replace all my drop ins with warmer tints. I won't be getting rid of the cooler lights that aren't as easily changeable, but I sure don't enjoy using them as much now.  For future purchases, I'm going to look for LEDs in the 3500-4500k range whenever possible, that's for sure. :thumbsup:


----------



## MrJino (May 25, 2015)

chuckhov said:


> Why?
> 
> Don't you like the recipients?
> 
> ...



They don't know or care about CRI haha, I barely did until a few weeks ago.

Anyways, turns out my sister doesn't even own one.
My pd30 is going to her.


----------



## chuckhov (May 25, 2015)

Bless you, Sir...

-Chuck


----------



## ForrestChump (May 25, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> The vast majority of Joe Sixpacks just don't care. They only use a flashlight for a few minutes a couple of times per year.



+1

Anything that sells well is a necessity to the seller. 

I have nothing against neutral or warm however. It's good to have options.


----------



## StorminMatt (May 31, 2015)

Lately, I've been gifting alot of the cool white lights I bought before I knew any better. I have to admit that, in so doing, I kind of feel guilty for using other people to unload them on.


----------



## eh4 (May 31, 2015)

Bluish light is brighter, and higher energy, but we probably really can't see as well with it. 

"The fovea has a high concentration of the yellow carotenoid pigments lutein and zeaxanthin. They are concentrated in the Henle fiber layer (photoreceptor axons that go radially outward from the fovea) and to a lesser extent in the cones.[14][15] They are believed to play a protective role against the effects of high intensities of blue light which can damage the sensitive cones. The pigments also enhance the acuity of the fovea by reducing the sensitivity of the fovea to short wavelengths and counteracting the effect of chromatic aberration.[16] This is also accompanied by a lower density of blue cones at the center of the fovea.[17] The maximum density of blue cones occurs in a ring about the fovea. Consequently, the maximum acuity for blue light is lower than that of other colours and occurs approximately 1° off center."
- http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fovea_centralis


----------



## idleprocess (May 31, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Lately, I've been gifting alot of the cool white lights I bought before I knew any better. I have to admit that, in so doing, I kind of feel guilty for using other people to unload them on.



Why? Odds are they're little concerned about tint when _absence of light _is the far larger problem they wish to solve.


----------



## chuckhov (May 31, 2015)

I disagree,

You should 'do unto others'... It's not nice to give your friends your cool white crap.

All cool whites should be disposed of in a responsible manner.






Just kidding
-Chuck


----------



## Woods Walker (May 31, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> Why? Odds are they're little concerned about tint when _absence of light _is the far larger problem they wish to solve.



LOL! I agree. Though been enjoying the tint on my warm/neutral Predator. Anyone wishing to dump their horrible cool white lights but not wishing to do friends and family any harm send them my way.


----------



## prnguinpoo (Jun 4, 2015)

I no longer consider CW LED's, feels like listening to low quality recordings, you don't get all the information


----------



## prnguinpoo (Jun 4, 2015)

chuckhov said:


> I disagree,
> 
> You should 'do unto others'... It's not nice to give your friends your cool white crap.
> 
> ...



Thats what I did.... gave away my CW Archer 1A V2...

makes me cringe just thinking about CW


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jun 4, 2015)

Have to say that the coolish tint on the Luminus SBT-70 in the NiteCore TM36 works out fine, but it's so bright at the hotspot, even on the lower modes.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 4, 2015)

G. Scott H. said:


> I previously didn't think much about tint. All of my led lights thus far have been at the cooler/whiter end of the spectrum. A few weeks ago I got a Nichia 219 4500k drop in for my Solarforce L2E from Mtn. Electronics. I figured I'd see what this whole neutral/warmer light thing was all about. Upon firing it up, I was blown away. The light coming out of this thing was beautiful! I'm totally sold on neutral/warmer LEDs now.



The N219 is a high CRI LED.

Warmer ≠ High CRI (A common misconception)

You found you like high CRI LED.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 4, 2015)

KITROBASKIN said:


> Have to say that the coolish tint on the Luminus SBT-70 in the NiteCore TM36 works out fine, but it's so bright at the hotspot, even on the lower modes.



That means you're using it at too close a range for its optimum use.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 4, 2015)

chuckhov said:


> I disagree,
> 
> You should 'do unto others'... It's not nice to give your friends your cool white crap.
> 
> ...





Please send them to me and I'll make sure they are responsibly disposed of, say by distributing to our Red Cross response teams.

Thanks!


----------



## markr6 (Jun 4, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> The N219 is a high CRI LED.
> 
> Warmer ≠ High CRI (A common misconception)
> 
> You found you like high CRI LED.



Technically, yes. But I think most people are going to realize the warmth before the high CRI. I think he would be almost as happy with the same temp and a lower CRI. Maybe.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 4, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Technically, yes. But I think most people are going to realize the warmth before the high CRI. I think he would be almost as happy with the same temp and a lower CRI. Maybe.



Yes, while warm LED tints do not necessary have a higher CRI than cool tints, in most cases they do. The only exception I can think of is the Luxeon daylight LED, which is both cool and fairly high CRI.

Certainly, most people will see a difference in tint before they see a difference in CRI. Tint has a far bigger effect on colour perception than CRI does, unless you're talking extremes. I can't really tell the difference in colours between a Nichia 219A and a neutral Cree XML. They're both about the same tint, but the Nichia has far higher CRI. I can really only tell the difference on colours if I'm really looking for it. The Nichia makes colours stand out a little better, but it's not a huge difference.

Compare that to how colours stand out between a cool white Cree LED and a neutral white Cree LED, and the difference is HUGE! Neutral tint blows away the cool tint.

IMO, anyone that prefers the standard Cree cool white LEDs over a neutral white, is colour blind.


----------



## G. Scott H. (Jun 4, 2015)

Tint or CRI, I'm not sure in my case. All I can say for sure is that I immediately noticed how beautiful everthing looked under the light coming from the Nichia.  I now have the same drop ins in two of my other Solarforce L2s. :bow:


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jun 4, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> That means you're using it at too close a range for its optimum use.



So True! Not sure what you mean by 'optimum use', and it is true that the NiteCore TM36 is a light for longer ranges than the forest/meadow blend we encounter. I really don't carry it often enough to be able to report the effectiveness of wildlife-watching, but the light-cream colored fur on our dog looks best with Nichia 5000K, then Luxeon T 5000K, then a LEE Filtered (dedomed XML2) Sky Lumen SL-1, with the Luminus SBT-70 maybe in the middle. An unfiltered dedomed XML2 may be warm, but the dog's fur looks yellow-green-distracting-bad.

But then again if TEEJ was with us, the tint wouldn't much matter because the light level would be so low... Aren't you the LowLumen Master?


----------



## thedoc007 (Jun 4, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> IMO, anyone that prefers the standard Cree cool white LEDs over a neutral white, is colour blind.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion...but I can say for certain that you are wrong. I am not color blind, have better than average vision, and I still prefer cool tints for most of my uses. I do have a couple neutral/warm/high-CRI lights, and for certain applications I do prefer the superior color rendition of those lights...but most of the time, seeing exact shades of color is not all that important to me. As long as I can see an object, it does the job, and I just don't like to see any yellow or green coming out of my lights (neutral/warm Cree LEDs), or to take a massive efficiency hit (as with Nichia LEDs).


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 5, 2015)

KITROBASKIN said:


> So True! Not sure what you mean by 'optimum use', and it is true that the NiteCore TM36 is a light for longer ranges than the forest/meadow blend we encounter. I really don't carry it often enough to be able to report the effectiveness of wildlife-watching, but the light-cream colored fur on our dog looks best with Nichia 5000K, then Luxeon T 5000K, then a LEE Filtered (dedomed XML2) Sky Lumen SL-1, with the Luminus SBT-70 maybe in the middle. An unfiltered dedomed XML2 may be warm, but the dog's fur looks yellow-green-distracting-bad.
> 
> But then again if TEEJ was with us, the tint wouldn't much matter because the light level would be so low... Aren't you the LowLumen Master?



I now just navigate in pitch blackness by sonar....I learned to make rapid clicking noises, and don't need flashlights anymore.

I like cool light clicks more than yellow clicks though.





The thing for EVERYONE, is that tint is completely subjective, and, we DON'T all see things the same way (Remember the gold/white/blue/black dress thread?)

The arguments are about as meaningful as one side saying vanilla ice cream is the only real flavor, and another group insisting that its chocolate or nothing....and that the other groups are poopyheads.




The WAY we all use lights will be different too. The lower the light level, generally, the warmer people tend to like it...like candle light....but once over about 50 lux or so, the scales start to tip towards whiter light.

That's based upon studies at museums and other public places that have to make lighting decisions. For example, for some displays, the higher the lux in a room, the harder it is on the exhibits, comic books for example will degrade more rapidly if you have 200 lux on them than 30 lux, etc.

The polled visitors are asked about what lighting they preferred (With displays to compare)....and they choose cooler whites when the lighting levels were higher, and warmer tints when the lighting levels were lower.


In performance environments, such as disaster response...the sacrifice in what you can SEE makes the warm lights stay home and the cool lights out on the job.

If you've never done a search before...the differences are far more dramatic than most people realize. A Nichia 219 vs an XML2, in identical lights, will illustrate that you'll see almost nothing out there with the Nichia compared to the XML2.

The XML2 - in the same light, will simple throw so many more lumens, and provide so much more lux over a much larger area.

I called the comparison an example finding someone clinging to a log in a river but being unsure what shade of red their shirt was, vs finding the body later but seeing which shade would be a better description.

And, practically, if you are not shining the light too close, so that you preserve your night vision, you don't even have color vision when night adapted....you're color blind...and all the worry of CRI, etc, is meaningless.



So, if you are just playing with the pretty lights, you use what you like, and, it just doesn't matter if you prefer vanilla or chocolate...as long as it works for you.

If you use the lights to see in the dark, with night adapted vision, and are serious about what's out there...you would probably find that you will see more with more light.

If you really need XML2 level lux, but have to have Nichias, sure, carry a much larger light with multiple LED instead of a small light with one LED, etc.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 5, 2015)

this thread needs more pictures












It may be subjective to prefer the material the light is made of, or the modes and levels, but, theres nothing subjective to the CRI and Kelvin readings these two tests reveal..


----------



## ven (Jun 5, 2015)

I have a mix of tints and its the way i like it,i will pick specific lights for specific tasks/uses and go warmer/neutral to cooler dependent. I prefer neutral to cooler in general,but still enjoy 4200k at times. From my eyes and totally personal,i am not keen on artificial colours,too green or too red/brown. I prefer around 5000-6000k generally and like what i see. I find colours are realistic to what i would see in daylight,so its what i am used to. My 3 fav lights right now for tint are the tm06vn u3,cool but creamy white,i find great colour rendition,my triple quad of 12x xp-l 5700k is amazing for colours,just pure flood and no washing out. Then the quad pd35vn with 2x5000k and 2x6500k,again gives a similar tint to 5700k with no blues/greens/yellows etc..............just pure to my eyes and blends perfect.

The m20 olight with nichia 219 is used nightly around the house,love it 

Vinh sent me a neutral xpg2 e32vn de-dome,and its a great tint,love that,so i have various "tint tastes" but still prefer my slightly cooler providing its not got blues etc etc in. The quad xpg2 5000k is awesome too,love the tint............... So outside or in work with artificial light will depend on my choices as does around the home. Cooler works better for me in work due to tea dust(orange/rust coloured) which i find warmer lights dont work as well.............for me! 

Above is my opinion,no right or wrong,just for me and respect others variations and disagreements with my preferences as we are all different


Protection at the ready:tinfoil:

ven


----------



## markr6 (Jun 5, 2015)

It's just plain stupidity to refer to neutral as "yellow" anymore. Maybe 6 years ago, but not anymore. My $49 EA4W has the cleanest tint I've ever seen. Almost looks like a cool white in comparison to Nichia 219. It's just plain white without the ugliness of the cool white. A bump in CRI, better color representation, just perfect.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 5, 2015)

markr6 said:


> It's just plain stupidity to refer to neutral as "yellow" anymore. Maybe 6 years ago, but not anymore. My $49 EA4W has the cleanest tint I've ever seen. Almost looks like a cool white in comparison to Nichia 219. It's just plain white without the ugliness of the cool white. A bump in CRI, better color representation, just perfect.



I recently got 3 NW lights all with different tints. They all look more yellow for lack of a better word compared to a CW being shown side by side but on their own they appear different and different still when side by side with a warm light. Not sure if stupid would be the best word when there could be variables within the LED and or human perception. Just IMHO.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 5, 2015)

A neutral white shouldn't appear yellow, if the LED is properly manufactured. Neither should a cool white appear blue, but if the CRI isn't very high that can be the result. I find far more cool whites to appear blue, than I find neutral whites to appear yellow.

I don't find a bright incandescent to be yellow, either. But below 3500K, it can start to look a little yellow/orange.

Of course, I'm assuming the light is the only source of illumination, so your eyes don't have another source to mess up your perception. If you compare a neutral white next to a cool white, of course one is either going to look yellow or blue.


----------



## kyhunter1 (Jun 5, 2015)

Last week, we were using a neutral Eagletac XML2 P20LC2. light to catch some night crawlers for a fishing trip. Basically, the worms come out in the yard after dark, and the goal is to grab them before they shoot back into their holes. You will miss more than you catch most of the time. Catching them is a barrel of fun. The light I was using has a excellent tint, and a mostly floody beam which doesn't spook the worms too bad. My Dad was with us that night. He knows very little about flashlights other than how to turn them on/off and change the batteries. A few days later, he said, "I want a white light like yours". Most people I have shown my lights pick the neutrals over the cools most everytime as their favorite. This proves that even the average Joe who knows nothing about flashlights can appreciate better tints. So yes, neutral/warms are definitely necessary. I don't buy many lights these days. If I do buy one, it will be a neutral, or a cool that leans towards neutral. Most of my lights are Malkoff, Surefire, and Eagletac. Obvious reasons. Manufacturers are mainly worried about the bottom line. Profitability. Millions of average Joe's who know nothing about quality lights, vs. a few thousand flashahaulic tint snob forum members. It's not hard to figure out why the manufacturers do what they do.


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jun 5, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> Not sure if stupid would be the best word when there could be variables within the LED and or human perception.



Describing the light from a flashlight as neutral is, for the most part, not helpful unless you describe where it 'leans'.
Some of us prefer to describe using the Kelvin scale, which is imperfect but more accurate than saying 'neutral'. I understand that Color Rendering Index (CRI) is not quite accurate either, because it averages the different values (?)


Directly comparing output between two or more flashlights is like grabbing worms on a spring evening in Kentucky; you ask me. Giving your eyes time to rest in darkness then turning on one flashlight, now thats an option. That could yield an opinion that may be helpful; maybe not as persnickety.

Can't wait to not be able to see the Teej sonar YouTube video Extraordinaire. One can use it to condition the eyes for a flashlight beam test.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 5, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> I recently got 3 NW lights all with different tints. They all look more yellow for lack of a better word compared to a CW being shown side by side but on their own they appear different and different still when side by side with a warm light. Not sure if stupid would be the best word when there could be variables within the LED and or human perception. Just IMHO.



I guess what I was going for focused on the general thought that all NW are yellow. It's like saying EVERYONE with a pickup is a redneck. 1 out of 100 _may _be, but certainly not everyone.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 5, 2015)

I have very little experience, so when people here start typing, and saying what they think the tint of their light is, I have nothing to compare to. So yes, when someone buys a light that supposedly has a 5000k lamp in it, I have some idea, but, from the little testing Ive done, the claimed color temperature and the claimed CRI are not the same as the actual measured tint and CRI.

But since most of us dont have access to the meter that produces the colored graph I posted earlier, I invite more people to post pictures of their LED, especially pictures with more than one light in it, so there is at least a reference for comparison.

So, here are a couple pictures, that do not require special instruments.. To me, it really helps illustrate some of the differences in LED tint, though it informs not at all about CRI




the above pics left to right are Thrunite Titanium, Maratac CU Rev3, Prometheus Beta CU.. Im infatuated with the N219, because of the High CRI





Above pic are the same lights, plus an Olight i3s on the left
The pics tell nothing about color temperature, but at least there is some relative comparison between the tints, and a little bit about the size of the hot spot. Note the XP-L is slightly more yellow and has a wider hot spot than the G2's..

So, I hope people will post some photos of their LEDs and beams, comparing multiple lights side by side.

Here are three lights laying on a piece of white paper





these are the source of the above beams




and below are their graphs













all images are pictures I took with my iPhone, of graphs produced courtesy of Jason of darksucks.com.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 5, 2015)

KITROBASKIN said:


> Describing the light from a flashlight as neutral is, for the most part, not helpful unless you describe where it 'leans'.
> Some of us prefer to describe using the Kelvin scale, which is imperfect but more accurate than saying 'neutral'. I understand that Color Rendering Index (CRI) is not quite accurate either, because it averages the different values (?)
> 
> 
> ...



Tint is hard to describe because I believe it's within the eye of the beholder to some degree. Once had a debate with someone how said basically all NW should look the same within a certain range however like my cool whites not one of my NW flashlights has the same tint even if sold as NW or within whatever claimed number range. Beyond the glorious TK20 XR-E Q3 5A I enjoy the tint on my NW XM-L HL55 and Armytek Preditor XP-G NW the most but they all look good in their own way. Warm is just too warm for though like my single example just because it;s different. Then again a nice vanilla CW doesn't really bother me and most of the lights I actually use are just that. 

If it's squid **** green or alien abduction angry blue I tend to not us them. All that said behold. The ultimate CW combined with the ultimate warm.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 5, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I guess what I was going for focused on the general thought that all NW are yellow. It's like saying EVERYONE with a pickup is a redneck. 1 out of 100 _may _be, but certainly not everyone.



Ok that seems reasonable. FYI I drive a Pickup.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 5, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> Ok that seems reasonable. FYI I drive a Pickup.



Me too, but no shotgun rack in the back window!


----------



## 18650 (Jun 5, 2015)

kyhunter1 said:


> Last week, we were using a neutral Eagletac XML2 P20LC2. light to catch some night crawlers for a fishing trip. Basically, the worms come out in the yard after dark, and the goal is to grab them before they shoot back into their holes. You will miss more than you catch most of the time. Catching them is a barrel of fun. The light I was using has a excellent tint, and a mostly floody beam which doesn't spook the worms too bad. My Dad was with us that night. He knows very little about flashlights other than how to turn them on/off and change the batteries. A few days later, he said, "I want a white light like yours". Most people I have shown my lights pick the neutrals over the cools most everytime as their favorite. This proves that even the average Joe who knows nothing about flashlights can appreciate better tints. So yes, neutral/warms are definitely necessary. I don't buy many lights these days. If I do buy one, it will be a neutral, or a cool that leans towards neutral. Most of my lights are Malkoff, Surefire, and Eagletac. Obvious reasons. Manufacturers are mainly worried about the bottom line. Profitability. Millions of average Joe's who know nothing about quality lights, vs. a few thousand flashahaulic tint snob forum members. It's not hard to figure out why the manufacturers do what they do.


 What's funny is the 7 pages before your post that say otherwise, the post after post from the zealots saying "most people" pick cool white because they're ignorant or color blind or (insert your own pejorative).


----------



## DenBarrettSAR (Jun 6, 2015)

I like the cool whites for shear throwers or blinding defense & search lights, but its hard to beat the Nichia 219B High-CRI tint, or the tint of an XM-L2 4C in a Cree emitter for higher output lights.


----------



## eh4 (Jun 6, 2015)

The fact is that the blue light sensitive cells in our eyes are off 1 degree or so from the central focal zone in our eyes, which has 50% or so of our visual acuity... so you're always going to be able to see better detail with lower intensities of warmer light. 
-And your eyes will always be more sensitive to lower levels of bluish/cooler light, particularly off from your fovea centralis and towards your peripheral vision. 
Also you need to keep up on your nutrition to protect your central focal zone from being damaged by blue and higher frequency light... lutein and... what is the other?


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 6, 2015)

eh4 said:


> The fact is that the blue light sensitive cells in our eyes are off 1 degree or so from the central focal zone in our eyes, which has 50% or so of our visual acuity... so you're always going to be able to see better detail with lower intensities of warmer light.
> -And your eyes will always be more sensitive to lower levels of bluish/cooler light, particularly off from your fovea centralis and towards your peripheral vision.
> Also you need to keep up on your nutrition to protect your central focal zone from being damaged by blue and higher frequency light... lutein and... what is the other?



Zeaxanthin. But, damage occurs at much higher intensities than you're going to get from flashlights, unless you're constantly shining it directly in someone's eyes.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Zeaxanthin. But, damage occurs at much higher intensities than you're going to get from flashlights, unless you're constantly shining it directly in someone's eyes.



LOL

Yeah, like going outside during [shudder] DAYLIGHT!!!!

The sun might be hitting what you're looking at with 10,000 - 100k lux or so depending on time/cloud cover, etc....and there's not many High CRI flashlights lights that will put even 10k lux on what you're looking at....and there's FAR more UV/Blue in the day light than the flashlight beam, etc.

Your fovea (~ 2º field of central view) is where almost all of your color receptors are. Its WHY when night adapted, you're essentially color blind...as you're mostly using the less sharp B&W vision outside of that sharper 2º cone of color vision.

Its also why only people who use the lights with night adapted vision (To maximize what they can see) are more concerned with the overall illumination instead of tints they can't even see.

People who use the lights briefly with day adapted vision or just shine on white walls looking for artifacts, etc...worry about tints, etc.

People who use the lights for specific purposes, an electrician who needs to distinguish wire colors, etc, need bright enough high CRI lights to ALLOW them to maintain day vision and color rendition, etc.

People who go for walks through the woods, and are OK seeing 100' instead of 400' into them, because they prefer the way the woods look with warmer or higher CRI lighting, even if they see less of them...will prefer the warmer/higher CRI lighting for those reasons.

The search party with night adapted vision looking for a lost person, etc, is seeing in B&W, and would rather FIND the lost person than be wrong about what shade of red they were actually wearing. 

The confusion begins when each group thinks the OTHER group is crazy for what that group (Stupidly...etc) prefers.


----------



## chuckhov (Jun 6, 2015)

I don't understand - Isn't "the OTHER group" crazy?

Oh! - My Bad!... I thought you were talking about Forums...



-Chuck


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 6, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> The search party with night adapted vision looking for a lost person, etc, is seeing in B&W, and would rather FIND the lost person than be wrong about what shade of red they were actually wearing.



I doubt a search party that is using lights to find someone, has night-adapted vision. To maintain dark-adapted vision, you need to be using very low lux levels. Even full moonlight is enough to wreck your night vision. You can easily see colour at those levels of light, and if you can see any colour, your rods are also losing their dark adaptation. If you can read text from a book, it's too much light to preserve night vision.

The best way to preserve night vision is to use red light (the deeper red the better), which allows you to use more lux without destroying your rods ability to preserve night vision. White/green/blue light will most easily destroy night vision.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 6, 2015)

18650 said:


> What's funny is the 7 pages before your post that say otherwise, the post after post from the zealots saying "most people" pick cool white because they're ignorant or color blind or (insert your own pejorative).



We've got two issues here - the _what_ and the _why_.

The _what_ is well-defined. Most people buy cool white over neutral in most situations when given a choice and the data exists to prove it. Since the flashlight-buying public is orders of magnitude larger than CPF, our sensibilities and buying habits don't counter this.

The _why_ of this is less well-defined. You can certainly sling insults, make unflattering generalizations, and suggest that they're less refined than the typical CPF'er... and that has certainly been done in this thread. My stance is simpler - the average person doesn't think about flashlights as much as the average CPF'er, doesn't use them as often nor for as many tasks requiring precise color rendering, will go with what impresses at first sight without more prolonged critical analysis, and will be satisfied with that decision due to their differing needs. But that's merely my sense of things - it would take a genuine study to unearth the larger public's selection logic.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 6, 2015)

idleprocess said:


> We've got two issues here



as a total newbie, I bought several fenix, olight, thrunite and even Maratac aaa lights, before I tried my first N219, in a Prometheus Beta. I was simply unaware of any N219 offerings in the $20-30 price point. Now that I have seen high CRI, theres no turning back for me.

I was simply unaware there was such a HUUGE difference in CRI. And I thought N219 was only for people who spend more than entry level price. For example the Beta was 3x the cost of my other lights. So until I hung out here for a while and started picking up on the culture of N219 high CRI, it was simply not on my radar.

At this point I have learned of 2 entry level priced lights with N219, the L3 Illumination L08 that costs $20, and the Eagletac D25aaa that costs $30. 

I was also uneducated about PWM vs CC, once I learned about that, I sent my Maratac Rev3 to Vinh for a driver swap to non PWM, and an LED swap to N219.

so yes, the market is dominated by inexpensive, low CRI lights. Its only after getting educated that Ive begun to prioritize CRI and CC.. even though I have to pay for custom work to end up with a Copper aaa light with no PWM and high CRI.. The eiger crossed my radar, and did not pick me up.. neither the price, form factor, nor the qtc called to me. Im not a LiIon user, I do love having learned about Eneloops, MUCH more economical than the Ultimate Lithiums. It was Prometheus that first made me move away from cheap alkalines, they discourage using them in the Copper Beta.

so, newbie buys low, uses alkaline, is clueless about CRI. Over time, if the fascination takes hold of the wallet, more expensive lights, eneloop batteries, high CRI lights follow.. even leading eventually to Vinh modifications.. When I was unaware, I thought the Fenix e05 2014 with XP-E was "cool", but I had no idea how blue the light was. Similarly I keychained a Pico light for years, oblivious to its blue tint.

Ive become so picky now, that I avoid N219B in favor of N219A, because I like to use my light as a candle, and want it to be closer to candle color. The 219B does not fit that need as well as the 219A, in my very limited experience. 

So, yes, neutral or warm matters a lot to me. So much so I actually track CCT and CRI specs, and whether the driver uses PWM or not, before making buying decisions now. 

I was uniquely fortunate to meet in person with Jason of darksucks.com and he graciously allowed me to take CCT and CRI readings of a number of my lights. It was a real eye opener, when I saw the color graphs and realize how little Red spectrum is in my XP-G2, XP-E, and XP-L lights. So yes, someone interested in non PWM with N219a is a special case, and I resemble that remark .. My wallet blames CPF for my education.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 6, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I doubt a search party that is using lights to find someone, has night-adapted vision. To maintain dark-adapted vision, you need to be using very low lux levels. Even full moonlight is enough to wreck your night vision. You can easily see colour at those levels of light, and if you can see any colour, your rods are also losing their dark adaptation. If you can read text from a book, it's too much light to preserve night vision.
> 
> The best way to preserve night vision is to use red light (the deeper red the better), which allows you to use more lux without destroying your rods ability to preserve night vision. White/green/blue light will most easily destroy night vision.



As having been in search parties, organized them, and conducted searches, if they are doing it correctly, they preserve as much night adaptation as possible.

A common problem with newbs, is using the wrong light for the job.

If you use a spot light with tight beam, up close, yeah, you will have tunnel vision, and, ultimately, find less.

If you use too much flood close up, same thing...except "tub vision".


To "do it right"...imagine you are in the back row at a theatre, with live actors on the stage, and, there's a spot light on one character.

The overall percentage of your field of view is small...as the target is quite distant, so, your eye is seeing mostly darkness, with a spot of light off in the distance. 

This would be akin to using a spot light off the side of a boat, searching the opposite banks...which might produce enough lux on your targets to resolve them.

(Typically, the problem is getting enough light, not too much, in these scenarios)

After that, its a question of degree. If you get up at 3 am to use the loo, a wee nite light may seem a lot brighter than it did when you went to bed at 10 pm...because you are night adapted at that point...but seeing with that night light doesn't slam you from night adapted to daylight vision like a switch....it degrades it only very slightly...so, overall, you will see better than if not night adapted.

Using red does preserve night vision well, but, resolution with red is poor, and resolving targets is poor...so, that's a compromise.

I prefer infrared myself for searches, as no light at all is needed...but, if doing a search with lights (Infrared is not great if the targets are ambient temperature, etc...), to get more eyes out there, etc...long range lights sweep distant areas and floodier lights, on less intense settings, sweep closer areas. Night vision equipment is, overall, very effective for some applications, but, again, resolution of details is not as good...so the application will have its strengths and weaknesses.

The night adaptation is MOST useful on long ranges, as a night adapted searcher can see things as much as 4-5 x farther away under the same lighting.

So, its a question of degree, and the right tool for the job. In that context, there's not much advantage to a long range search given the loss in range using high CRI sources, night adapted or not....for the same form factor/cell life, etc...the white light will shine further than the high CRI light.

For close work, such as underbrush, as the light levels are not as high, to help avoid glare, especially as it might be wet out, etc...a high CRI light will be least disadvantaged, and, can sometimes improve resolution, as the closer the work, the more likely you lost adaptation anyway...its the nature of the beast.

This is why I use both type of lighting, including some we didn't mention such as UV, IR, etc. Its about the right tool for the job.

Blindly insisting that high CRI is always better, or that cool white is always better, or that vanilla is always better than chocolate, or visa versa, is going to mean being wrong.




The best way to imagine it, is to simply think about how much lux will it take to see what you need to see, given your degree of adaptation at that point, and, for how long you need it, and, the power/logistical requirements to be able to deliver it...and what will put that there.


If its a critical scenario, you worry about the details more than if going for a walk. Unless you live in a dangerous area, etc...its hard to screw up going for a walk.

If you like moonlight modes, go for a walk in moonlight. Without a flashlight. Its very even typically, and, you don't have the sensation you are trapped in a pool of light...everything is lit out as far as your sight lines. If you show up at a field you drove to, park, and walk out into it, with no lights, at first, you may have trouble seeing your feet...but after 45 minutes, the stars, clouds, the grass, trees, all start to be visible.

Turn on a keychain sized light, the kind that makes a proximal pool of light, and your world tends to shrink to a little pool, bounded by darkness.

Turn on a thrower, aimed at a distant tree line, and you see the trees clearly, as well as to the sides, etc. Aim it at something closer though, so the light is a large part of your field of view, and your pupils stop down, and the glare response kicks in...and all you see is the spot of light.


Its a fun experiment.


----------



## magellan (Jun 6, 2015)

Very informative post, thanks!

Yeah, remember being in my planetary astronomy class way back in college, and learning that a human would have to be on the planet Jupiter in order for there to not be much of a pupillary response at 12 pm under the noon day sun. Since Jupiter is 484 million as opposed to the Earth's 93 million miles from the sun, that means Jupiter gets less than 1/25th as much insolation or incoming solar radiation as the earth. An eagle might have several times the vernier acuity of a human, but as far as detecting just photons go the human eye is close to the theoretical maximum. For example, the human eye on a clear night can see a lighted cigaret 20 miles away. That's means only 2 or 3 photons are actually hitting the retina.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 6, 2015)

18650 said:


> What's funny is the 7 pages before your post that say otherwise, the post after post from the zealots saying "most people" pick cool white because they're ignorant or color blind or (insert your own pejorative).



There is that. Within every hobby some participants develop feelings of exclusivity. Back in the day only those in the know could get a pocket rocket. You needed to order one online and be in the know. Now the often lampooned "joe six pack" can buy a flashlight or headlamp from Walmart with amazing brightness using some of the most modern LEDs without a lick of knowledge on the topic or effort. Just toss it into the shopping cart next to the milk and paper towels. What is the latest gen [email protected] putting put? Over 600 lumens? So what's a flashaholic supposed to do within their own mind rise above Joe? Lithium ion batteries and tint are really all that's left. Naturally most here don't give two shakes about what anyone else does but there are those who on some level are threatened by this.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 6, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> This would be akin to using a spot light off the side of a boat, searching the opposite banks...which might produce enough lux on your targets to resolve them.



Yes, I can see a spot light being useful while still preserving night vision, as long as you are in a wide-open area without trees, etc. to get in the way.



> So, its a question of degree, and the right tool for the job. In that context, there's not much advantage to a long range search given the loss in range using high CRI sources, night adapted or not....for the same form factor/cell life, etc...the white light will shine further than the high CRI light.



Yes, you'll get a 7% gain in brightness by using cool white vs. neutral white. But, will that really allow you to pick out a target better? The neutral white will allow you to perceive differences in colour much better. If you're searching for someone wearing coloured clothing, that could be important.

Also, I've heard that longer wavelengths (i.e., warm or neutral tints) cut through air and humidity better than cool white. If you're searching at a distance, doesn't a cool white beam end up scattering more light back at you, making it harder to see your target?


----------



## Phlogiston (Jun 9, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> TEEJ said:
> 
> 
> > So, its a question of degree, and the right tool for the job. In that context, there's not much advantage to a long range search given the loss in range using high CRI sources, night adapted or not....for the same form factor/cell life, etc...the white light will shine further than the high CRI light.
> ...



I was under the impression that the 7% lumen loss applied when going from cool white (CW Cree) to neutral white (NW Cree), with both lights being low-CRI, and then there would be a further lumen loss going from low-CRI neutral white (NW Cree) to high-CRI neutral white (Nichia 219). 

Do I have that right? 

If I do, what's the additional percentage lumen loss when going from the low-CRI neutral white light to the high-CRI one? 

On a more general note, and leaving the CRIhadis to one side, I've been enjoying reading this thread and learning all sorts of interesting stuff. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 9, 2015)

Here is a spec sheet for the Prometheus Alpha with various LEDs







====
from the MCE 6500K to the MCE 4500K there is a 17% in drop in lumens, in order to get a warmer tint.

from the XML 6500K to the XML 4500K there is a 14% drop in lumens, in order to get a warmer tint.

from the MCE 4500k to the N219 4500K there is a *60% drop in lumens*, in order to get High CRI with the same 4500K tint.
===

If we compare CD instead of lumens

from the MCE 6500K to the MCE 4500K there is a 17% in drop in CD, in order to get a warmer tint.

from the XML 6500K to the XML 4500K there is a 36% drop in CD, in order to get a warmer tint.

from the MCE 4500k to the N219 4500K there is a *21% drop in CD*, in order to get High CRI


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 9, 2015)

Phlogiston said:


> I was under the impression that the 7% lumen loss applied when going from cool white (CW Cree) to neutral white (NW Cree), with both lights being low-CRI, and then there would be a further lumen loss going from low-CRI neutral white (NW Cree) to high-CRI neutral white (Nichia 219).
> 
> Do I have that right?
> 
> If I do, what's the additional percentage lumen loss when going from the low-CRI neutral white light to the high-CRI one?



Yes, with Cree LEDs, getting a neutral white means one lower bin, which is about 7% less bright. You do gain some CRI, though. Cree cool whites are about 65 CRI, while the neutrals are about 75 CRI.

The Nichia 219 are are a lot less efficient. Going from a top-bin Cree cool white to a Nichia 219A, you lose almost 50% in brightness. You get a 92 CRI and a fantastic tint in return, though. For most EDC lights, I think that's a good trade-off. The neutral white Crees are pretty-good too, and while they aren't high CRI, it's tough to tell them apart from the Nichia unless you're really looking.

P.S. When I say "bright", I really mean brightness at the same input power. You can drive Crees a lot harder, so they can be forced much brighter at higher power levels.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Jun 9, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yes, with Cree LEDs, getting a neutral white means one lower bin, which is about 7% less bright. You do gain some CRI, though. Cree cool whites are about 65 CRI, while the neutrals are about 75 CRI.
> 
> The Nichia 219 are are a lot less efficient. Going from a top-bin Cree cool white to a Nichia 219A, you lose almost 50% in brightness. You get a 92 CRI and a fantastic tint in return, though. For most EDC lights, I think that's a good trade-off. The neutral white Crees are pretty-good too, and while they aren't high CRI, it's tough to tell them apart from the Nichia unless you're really looking.
> 
> P.S. When I say "bright", I really mean brightness at the same input power. You can drive Crees a lot harder, so they can be forced much brighter at higher power levels.



Personally, I'd vote going with a good tint neutral white CREE. You get almost the same brightness as a cool white CREE, maybe 10 less CRI than a Nichia and almost 50% more brightness than the Nichia.

Tint is far more noticeable than CRI so you should end up with a far more pleasant beam.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 9, 2015)

Phlogiston said:


> I was under the impression that the 7% lumen loss applied when going from cool white (CW Cree) to neutral white (NW Cree), with both lights being low-CRI, and then there would be a further lumen loss going from low-CRI neutral white (NW Cree) to high-CRI neutral white (Nichia 219).
> 
> Do I have that right?
> 
> If I do, what's the additional percentage lumen loss when going from the low-CRI neutral white light to the high-CRI one



Yes. 7%-10% less from CW>NW "low" CRI. An additional ___? loss going to high CRI. I don't know what this is, since it would depend on the type of emitter (Nichia 219 may have less output than a high CRI Cree XP-G, for instance) Apples vs. oranges. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I love the Nichia 219 emitter, but I'm starting to get over it. Comparing my MX25L3C Nichia 3x18650 to a 1x18650 XP-L almost looks the same!! But that XP-L is driven hard as hell with much less runtime, more heat, etc. You can't have it all!


----------



## prnguinpoo (Jun 9, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> if they see less of them...will prefer the warmer/higher CRI lighting for those reasons.
> 
> The search party with night adapted vision looking for a lost person, etc, is seeing in B&W, and would rather FIND the lost person than be wrong about what shade of red they were actually wearing.



Actually as aside point, i found nw better at sar. Ok thats animals, but it helps you distinguish what you looking at from surroundings. Ie dusty skin / fur can look like the dusty rock that its hiding between. Under higher cri etc... its helpful to see the smaller details!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 9, 2015)

Fireclaw18 said:


> Personally, I'd vote going with a good tint neutral white CREE. You get almost the same brightness as a cool white CREE, maybe 10 less CRI than a Nichia and almost 50% more brightness than the Nichia.
> 
> Tint is far more noticeable than CRI so you should end up with a far more pleasant beam.



Yes, for almost everyone except tint-snobs, a neutral or warm Cree is the way to go.

I like the Nichia 219A as a light when accurate colour is essential. Home medical uses, etc. You could also use an incandescent light for that, but the problem is it has to be too bright in order to get up to a reasonable colour temperature.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 9, 2015)

I must be the odd one NOT seeing in B&W. I actually plan most of my backpacking trips to start at night since I enjoy nature in the dark...and all the great colors with my NW headlamp, even if it's not high CRI.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 9, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Yes, with Cree LEDs, getting a neutral white means one lower bin, which is about 7% less bright.





markr6 said:


> Yes. 7%-10% less from CW>NW



It can be a LOT more than 7%, depending what you are comparing. I encourage people to post specific specs from specific lights, with specific LED's, from which the percentage is calculated. 

In the above Prometheus Alpha light, 
the 6500K XPL gives 700 lumens, 
the N219 gives 200 lumens

The XPL 6500K has *350% more lumens* than the 4500K N219
If we assume the XPL is 65CRI and the N219 is 92CRI, the N219 has *42% more CRI* than the XPL.

Is there a 6500K XPL LED with 92 CRI?


----------



## 18650 (Jun 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I must be the odd one NOT seeing in B&W. I actually plan most of my backpacking trips to start at night since I enjoy nature in the dark...and all the great colors with my NW headlamp, even if it's not high CRI.


 In the same way that eyes don't really auto white balance and see 3000-4000K as white because everything has a yellow cast to it.


----------



## 18650 (Jun 9, 2015)

Looking at the Cree CXA1304 5000K 9V COB which is available in 70, 80, and 90 CRI models with various flux bins. Keep in mind this is all at the same CCT.

70 CRI: 410/440/475 lumens
80 CRI: 380/410/440 lumens
90 CRI: 330/355 lumens


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 9, 2015)

jon_slider said:


> It can be a LOT more than 7%, depending what you are comparing. I encourage people to post specific specs from specific lights, with specific LED's, from which the percentage is calculated.
> 
> In the above Prometheus Alpha light,
> the 6500K XPL gives 700 lumens,
> ...



You're not really doing a fair comparison. By that same chart, the N219 has a runtime 125% longer than the XPL light.

To be fair, you really need to compare output for the same level of power/runtime. The Cree LEDs can be driven much harder than the Nichia, which makes them a lot brighter but also means they have a short run-time.

Divide that 3.5x brighter by 2.25x less run time time, and you end up with an efficiency advantage for the Cree cool whites of 1.55x. Actually, I think the Cree's advantage is more than that when comparing to the Nichia 219A, so perhaps this is comparing it so the slightly cooler 219B.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> *I must be the odd one NOT seeing in B&W*. I actually plan most of my backpacking trips to start at night since I enjoy nature in the dark...and all the great colors with my NW headlamp, even if it's not high CRI.



A common misconception actually.

You will not realize that your color vision is degraded, just like if you watch a B&W TV, your mind's eye will fill in the colors with what you "know they are".


We've done experiments, with people leaving in one color jacket, and then changing into another color w/o being seen...and then being searched for - and the searchers will report seeing them in the color jacket they were wearing when they last saw them...not being able to tell that it was a different color.


As for the loss in lumens going high CRI....

There's no high CRI light with the outputs needed....unless you use a LOT of N219's for example. AN EXCEPTION I've used that helps a lot is the high CRI XML2, with almost triple the Nichia's output.


So, its not a 7% drop to use high CRI....I might be using 750 L, say with a driven neutral white XML2, and the Nichia might be maxed at 250-ish...as it can't be driven as hard.

So, to simplify things by assuming the same beam pattern, what can I see with 750 L that 250 L would miss?


For whatever distance I'm at, I'd have 1/3 the lumens on it...so 1/3 the lux for the same area of coverage.


Lets say the 750 L light had a cd of 20,000.

That's going to give me 1 lux out to ~ 140 meters.


That means the 250 L light has a cd of ~ 6,667, and gives 1 lux out to ~ 80 meters.


1 lux is not killing night vision too bad, and is barely enough to tell something is out there typically...so, that would be about the minimum lux to consider a potentially useful range.



If we spread a search party out to do a sweep on an area, that means a lot more people are needed to cover the same area.


Now, in cases where there are thick brush, woods, ditches, and other things that block the line of sight, as mentioned...this becomes less of a problem, and lights are purposefully dimmer to avoid glare, and sight lines might be short enough that throw is not a limiting factor. If the light reaches the end of your sight line, its job is done.




If you are NOT using more light than needed, you should not degrade your night vision too badly...but, that means you WILL degrade your color vision, to some extent, to HAVE night adapted vision...and, for both directions, its merely a question of degree as to how much color vision you've lost/how much night adaptation you've maintained.

Its just how the eyes work.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 9, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> You will not realize that your color vision is degraded, just like if you watch a B&W TV, your mind's eye will fill in the colors with what you "know they are".



I can't really take the rest of what you said seriously, after saying that.

I've watched black & white TV. Gilligan's Island comes to mind. There was no colour in those early episodes, and my "eye" didn't see any.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 9, 2015)

18650 said:


> In the same way that eyes don't really auto white balance and see 3000-4000K as white because everything has a yellow cast to it.



Yeah 3-4k is too warm for me.


----------



## magellan (Jun 9, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Yeah 3-4k is too warm for me.



Yeah, those are like the heat death of the sun to me. The earth doesn't orbit Antares.

I suppose one argument for that temperature is that the human visual system is most sensitive to the yellow-green region, being able to discriminate 2000 different shades of yellow to green.


----------



## magellan (Jun 9, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I can't really take the rest of what you said seriously, after saying that.
> 
> I've watched black & white TV. Gilligan's Island comes to mind. There was no colour in those early episodes, and my "eye" didn't see any.



Hmm, interesting problem here, but I think there are two different issues involved. The human eye under uncertain viewing conditions such as a search in darkness might indeed fill in the expected color, but watching an old black and white TV show under normal viewing conditions should normally not have this effect. 

Interestingly, the biggest illusory effect on the old black and white CRT TV screens was not color but the perceived resolution. Despite being only about 200 x 300 (the old TV/radio technicians can correct me here if I'm off on this figure), but anyway, the human eye subjectively perceived it as much sharper because a moving image at low resolution is perceived to be much higher than a static visual image at the same resolution, an interesting phenomenon that was studied extensively. 

The human visual system is susceptible to "optical illusions" involving movement under certain conditions, such as the famous Pulfrich illusion. This is due to several levels of intrinsic dynamic image sharpening techniques within the visual system itself which can get pretty complex, computationally. I won't go into the details here, but basically, these mechanisms account for the well known perceived higher resolution of moving images.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 9, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I can't really take the rest of what you said seriously, after saying that.
> 
> I've watched black & white TV. Gilligan's Island comes to mind. There was no colour in those early episodes, and my "eye" didn't see any.



You are taking it too literally.

I mean in your mind's eye.

When you looked the trees, you knew the leaves were green, the water was blue or green, etc.

You thought everyone wore gray and the leaves were gray, etc?




The same thing happens in dreams. Every one says they dream in color, until they do...and then they remember it as "More vivid".


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 9, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> I mean in your mind's eye.



But isn't it all really in our mind's eye and if not does it really matter what's illusion or real? I just got back from a late night run and my blood sugar is way low so will review what I said in the morning. :thinking:


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 9, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> But isn't it all really in our mind's eye and if not does it really matter what's illusion or real? I just got back from a late night run and my blood sugar is way low so will review what I said in the morning. :thinking:



Be careful about the blood sugar. One of my kids is diabetic...very scary sometimes.

As far as the real vs illusion, the concept I try to get across is that if your eyes are night adapted, because of the change in eye chemistry, you lose color vision to GET night adapted.

Most of your color reception involves cones...which have sharper resolution, motion tracking and color perception....and horrifically bad performance in low light scenarios...so, the fovea, with most of your color perception/cones, is switched off.

You don't notice, any more than you notice the large hole in your vision where your optic nerve creates a blind spot...but your mind's eye fills it in so you think you see there.


So, people who told me they see color when night adapted were either not night adapted, or, only thought they saw color....as evidenced by the series of experiments.

The reason people think they see color is that their brains filled in the missing information. Hence switched jackets of various colors being reported as the color they assumed the jacket was, etc.

We see the brightness of the target, and interpret it when we assume it has a color. Its also why a lot of optical illusions work so well.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 9, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> Be careful about the blood sugar. One of my kids is diabetic...very scary sometimes.



No question about that. Low blood sugar is actually more dangerous than high IMHO. Sorry to hear about your child's issue. Type 1 is a PITA not that type 2 is a joy. Real problems puts a perspective on silly stuff like flashlight tint preference.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 9, 2015)

Woods Walker said:


> No question about that. Low blood sugar is actually more dangerous than high IMHO. Sorry to hear about your child's issue. Type 1 is a PITA not that type 2 is a joy. Real problems puts a perspective on silly stuff like flashlight tint preference.



Yeah, he's completely insulin dependent. Got it as a teen....he's in his 30's now....but its still a worry. His insurance changed, so his prescriptions changed, and the past 2 weeks his glucose has been ricocheting between 47 and 300 or so...can't really get it under control consistently.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 10, 2015)

I do a lot of backpacking and have everything organized into color drybags. Certain clothing/gloves/etc are specific colors for easy identification while digging thru my bag and finding things at night. I NEVER have a problem differentiating between the colors, even those which are somewhat similar (greyish-blue, royal blue; red, orange; even gray and silver!) Believe me, when I wake up at 2am in the middle of NOWHERE, my eyes are completely adapted.

Some of these bags are even the same size and material, so I'm not identifying them any other way than color. While it's not high CRI, my H600w does an excellent job. Much better than the CW lamp I used for years. THAT was tough. Everything had that greyish flat look. I feel like I'm cutting the wire in The Abyss._ It's the blue wire with the white stripe. Not, I repeat, not the black wire with the yellow stripe_.

I'm sure physics of the eye could say something else and argue to no end, or a piece of $1,000,000 equipment in a laboratory somewhere. But what matters is what WE as humans see.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 10, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> Yeah, he's completely insulin dependent. Got it as a teen....he's in his 30's now....but its still a worry. His insurance changed, so his prescriptions changed, and the past 2 weeks his glucose has been ricocheting between 47 and 300 or so...can't really get it under control consistently.



Mine is good but was 97 this morning. Only got 4 hours of sleep.





Here is what I do and it's actually on topic. Beyond avoiding all processed foods possible and the usual bad things I hike and run with a backpack. Yesterday I took the 30 lb pack through the woods. Kept a look out for the bears going over the top of a big hill in the rain. After my Mason meeting I went for a short night run with a 10 ln pack on a wide easy local trail. Walked the first mile then ran back. Total distance for the day was around 6 miles. I try to do 6-8 miles everyday and that often means a night hike/run. Oddly enough my blood sugar can't tell the difference between cool white and NW? So strange as only "suckers" or "color blind" people use CW. LOL. I do prefer NW. Blood sugar in the 40's or 300 is a problem. I wonder how many people have these issues but don't know till something bad happens? Probably a good number reading this. Everyone should check blood pressure and sugar occasionally. Don't let years go by without knowing.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 10, 2015)

markr6 said:


> I do a lot of backpacking and have everything organized into color drybags. Certain clothing/gloves/etc are specific colors for easy identification while digging thru my bag and finding things at night. I NEVER have a problem differentiating between the colors, even those which are somewhat similar (greyish-blue, royal blue; red, orange; even gray and silver!) Believe me, when I wake up at 2am in the middle of NOWHERE, my eyes are completely adapted.



I agree and share the same experience.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 10, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> Lately, I've been gifting alot of the cool white lights I bought before I knew any better. I have to admit that, in so doing, I kind of feel guilty for using other people to unload them on.


Please feel free to send me all the latest Surefire flashlights with that horrible 6000k color. I'll happily send back anything that has greenish yellow zombie tint! For most uses outdoors I prefer blue white. Indoors I prefer HiCRI regardless of color but I do lean toward 4500-5000k. Malkoff 5700k is nice too so I'll take those as well! LOL

The only tints I cannot abide are yellow or green. Unfortunately some of the new Surefires do have that tint..especially on lower power.

Tactically, I would think a blue white beam in your eyes is more blinding.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 10, 2015)

I'm going to run a test to see if I can distinguish colours at low lux levels. I'll print off a few 14 colour CRI charts, randomize the squares a bit, and then see if I can write the colours on them under about 0.25 lux (around moon illumination on an otherwise dark night). Might also be interesting to try cool white vs neutral white.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 10, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> The thing for EVERYONE, is that tint is completely subjective, and, we DON'T all see things the same way (Remember the gold/white/blue/black dress thread?)
> 
> The arguments are about as meaningful as one side saying vanilla ice cream is the only real flavor, and another group insisting that its chocolate or nothing....


Great to see this bit of info in print and hopefully one day everyone pitching their favorite *anything* will realize that the other guys choice is actually better than their own, when it comes to the other guy. Unfortunately a great majority have a problem realizing that other peoples choices are every bit as valid as their own, even if they're different!



> The WAY we all use lights will be different too. The lower the light level, generally, the warmer people tend to like it...like candle light....but once over about 50 lux or so, the scales start to tip towards whiter light.


The lower the light level the cooler and floodier I prefer my lights and have a strong preference for warmer tints as light level goes up.

The exception for me would be room lighting and that is another place where confusion comes in, particularly in a forum based mainly on flashlights, but all to often citing floody room or natural lighting values in discussions focused on small hand held and comparatively throwy lights sources.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> ...
> As for the loss in lumens going high CRI....
> 
> There's no high CRI light with the outputs needed....unless you use a LOT of N219's for example. AN EXCEPTION I've used that helps a lot is the high CRI XML2, with almost triple the Nichia's output.
> ...



Thanks for the examples, great food for thought, when does the ice cream get here?

The Alpha Light with N219 produces 200 lumens, and with an XML produces 700 lumens
with the same light, head, reflector, and batteries

The shorter range of the N219, and its higher CRI might make it a preferred choice to find a calico cat inside a garage. Note that at closer range, we also see smaller details, like eye color, or hair color.

while the longer range of the XML could make it more suitable for finding a person leaning against a tree in the back yard, observing the color of their jacket and pants.

I like both chocolate and vanilla, sometimes at the same time, and with strawberry 
I also like all the CRI I can get..


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 11, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I'm going to run a test to see if I can distinguish colours at low lux levels. I'll print off a few 14 colour CRI charts, randomize the squares a bit, and then see if I can write the colours on them under about 0.25 lux (around moon illumination on an otherwise dark night). Might also be interesting to try cool white vs neutral white.



This has been done of course, but, to base line yourself, you'd typically wait about 45 minutes or more in darkness to make sure you were adapted...as its the adaptation we're talking about.

To test that, you'd start noting the furthest thing you can see in that moonlight, and, then, after adaptation, note it again. If adapted properly, you tend to see 4-5 times further. If you can't see 4 -5 times further, you're not adapted yet, and so forth.

You'd put the colored test subjects far enough away from your eyes to avoid glare from the light, and to ensure that you would be using your fovea to focus on them.

After your experiment, if you find that you see perfectly in color even when night adapted, please call all of the editors of encyclopedias, text books, etc, and have them change their papers and descriptions on how the eyes work, as they are all obviously wrong...or, you are "the one" who has evolved cones that CAN work in low light scenarios after night adaptation chemistry has caused all other humans to suffer from degraded color vision.



If your experiment finds that you are like other humans, I suppose no updates would be needed.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 11, 2015)

jon_slider said:


> Thanks for the examples, great food for thought, when does the ice cream get here?
> 
> The Alpha Light with N219 produces 200 lumens, and with an XML produces 700 lumens
> with the same light, head, reflector, and batteries
> ...



LOL

I agree...depending on your garage and cat's hiding method. If in a dark shadow, the 200 L might not be able to give enough lux for example, but, generally, in a garage sized area, that's a decent amount of light.

A can of tuna can sometimes find cats that even the most high CRI light cannot resolve.





I have noticed a lot of referring to NW as higher CRI, which is not always the case...warmer ≠ higher CRI per se....even though most high CRI lights are warmer.

IE: A lot of racing cars have spoilers, but, not all cars with spoilers are racing cars.

Even if there's a little increase in CRI with a warmer tint, is it enough to notice on targets, etc?

And so forth.



The way I see it, personally, is that the tint is a preference, the way an ice cream flavor is...and while I LIKE NW better, myself, I DON'T believe the color rendition is that much more accurate, any more than you can say that dawn's light is "more accurate" than dusk's light, etc.

If the thread was ABOUT CRI, that would be a different story...as its not a stretch to say color rendition should be better with higher CRI.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> After your experiment, if you find that you see perfectly in color even when night adapted, please call all of the editors of encyclopedias, text books, etc, and have them change their papers and descriptions on how the eyes work, as they are all obviously wrong...or, you are "the one" who has evolved cones that CAN work in low light scenarios after night adaptation chemistry has caused all other humans to suffer from degraded color vision.



Your previous postings seem to imply that you believe black&white vision kicks in below about 1 lux. That is what I intend to test. I am quite certain I can still perceive colour below that level of light intensity. I do not claim that my colour vision will be as good as under bright light (I suspect it will be much worse), but I am fairly confident I can tell the difference between red, green, blue, and yellow. Pastels may tougher to tell apart.

I did run a brief test of this for a few minutes, at lux levels about 0.25 lux. It was quite easy to tell primary colours. But the pastels were tricky. I could tell what main colours they were, but it was sort of "light green", "green or blue", "light yellow", that kind of stuff.

In any case, I better call the encyclopedias, because I can certainly see colours at low lux levels. I suspect that anyone who has taken a walk under the full moon and looked at flowers under the moonlight, should probably call the encyclopedias as well.

BTW, is there any such thing as an encyclopedia anymore? Or should I just update a wikipedia entry?

BTW, I do agree that vision goes black&white at low lux levels. It's just much lower than 1 lux. Probably a tenth of that... just my guess.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 11, 2015)

Even if you DID see in B&W, you still have the decision to see an ugly cool white or a neutral white light, regardless of what it's lighting up! Sometimes science can prove certain things, but in real life it's totally irrelavent and makes absolutely no difference to me.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 11, 2015)

markr6 said:


> Even if you DID see in B&W, you still have the decision to see an ugly cool white or a neutral white light, regardless of what it's lighting up! Sometimes science can prove certain things, but in real life it's totally irrelavent and makes absolutely no difference to me.



From my brief tests, I didn't notice much difference in colour perception when using cool white or neutral white. This surprised me a little, but I suppose it's because overall my colour perception was degraded quite a bit, so the difference in tint wasn't nearly as big a factor. Tint (and CRI) makes a much bigger impact when you light up the area with a bright beam.


----------



## WarRaven (Jun 11, 2015)

I'd just want to see the bear before worrying if it's got a brown coat or a black coat, then we can worry about color. 
If one gets it in view before the other, that might be the extra distance you need to back peddle away safely.
The other would offer no advantage at a closer distance, you're food at that point, least it's in vivid color I guess. 
☺
Go back and look at the flowers in daylight, carry the alien sunlight at night.
Have a great day.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> This has been done of course, but, to base line yourself, you'd typically wait about 45 minutes or more in darkness to make sure you were adapted...as its the adaptation we're talking about.
> 
> To test that, you'd start noting the furthest thing you can see in that moonlight, and, then, after adaptation, note it again. If adapted properly, you tend to see 4-5 times further. If you can't see 4 -5 times further, you're not adapted yet, and so forth.
> 
> ...


Why use fovea? Rods can see much better in dim light!


----------



## recDNA (Jun 11, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> From my brief tests, I didn't notice much difference in colour perception when using cool white or neutral white. This surprised me a little, but I suppose it's because overall my colour perception was degraded quite a bit, so the difference in tint wasn't nearly as big a factor. Tint (and CRI) makes a much bigger impact when you light up the area with a bright beam.


Not surprising at all. Your brain adapts to the tint of the light so you can still tell red from blue from green whether cool white or warm white. We do it all the time in daylight which is cooler at noon than morning or late afternoon. Do you find colors POP only in late afternoon? Nonsense. Colors don't ever pop. Rice Krispies pop.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 11, 2015)

Night adaptation is not "low light".

Night adaptation is a chemical process, in which your eye shuts down the cones and switches over to rods which can see in low light better.

Most of the cones are in the fovea...hence the proportional loss of the fovea when night adapted.


This is why for example, a person in a dark room can look directly AT something and not see it, but, if they look to the side of it, they CAN see it. The rods are essentially B&W receptors, and the cones are your color receptors.

When night adapted, based on the definition of night adapted, your vision is almost entirely based on the rods...and, therefore, not in color.


So, yes, you can see colors better if the light is better. Your color receptors need more light than your B&W receptors do, a lot more...so, if NOT night adapted, you still lose some color resolution if the lights are dim. Again, its a sliding scale.

Its not a B&W/Color switch, its a trade off between night vision and color vision.

The better your color vision, the worse your night vision, and visa versa...due to the chemistry involved.

Experiments show that the color losses are proportional to the gains in night vision.

There will therefore be points at which you can distinguish some colors better than others, and, have SOME night adaptation, but, no points at which you have perfect color vision while having perfect night vision (Perfect in this case means full for a human at least, etc).


----------



## recDNA (Jun 11, 2015)

I'm aware of that! I don't care about color in the dark. I just want to see. Rods are fine.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 11, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I'm aware of that! I don't care about color in the dark. I just want to see. Rods are fine.



LOL

I know, we agree.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> There will therefore be points at which you can distinguish some colors better than others, and, have SOME night adaptation, but, no points at which you have perfect color vision while having perfect night vision (Perfect in this case means full for a human at least, etc).



Nobody here has ever disagreed with that.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 11, 2015)

recDNA said:


> Do you find colors POP only in late afternoon?



Absolutely. Colours pop outdoors under warm light, because most of the colour outdoors is warm hues. Lots of green (which is neutral). A lot of red, yellow, and orange flowers (warm). Lots of brown ground and wood (again warm). Almost no blue (cool), except the sky itself.

The warmer light in evening causes the warm hues to show much better. It hurts the cool hues, but there's almost none of that anyway.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 11, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Nobody here has ever claimed that.



I could have SWORN I claimed it, no?


I DID!

I found it!



TEEJ said:


> Night adaptation is not "low light".
> 
> Night adaptation is a chemical process, in which your eye shuts down the cones and switches over to rods which can see in low light better.
> 
> ...




See?


----------



## dc38 (Jun 11, 2015)

Under no circumstance has the TEEJ not claimed anything under the sun


----------



## dnlmcginnis5 (Jun 11, 2015)

My neutral hound dog xm-l2 is the best flashlight I own for seeing true color at night I use it for taking care of people in low lit houses while acting as a paramedic I need to see the true color of the skin for accurate assessments. For example last night we were called to a guard shack to find a woman in severe breathing distress, it was not well lit and I needed a light to see her once I turned on my flashlight I could see the blue color of her nail beds and around her mouth altering all of us her critical condition we saved her and all the crewmen asked what was up with my flashlight I had to explain what a neutral led does they all listened intently.

Another save for Malkoff devices !!


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> I could have SWORN I claimed it, no?




Ooops, I meant to say, nobody here has ever disagreed with that.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 11, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Absolutely. Colours pop outdoors under warm light, because most of the colour outdoors is warm hues. Lots of green (which is neutral). A lot of red, yellow, and orange flowers (warm). Lots of brown ground and wood (again warm). Almost no blue (cool), except the sky itself.
> 
> The warmer light in evening causes the warm hues to show much better. It hurts the cool hues, but there's almost none of that anyway.


So you don't see color at noon? Your brain adapts to the slow change in light tint and allows you to see colors equally well all day.

Bluebirds, blue jays, Blue jeans, blue cars, blue shirts lots of blue I want to see. I don't care about dirt.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 11, 2015)

recDNA said:


> So you don't see color at noon? Your brain adapts to the slow change in light tint and allows you to see colors equally well all day.
> 
> Bluebirds, blue jays, Blue jeans, blue cars, blue shirts lots of blue I want to see. I don't care about dirt.



LOL now we're getting silly! And believe me, 9/10 shirts I have are blue...I actually get made fun of that at work. They're blue in any kind of sun...just various shades of blue. More greenish/purplish depending on the lighting.

I would call the colors "rich" in the warmer lighting. I wish I had a specific photo with me. About 10 years ago I had a Yamaha R6 motorcycle. I remember taking a photo of it on a summer evening...man, did that blue color look GOOD then. Good anytime really, but even better in that nice lighting.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 11, 2015)

markr6 said:


> LOL now we're getting silly! And believe me, 9/10 shirts I have are blue...I actually get made fun of that at work. They're blue in any kind of sun...just various shades of blue. More greenish/purplish depending on the lighting.



I have a sweater that I can't figure out what colour it is, nor can anyone else. It sometimes looks dark blue, other times it looks dark green. And I mean it _really _looks blue or green, not sort-of blue or sort-of green. It depends entirely on the ambient light. I haven't figured out what kind of light makes it change colour. It's the only clothing I've seen that does that.


----------



## chuckhov (Jun 11, 2015)

Many of you like the 3d tint, as do I. - It would be nice if all lights were available with the tint that we want, but... 

Recently I ordered a light with a 4c and find it to be too yellow/green for me.

Another light that I am wanting to get comes with a 3b or 4c.

Anyone here tried a 3b? - What's it like? - Too much green?

TIA,
-Chuck


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 11, 2015)

Overall, I prefer NW.

Some NW are not the same as others, as there's no official spec for being called "NW".


For some lights, the beams seem white until they are shined next to another beam that makes them then seem yellow, or green, etc....in comparison.

Eyes compensate for color adjustment, an internal white balance so to speak. Many optical illusions take advantage of that.




Example:


Some people cannot tell how many shades of green there are:








Do you see only one shade of green, or can you see more than one shade of green? You would need very good color vision to tell how many there really are. Most people, with normal color vision, can only see two shades.

How many can YOU spot?








How many different colors can you tell apart?







Some people can only see 3.

How many colors can YOU see?


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> I have noticed a lot of referring to NW as higher CRI, which is not always the case...warmer ≠ higher CRI per se....even though most high CRI lights are warmer.
> 
> The way I see it, personally, is that the tint is a preference...
> 
> If the thread was ABOUT CRI, that would be a different story...as its not a stretch to say color rendition should be better with higher CRI.


+1 Very well stated.

Do you remember the guy trying to sell a light a few years ago in the MarketPlace saying that it had a CRI coating applied to the lens. :duh2:

Great point about the topic of the thread being about tint and not CRI too.



markr6 said:


> Even if you DID see in B&W, you still have the decision to see an ugly cool white or a neutral white light, regardless of what it's lighting up! Sometimes science can prove certain things, but in real life it's totally irrelavent and makes absolutely no difference to me.


+1

Another spot-on and relevant post. It really doesn't matter what science can prove when human preferences seldom correspond to cold research.



WarRaven said:


> I'd just want to see the bear before worrying if it's got a brown coat or a black coat, then we can worry about color.
> If one gets it in view before the other, that might be the extra distance you need to back peddle away safely.
> The other would offer no advantage at a closer distance, you're food at that point, least it's in vivid color I guess.


OT response: You can tell which bear it is by the shape and they seldom eat people, but running is a bad idea when it comes to any meat eater.


----------



## holygeez03 (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ... I only see 2 colors... pink and green.

And I'm pretty sure there is only one shade of green in the first pic... just different context.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 11, 2015)

OMG please don't start the whole gold dress or black dress argument again!


----------



## chuckhov (Jun 11, 2015)

holygeez03 said:


> TEEJ... I only see 2 colors... pink and green.
> 
> And I'm pretty sure there is only one shade of green in the first pic... just different context.



I was pretty sure that it was a Trick Question from the get-go, but you, Sir, had the guts to say it! - Thanks for saying it

-Chuck


----------



## dc38 (Jun 11, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> Overall, I prefer NW.
> 
> Some NW are not the same as others, as there's no official spec for being called "NW".
> 
> ...



One shade for top....3 colors not including white on bottom. Personally, i can see all the colors lol


----------



## twistedraven (Jun 11, 2015)

First one, aaah, the ol' local contrasting colors optical illusion. There's only one shade of green there. Along the same lines, is this one:







Second one, again playing with local contrast, making the magenta touching the light green look red, and the light greens touching the magenta look darker green. At first glance you would think there's 4 colors there (not including white), but there's only 2.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 12, 2015)

Optical illusions are pretty fun, but have little bearing on this thread other than that they show how the eye can be fooled.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 12, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> How many different colors can you tell apart?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



3 would be correct. I'll call white a "color" since it's a combination of all colors. So I can see 3, but 4 including the "false red" if I stare at it. Photoshop also counts 3  so that's my final answer!


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 12, 2015)

The bearing on the thread was in relation to the way we interpret a shadow on the color, etc...

...in that the eye's chemistry perceives a "color", but, our mind does an "automatic white balance" and interprets what the eye chemistry perceived, changing it to what it thinks it SHOULD be.

Hence the _mind's_ eye vs the eye and the way we think we perceive colors when using rods, even though its the cones that can perceive it.



IE: You CAN "see" colors that are not there....because your brain "knew" they SHOULD BE THERE, and plugged them in where it assumed they went.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 12, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> The bearing on the thread was in relation to the way we interpret a shadow on the color, etc...
> 
> ...in that the eye's chemistry perceives a "color", but, our mind does an "automatic white balance" and interprets what the eye chemistry perceived, changing it to what it thinks it SHOULD be.




Yes, our eyes/brains are not good at all at perceiving absolute colour tints. However, we are very good at perceiving contrasts in colour. That doesn't mean we're bad at seeing colour, it means that we are using colour in a different way than a camera CCD does.

IMO, I think perceiving colour contrast is far more important in the real world, but perhaps I'm biased. If I want to eat a yellow banana, it's easier for me to identify it as an edible fruit if that yellow shows as contrast against the background. If I saw colour in absolute terms, that yellow banana would look like rotten brown if it was in the shade. Or a rotten brown banana would look bright yellow in direct sunlight. No, thanks.

Illusions designed to trick our brains don't really tell us anything about whether or not we are good at perceiving colour. Of course we are good at it. We just use that information in a different way than a computer does.


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jun 12, 2015)

Some people don't care much about tint while others enjoy walks at night, including the colors around them.

Some workplaces might be fairly colorless while other workplaces require color discrimination.

The red emitting flashlights are so limited in their capabilities that many of us (I believe) prefer to have a white light set very low. Then when more scrutiny is called for, such as determining a color, a higher mode is used. 

Whether a person's eyesight is fully night-adapted or not has little meaning for real-world use. But it seems that knowing the mechanics of our eyes is helpful in order to meet or enhance our night-time objectives. 

I am just hoping a few years from now we will be able to look back and say, "Remember when we had those dedomed throwers with the lousy green-yellow tinge to them?"


----------



## markr6 (Jun 12, 2015)

KITROBASKIN said:


> I am just hoping a few years from now we will be able to look back and say, "Remember when we had those dedomed throwers with the lousy green-yellow tinge to them?"



Yes I'm hopeful! It can only get better, right?


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 12, 2015)

Dedoming makes the tint warmer...so, its an improvement upon the domed versions typically.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 12, 2015)

KITROBASKIN said:


> The red emitting flashlights are so limited in their capabilities that many of us (I believe) prefer to have a white light set very low. Then when more scrutiny is called for, such as determining a color, a higher mode is used.



I used to use red LED lights a fair bit, before I got my first moonlight-mode flashlight. Since then, I've used red very little. Red is good if you need to read something while maintaining night vision, but as you say, it's really bad for walking around. Anything that isn't red or white, looks black. It's far worse than a black&white greyscale vision.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 12, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> I used to use red LED lights a fair bit, before I got my first moonlight-mode flashlight. Since then, I've used red very little. Red is good if you need to read something while maintaining night vision, but as you say, it's really bad for walking around. Anything that isn't red or white, looks black. It's far worse than a black&white greyscale vision.



Monochromatic lights have their uses, but, yeah, pleasant lighting is not one of them.


----------



## chuckhov (Jun 12, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> Dedoming makes the tint warmer...so, its an improvement upon the domed versions typically.



"Typically" is in the eye of the beholder.

If a de-domed light were available to me for 10 cents on the dollar, I would probably get one. - And then Hate Myself every time I turned it on.

I have to agree with the poster above when he said:

"Remember when we had those dedomed throwers with the lousy green-yellow tinge to them?" - Warmer or not, they are putrid to me.

Thank you,
-Chuck


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 12, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> Absolutely. Colours pop outdoors under warm light, because most of the colour outdoors is warm hues. Lots of green (which is neutral). A lot of red, yellow, and orange flowers (warm). Lots of brown ground and wood (again warm). Almost no blue (cool), except the sky itself.
> 
> The warmer light in evening causes the warm hues to show much better. It hurts the cool hues, but there's almost none of that anyway.




That's why the best outdoor photography is almost never done during midday, and why the time during and after sunset is often referred to by photographers as the 'golden hour'.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 12, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> That's why the best outdoor photography is almost never done during midday, and why the time during and after sunset is often referred to by photographers as the 'golden hour'.



For hues, that may have been true back in the days of film. But now you can post-process in just about any hues and saturation you want. The reason today for evening and morning shoots, is that shadows are soft and from shallow angles, and the entire sky acts like a giant light-box, making lighting very pleasant.

Warmer tones are a bonus, requiring less post-processing.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 12, 2015)

chuckhov said:


> "Typically" is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> If a de-domed light were available to me for 10 cents on the dollar, I would probably get one. - And then Hate Myself every time I turned it on.
> 
> ...



Interesting, I have lots of dedomed lights, and the tints are quite nice....maybe it depends on the LED's starting point?


I'm not a fan of green either for example...but all our night vision stuff makes everything look green, as while ugly, at least its more functional.


----------



## recDNA (Jun 12, 2015)

I'm surprised night vision equipment isn't more popular here. Seeing at night without a flashlight is neat.


----------



## magellan (Jun 12, 2015)

markr6 said:


> 3 would be correct. I'll call white a "color" since it's a combination of all colors. So I can see 3, but 4 including the "false red" if I stare at it. Photoshop also counts 3  so that's my final answer!




Reminds me of something I learned back in the 70s. True complete color blindness in humans is so rare that, back then, if you had it you could make a good living traveling around to all the vision research labs. My professor said you could make about $60k a year, which was decent money back then. Not to mention a pretty cushy job getting tested a few hours a day.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 12, 2015)

recDNA said:


> I'm surprised night vision equipment isn't more popular here. Seeing at night without a flashlight is neat.



Ummm, but what would we do with all our flashlights?


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 12, 2015)

Most "color blind people" are deficient in perception of certain combinations, but not of all. And, yeah, 100% rod vision is very rare.

Night vision equipment is a PITA to wear...I don't like wearing it. It IS cool to see by starlight, etc...but, the goggles are not comfortable and they stick out too far, for me at least.


If calibrating a night shooting range, etc...and we turn on an IR spot light for example, if wearing the goggles, its like the sun dropped down in front of you if too close, even 300 - 400 meters is too close for some systems.

We'll see that on drills where the officer might be doing night pistol at close range targets when the spot goes on from many hundreds of meters away, and the guy rips the goggles off and curses, loudly. W/o the goggles, the IR spot light is invisible. With them, its overwhelmingly bright.


----------



## Woods Walker (Jun 12, 2015)

Here is something interesting to counter the suppostion (not even sure anyone made it here) that those outside of this hobby can't ID NW or prefer CW. In another thread I talk about a night hike. During that hike I was evaluatiing two lights comparing their relative pros and cons.





One has a NW XP-G2 with a really good tint as IMHO not all NWs are the same even if they claim the same specs or classification. The other is a cool white XM-L2 which runs a bit on the cool side as apposed to slightly greenish that seems more prevalent with most XM-Ls I own. None are bad compared to some green tints of the past which is part of the reason I posted this thread. Well anyways I flashed both lights one at a time asking what he thought. Immediately he stated "one looks more like natural light" and called out a preference for that. It was the NW.

Granted one example of anything means almost nothing but just tossing it out there.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 12, 2015)

WalkIntoTheLight said:


> For hues, that may have been true back in the days of film. But now you can post-process in just about any hues and saturation you want. The reason today for evening and morning shoots, is that shadows are soft and from shallow angles, and the entire sky acts like a giant light-box, making lighting very pleasant.
> 
> Warmer tones are a bonus, requiring less post-processing.



You can also only post process so much. And post processing often leaves artifacts and/or changes the image in other ways you don't want it to. Although post processing gives the photographer many options, a good image off camera is always best.


----------



## markr6 (Jun 13, 2015)

StorminMatt said:


> You can also only post process so much. And post processing often leaves artifacts and/or changes the image in other ways you don't want it to. Although post processing gives the photographer many options, a good image off camera is always best.



That's true. Plus I think it's good to shoot in RAW. Never knew what it was until I got a DSLR about 10 years ago. TOTALLY changed my post processing work flow. More work, but better results.


----------



## WalkIntoTheLight (Jun 13, 2015)

markr6 said:


> That's true. Plus I think it's good to shoot in RAW. Never knew what it was until I got a DSLR about 10 years ago. TOTALLY changed my post processing work flow. More work, but better results.



Yes, a RAW image shows you just how much post-processing a camera does when it creates a jpeg image for the vast majority of users.

I used to shoot RAW a fair bit, but it became a chore to do all the post-processing myself. I find it easier to tweak a jpeg image. Even though you lose a lot of information when using jpeg, there's still usually plenty of detail to do most post-processing. The only thing I usually miss by not using RAW is detail in shadows.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 13, 2015)

In the old days, back when I shot film for UPI/API, etc...post processing was stuff like burning and dodging, etc.

Now, with digital media, its frankly a bit amazing what you can do. Sometimes its like you don't even need a picture to start with, you can just create what you want to, more like art than photography. I think the two have merged as a result.




As much as I really liked film, I don't shoot/develop it anymore, as digital is just so much more powerful, and, flexible, and less expensive.

It used to be the cost of the film and developing, etc, made you really think about when to hit the shutter...but with digital, you can shoot first and ask questions later...same cost no matter how many bad shots, and, it increases the odds of timing the good shots.

The motor drive used to be the limiting factor in fast action sequences...now, you don't need one...the speed of your processing and memory card are now the limiting factor. You can change ISO from frame to frame, not roll to roll, etc...and so on.

I don't see going back.




I agree about raw vs jpeg too. If something that I might foresee as important enough, I might shoot raw for the flexibility, artistically, but as I'm more autistic than artistic, that's the exception not the rule...

...so shots of buddies off roading, etc...are typically jpeg to speed things up.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 13, 2015)

This thread has helped me learn more about why people who want maximum lumens, have to accept lower CRI and Higher CCT. It seems cooler tints have lower CRI but higher Lumens.

fwiw, I contacted Vinh to ask if he had an XPL in 90 CRI available, he said no, only 80CRI. I also wrote to the company he gets his LEDs from to ask the same question, they also said no XPL in 90CRI, only 80CRI minimum spec.

Since Im having him build me a High CRI Maratac I chose the N219a in hopes of getting 90CRI. FWIW I have an N219a rated 90CRI and its actual measured CRI is 87. I also have a N219b rated 92CRI, and its actual measured CRI is 88. My N219a looks warmer than the N219b, even though they both measure 4400K

by the same token the 90CRI rated N219a, actually has a Minimum CRI of 85... so when comparing specs, it matters whether the spec is a maximum or minimum, because in my actual testing, the specified CRI is not exactly accurate.

If youre interested in seeing actual measured CCT and CRI, check my signature links for pics and data.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 13, 2015)

Jon - Excellent!

Yeah the CRI/CCT of the LED is also dependent on how its driven etc...with, generally, higher amps reducing the color rendition.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 13, 2015)

TEEJ said:


> Jon - Excellent!
> 
> Yeah the CRI/CCT of the LED is also dependent on how its driven etc...with, generally, higher amps reducing the color rendition.



Thanks! I respond well to encouragement , so one more bite at the apple:

Discoveries of a Newbie to LED lights. Lumens vs CRI
data and images courtesy of Prometheus Lights

N219 4500K gives 200 lumens and 90CRI
XML 6500K gives 700 lumens and 66CRI






my interpretations of the data
High Lumens comes at the cost of 27% reduced CRI 
High CRI comes at the cost of 72% reduced Lumens

The following observations are based on this Alpha Radar image:






More CRI comes with less lumens, more battery runtime, and less heat
More Lumens comes with less CRI, less battery runtime, and more heat,


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 13, 2015)

jon_slider said:


> High CRI comes at the cost of 72% reduced Lumens
> 
> More CRI comes with less lumens, more battery runtime, and less heat
> 
> More Lumens comes with less CRI, less battery runtime, and more heat,



You can't make these kinds of generalizations about LEDs based on this comparison. In this particular instance, you are comparing apples and oranges. For instance, high CRI came with 72% reduced lumens NOT because high CRI is THAT much worse. Rather, you are comparing a smaller, lower output LED to a larger, higher output one. If you compared a cool white XM-L2 to a 90+CRI warm white XM-L2 or an 80+CRI neutral XM-L2/XP-L, you wouldn't be losing NEARLY as much output.

The same goes for runtime. Again, your high CRI XP-G is a smaller, lower output LED than your cool XM-L2. Even though the XP-G is a less efficient LED, it is going to give you more runtime at its maximum power because its maximum power is MUCH less than the cool XM-L. To get a really good comparison of runtimes, you need to look at runtime at the same brightness. For example, the Zebralight SC62d runs longer on maximum brightness (3hr) than the SC62w (about 1hr). But maximum brightness if the SC62d is 320 lumens vs 930 lumens for the SC62w. If you bring the brightness if the SC62w down to an equivalent 326 lumens, runtime rises to 3.9hr, making the SC62w the longer running light.

The same goes for heat. A smaller emitter will produce less heat due to lower heat output. But a high CRI emitter of the same output will actually produce MORE heat. And higher CRI can actually produce MORE lumens if we use a larger emitter. For instance, a high CRI XM-L2 or even a normal MT-G2 will produce more lumens than a cool white XP-G2 if we don't make any attempt to compare different emitters of equivalent size.


----------



## jon_slider (Jun 13, 2015)

> You can't make these kinds of generalizations about LEDs based on this comparison

Agreed
My father once told me 
ALL generalizations stink, including this one. 

I am not making generalizations 

I am giving specific mathematical interpretations of specific verifyable examples, that I provided references for. 

I am am a consumer, shopping for the highest CRI LED I can put in a Maratac single aaa light for indoor use with eneloops. With a driver that includes a low of less than 1 lumen, so the DiverVn does not qualify. For my indoor needs yes, warm is necessary, as long as it's broad spectrum (High CRI) 

I would like an XPL with 90 CRI, suggestions welcome.


----------

