# NovaTac 120P Runtime plot



## eltel999 (Aug 16, 2007)

Hi all,

I finally got round to trying my hand at a runtime plot. *

[More plots added in posts #11, 25, 27 and 39] **Updated 19/8/07*
*[Advice needed, see post #27]*

Flashlight: Novatac 120P
Cell: MP700mAh unprotected RCR123A

Two plots; one starting from the Maximum 120 lumens setting, and another starting from the 85 lumens setting. Same cell used for both plots.








From 120 Lumens - 35 minutes till first stepdown
From 85 Lumens - 62 minutes till first stepdown

Notes:

The output is not in lumens, it is the readings from my lightbox

I did not run the light all the way down till low-battery flash, so the lights still had some runtime left. I was mainly looking to find the runtime for the upper levels (and I got very bored taking reading every minute )

On both runs the flashlight started to get slightly warm to the touch after about 10 minutes. An icepack was placed on the light intermittently to keep the light "lukewarm"


Regards,

Terry

BTW: Don't take my runtime graphs too seriously, they are the first I've done and are only single runs. Hopefully someone like Chevrofreak will do some proper testing...


----------



## Oddjob (Aug 16, 2007)

Thanks for your efforts Terry! Seems to confrim the speculations I have read that the emitters in the two models have the same efficiency. Novatac just did not program 120 lumens into the 85p models. The user guide says "maximum setting: 85 or 120 lumens (30 minutes runtime)." This lead me to believe that they each had a runtime of 30 minutes at their respective maximum levels. I thought 120p had a more efficient emmitter because this is what HDS did with their 60 lumens and 42 lumen models. Having a more efficient emitter would have been one of the reasons why I choose the 120p. I figured I could get a 120p and get over an hour of runtime if I reprogramed the maximum level to 85 lumens. Now I see that this is not the case. I still like having that little extra even if it is not that much. Just don't know if it's worth $40.00. I might have bought the 85p if I'd have known. Oh well what can you do?

Edit: Oops. I did not read closely enough. I though they were a runtime of two different lights.


----------



## leukos (Aug 16, 2007)

So the Novatacs get brighter as they run? These discharge graphs don't look as flat as they do on HDS lights.


----------



## matrixshaman (Aug 16, 2007)

I think it would be best to run a 120P starting out at the 85 Lumen level to see what kind of chart that produces before making any real conclusions from this test. Or has someone already done that? I'm still glad to have the 120P - an extra battery takes care of any shortness in runtime and you can always crank it down a notch or two but you can't crank the 85 up any more if you need it (save a mod).


----------



## THE_dAY (Aug 16, 2007)

matrixshaman, this graph has the 120 starting off at the 85 lumen mark.
the line is hard to see because it's in yellow.

hopefully more with the 120 and 85 lights will do runtimes to confirm this speculation of both models being the same light with the only difference being one more level.


----------



## Oddjob (Aug 16, 2007)

Here is where I saw some of the inital discusions about the emitters being the same. _Energie_ did runtime of his 85T

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/172179&highlight=novatac


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 16, 2007)

Oddjob said:


> Here is where I saw some of the inital discusions about the emitters being the same. _Energie_ did runtime of his 85T
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/172179&highlight=novatac




Energie got 62 minutes before first step-down from his 85T, which is identical to my 120P in 85 lumens mode.

I think he did his test by eye observation, so unless he missed a step-down it would tend to indicate that both models have the same bin LED???

I've nearly completed the runtimes with a primary cell, will post them later tonight.

Terry


----------



## Ty_Bower (Aug 16, 2007)

Oddjob said:


> Seems to confrim the speculations I have read that the emitters in the two models have the same efficiency... I thought 120p had a more efficient emmitter because this is what HDS did with their 60 lumens and 42 lumen models.


_Some_ of the emitters put into the HDS x60 models were more efficient than those in the x42. I wouldn't say all of them are guaranteed to be so. I suspect HDS installed whatever crop of emitters he happened to have on hand, then started calibrating and binning the finished lights. Whatever passed his specs for x60 went into the x60 pile. Whatever didn't, didn't. Once there were enough units in the x60 to satisfy the sales projections, remaining units (whether they failed at 60, or were simply not yet tested) could have been calibrated and tested for 42.

This is purely speculation on my part. I'm sure Henry would deny that this was done - I believe he may have already denied it in the past. I'm sure he would claim that it doesn't make sense to rate a unit for 42 if it could pass at 60 - you're losing the revenue from the higher rated part. I'll argue that it doesn't make sense to try to sell all of your lights at the highest rating, even if they can achieve it. You _need_ to have a certain percentage of your models available to sell to a lower end market. Every electronics manufacturer does it. Sure, it would be great if every light sold at the higher price of the x60, but not everyone is willing to pay the price. You've got to sell some at the lower x42 price to take advantage of that market segment. If this weren't true, there would not have ever been the separate distinctions between the higher cost Ultimate models and the lower cost Basic models. There was zero production cost difference to HDS regardless of whether it was Ultimate or Basic. Why sell Basic at all? Why not sell every one at the higher price of the Ultimate, and make more profit? The truth is you'll make _more_ profit if you sell a percentage at a lower price level.

Anyway, all this is just my opinion. I'm probably wrong anyway. What is fact is that some x42 models out there were just as efficient as some x60 models. I happen to own a B42 and a U60GT. They both run for about the same time when set to 42 lumens (roughly 50 minutes on a li-ion cell). They are both approximately the same efficiency. I've never modified either light. They both came that way from the factory.

I would expect there are some Novatac 120 lights which _are_ more efficient than the 85s. I would also expect there are many cases where the efficiency of the two models won't differ much at all. It's still the luck of the draw - Luxeon lottery, if you like to call it that.

Just my not so humble opinion.


----------



## Patriot (Aug 16, 2007)

Thanks eltel999. I we really appreciate your efforts. This is going to be a handy little chart that I'll refer to in the future. Thanks again! :thumbsup:


----------



## Energie (Aug 16, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> Energie got 62 minutes before first step-down from his 85T, which is identical to my 120P in 85 lumens mode.
> 
> I think he did his test by eye observation, so unless he missed a step-down it would tend to indicate that both models have the same bin LED???


 
I´ve made a second test.
And I´ve controlled the brightness levels with a lux-meter. 
Same results (see Post 12).


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 16, 2007)

As promised, some more plots:

Rechargeable Cell 







Primary Cell







Cells Compared







These are not complete runtime plots. At 144 mins the run from maximum on a primary cell was down to Level 11(2.7 lumens) 6 on my light meter.

Cheers,

Terry

P.S. Energie,
:thumbsup: Looks like you've been busy too!


----------



## Supernam (Aug 16, 2007)

WOW, so there is NO benefit to running primaries with this light?! You would think primaries would perform slightly better with nearly double the capacity of an rcr.


----------



## Oddjob (Aug 16, 2007)

Supernam said:


> WOW, so there is NO benefit to running primaries with this light?! You would think primaries would perform slightly better with nearly double the capacity of an rcr.


 
I think the benefit would be on the lower levels. I wonder what the runtimes would be for RCR123's vs CR123's at 10 lumens.


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 16, 2007)

Supernam said:


> WOW, so there is NO benefit to running primaries with this light?! ...



Not strictly true, if you look at the area under each plot the primary cell does have a greater capacity but it's output is distributed over a longer time span.

219 minutes from starting at max, the primary cell is still running next to me. Where's that low battery signal 

The RCR cells seem to give a slightly higher light output for a longer initial period and then rapidly gives up. But hell it's still good old "guilt free lumens"


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Aug 16, 2007)

Looking at the runtime graphs it looks like the 120P is optimized for the CR123 if you compare it to the AW RCR123. The AW RCR123 may be the hottest protected LiIon (is it protected?), but the Powerizer 650mAh RCR123 is the hottest RCR123 out there. I know that some people are reluctant to use unprotected RCR123's but they have their place if they are monitored. Not sure about the low drop off of the NovaTac to protect unprotected LiIon's. If I had a NovaTac I would be experimenting, carefully, with the Powerizer 3.7-4.2 volt RCR123.

The NovaTac is very efficant with the 85 lumen setting and is surely the best way to go with a Primary CR123, or RCR123.

Bill


----------



## THE_dAY (Aug 16, 2007)

eltel999, thanks a bunch for the great runtime graphs!


----------



## LA OZ (Aug 16, 2007)

Finally some did a runtime for the 120 and thank you for your effort. The 120 ran for the same amount of time at 85 Lumen as the 85 version at Max. Rechargeable cells is doing very well on this torch with higher lumen output. Non rechargeable ran longer as it step down in lumen, as expected since it has greater capacity. Rechargeable lumen dropped off rapidly and you may be caught out so always bring an extra one with you.

I have noticed different behaviour with the Soshine 3V rechargeable. Always do a battery recognision when you changed to a different Voltage cells. I got only 20min runtime on max with the 85P when I reseted the torch with the 4.1V RCR123 (Soshine is about 3.8V), its dropped down to the next level and ran for another 40min. Once I reset the torch with the Soshine, it ran for 45min Max but dropped off rapidly.


----------



## aceo07 (Aug 16, 2007)

eltel999, thanks for the graphs.

If you have a HDS, could you plot a runtime graph of it? I'm wondering if your setup will detect it as fluctuating too or it's just the Novatac that does it.

I am a bit disappointed that the Novatac graph isn't flat. The 120lumen runtime is understandable, but the 85lumen should be a bit flatter..


----------



## LA OZ (Aug 16, 2007)

The fluctuation could be the result of the multimeter.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Aug 16, 2007)

I think those are plotting marks on the graph that make it not look flat. I do runtimes and they are not completely flat looking, but believe me that 120 running at 85 looks super flat to me. Get a light meter and try it out. I usually use bounce with a lightmeter, but a lightbox is better.

Bill


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 17, 2007)

AWESOME WORK, Terry! It seems that Novatac has once again under-rated their lights. 85 Lumens for almost an hour - that's *INSANE! But *Novatac claimed that it can only do 30mins, HAHA, they are such good 'liars!' :thumbsup:


----------



## Supernam (Aug 17, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> Not strictly true, if you look at the area under each plot the primary cell does have a greater capacity but it's output is distributed over a longer time span.
> 
> 219 minutes from starting at max, the primary cell is still running next to me. Where's that low battery signal
> 
> The RCR cells seem to give a slightly higher light output for a longer initial period and then rapidly gives up. But hell it's still good old "guilt free lumens"



Thanks for pointing that out. Since I have the 120T and utilize the max mode most often, my situation would be best catered to by RCR's. Also, most of us here are good enough with keeping cells topped off, so we would greatly benefit from using RCR's. Primaries would be nice to have for camping trips where lower output and longer runtimes are more beneficial.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 17, 2007)

Supernam said:


> Also, most of us here are good enough with keeping cells topped off, so we would greatly benefit from using RCR's. Primaries would be nice to have for camping trips where lower output and longer runtimes are more beneficial.


 I just bought a stash of Primaries (about 30 Surefire 123's AND 40 Duracell Ultras) for my Novatac 120T. hehe, guess it will last me for quite some time. I like the higher output of the primaries over the rechargeable (well initially at least) but the primaries have a *LONGER total *runtime over the course of useable brightness from the LED. That's what I want. :twothumbs

eltel999, may I ask what brand of CR123's you used? I know from "chevofreaks CR123 SHOOTOUT" tests of CR123's there's a wide discrepancy of the performance between different brands. Duracells tend to perform the best followed by Surefires, according to the reports.


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 17, 2007)

Thanks for all the replies...

Bullzeyebill, my bad I should have pointed out the sample rate which is 1 minute. I removed the plot points from the graphs because there were too many and made it look a mess.

LA OZ, I pretty sure it's not fluctuations in the lightmeter. I'm using a lightbox and i've put a heatsinked Seoul P4 inside, driven by a good quality bench power supply and the readings were nearly flat.

aceo07, as I type I'm doing a quick runtime on my HDS U60, looking very flat!

xiaowenzu, I used Energizer Lithium Photo CR123s from Lighthound. IMO they came out "average" in Silverfox's shootout.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/67078

Cheers,

Terry


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 17, 2007)

Just to check my setup I've done a quick test (first few levels only) on my HDS U60GT.

The flashlight was kept cool same as with the NovaTac.

I've used the same Y-scale as the Novatac RCR123 plot and the same MP700mAh cell








Hmm??? Anyone read Henry's reply to "wth" about regulation

Post #150
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=166422&page=5

Terry


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 17, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> xiaowenzu, I used Energizer Lithium Photo CR123s from Lighthound. IMO they came out "average" in Silverfox's shootout.
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/67078
> 
> Cheers,
> ...


Thanks Terry, from Silverfox's shootout it appears the Duracells performed better than the Energizers, which is what I'd expected. I've always found Duracells to be one of the best, and I'm glad I purchased them. I also believe they'd do even better inside the Novatacs than Energizers.


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 17, 2007)

Another plot and this one is interesting! Either my NovaTac is faulty or there is a problem I'm missing?

This plot is my NovaTac 120P starting at the 60 lumens setting with a RCR123 cell.

Notes:
A battery reset was performed.
The flashlight remained fairly cool to touch throughout.
I've repeated the test with another MP RCR123 cell and got the same results.






The light output kept on increasing, so after 43 minutes I thought I'd check something. I forced a level change (click-click-press-hold), but because the light output had increased so much there was a slight drop in light output for the next level and then an increase to the maximum level.

I then forced two downward level changes back to the 60 lumen setting and carried on the test. From this point onwards it stayed much more constant.

As I mentioned I repeated the test and got the same results. I've tried a third time and left it running. At the moment, 60 minutes in, the light meter reading has peaked at 210 (starting from 95)

Anyone know what is going on, am I missing something obvious???

Regards,

Terry

P.S.
I'm working over the weekend but have one more test planned for monday; that is a plot of my Seoul Modded HDS B60. I'm interested to see it's regulation running at Max.

Oh and my NovaTac is coming to work too


----------



## half-watt (Aug 17, 2007)

interesting plot.

certainly don't know what's going on, but that won't stop me from venturing a *GUESS*

right now, w/o any real knowledge of the innards of the 120P, i'm leaning towards a design issue and not a defect in your particular light. however, it wouldn't take much to sway me back the other way toward defect (like others don't have this issue - that's definitely "swayable" evidence, or a Post from NovaTac 'splainin' what's goin' on).

some regulator circuits don't always operate quite the same over a range of input voltages and their efficiency changes, but this change seems to be too great to be an efficiency issue, or a regulated vs. direct drive issue. if it is a reg. vs. d-d issue, then i'd guess that the ckt isn't designed well. 

efficiency and Vout (or Iout) can increase or decrease depending upon Vin even though its trying to hold Vout or Iout constant, depending upon the regulator design. 

i'd love to see a plot of Vin (from the battery) added to your plot. that might be very instructive.

however, the plot shows a 100% increase. i don't think this amount of increase can be accounted for purely from a h/w standpoint.

so, i think some firmware involvement (a bug???) is going on here (again, just a guess) and perhaps??? coupled with the h/w design produces the effect you're seeing. i don't really know if the 120P uses any firmware programming to control the regulator circuitry though.

as i said, i really don't know anything at all about how the 120P operates either fr/a h/w or a s/w standpoint. so, this is really a very big guess on my part.

too bad the output climbs so much, i would have expected a better burntime at the 60lumen output level given the 85lumen output burntime previously plotted. an extra 10min (~10%) for a ~30% reduction in light output (85lumen to 60lumen) doesn't correlate well to what should have been the burntime had the light output not increased and even doubled during your test run. in a perfect world, i would have expected nearly a 50% increase in burn time for the nearly 1/3 reduction in light output (ignoring any change in efficiency in the electronics involved).

it still really like the 120P though. use it almost everyday since i received it.

many thanks for posting the results of your testing.


----------



## xiaowenzu (Aug 17, 2007)

Thanks again for the runtime graphs, Terry. It appears the Novatac has surpassed our expectations here, acheiving a runtime of 35min+ on Max, when Novatac claimed only 30Mins. I think it's best to get the 120 version as you can program it to run at lower lumens in order to conserve battery - it's not like you need 120 lumens to search for keys under the table! :laughing:


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 18, 2007)

half-watt said:


> interesting plot.
> 
> certainly don't know what's going on, but that won't stop me from venturing a *GUESS*
> 
> right now, w/o any real knowledge of the innards of the 120P, i'm leaning towards a design issue and not a defect in your particular light. however, it wouldn't take much to sway me back the other way toward defect (like others don't have this issue - that's definitely "swayable" evidence, or a Post from NovaTac 'splainin' what's goin' on).


 
Half-Watt,

Thanks for your comments, and I'm hoping for some "swayable" evidence too.

Hopefully Chevrofreak or someone else more experienced than me will do some runtimes.

It should be fairly easy for somone to test even without a light meter. Using an RCR123 Cell, set the light to 60 lumens level. After about 45minutes constant use, force an upward level change (click-click-press-hold).

Does the light level drop/stay the same instead of increasing one visible spacing? Mine visibly dropped for the 85 level then increased to the 120 level.

I still like the 120P too, I hope it's just my light. I don't like the idea of setting my light to 60 lumens to conserve power only for the light output to increase to over 100 lumens, eating up the battery.

Cheers,

Terry


----------



## RickyT (Aug 18, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> It should be fairly easy for somone to test even without a light meter. Using an RCR123 Cell, set the light to 60 lumens level. After about 45minutes constant use, force an upward level change (click-click-press-hold).
> 
> Does the light level drop/stay the same instead of increasing one visible spacing? Mine visibly dropped for the 85 level then increased to the 120 level.
> 
> ...



I just tried this using an mp rcr123a in the 120p. I set max setting at the 60 level, two steps down from the double blink. I ran it for 45 minutes and did the click-click-press hold to change levels. It went up one level, then another to the double blink max.

Mine doesn't seem to change output. I will try it again later.


----------



## Xygen (Aug 18, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> It should be fairly easy for somone to test even without a light meter. Using an RCR123 Cell, set the light to 60 lumens level. After about 45minutes constant use, force an upward level change (click-click-press-hold).


:thinking: click-click-press will bring you to the "brightness-menu"! You mean click-press to go to max, don't you?


----------



## yaesumofo (Aug 18, 2007)

I have found that NEW emitters seem to become brighter when first used. These testes need to be done once the light has been used for a few weeks do they settle to their powercurve levels. May I also suggest that all runtiime plots be run 3 or more times and have the data combined into an average. Data becomes more accurate when repeated. If using primaries let the sysems run for 2 or 3 minutes before starting the test. this may also eliminate the up serge in output at first. Please be consistant and average your results. The picture will become much clearer this way. IMHO.
Yaesumofo


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 19, 2007)

Xygen said:


> :thinking: click-click-press will bring you to the "brightness-menu"! You mean click-press to go to max, don't you?


 
click-click-press-hold will take you from 60 lumens to 85, and then onto 120lumens. I was trying to see if the light output when running at 60 lumens for some time had increased above or to a similar level as the next step-up i.e 85 lumens.

Regards,

Terry


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 19, 2007)

yaesumofo said:


> I have found that NEW emitters seem to become brighter when first used. These testes need to be done once the light has been used for a few weeks do they settle to their powercurve levels. May I also suggest that all runtiime plots be run 3 or more times and have the data combined into an average. Data becomes more accurate when repeated. If using primaries let the sysems run for 2 or 3 minutes before starting the test. this may also eliminate the up serge in output at first. Please be consistant and average your results. The picture will become much clearer this way. IMHO.
> Yaesumofo


 
I appreciate what you’re saying about repeated runs, but I did make a statement in the first post:


Quote "BTW: Don't take my runtime graphs too seriously, they are the first I've done and are only single runs. Hopefully someone like Chevrofreak will do some proper testing..."


I don't have a data logger for my light-meter and I'm taking the readings manually every minute. I was just trying to get a feel for how the light was performing and how flat the regulation was.

IMO running the test for 2-3 minutes before starting the test could also make the results misleading. I think it's quite interesting to see what happens in the first few minutes. The HDS test was done in exactly the same way and it doesn't exhibit the same "up surge"

The test starting from 60 lumens was completed three times, with two different cells and all gave with very similar results. IMO A slight drop in Vf from "bedding in the LED" wouldn't stop the light starting at 60 lumens and increasing to approx 100 lumens.

This is a little off-topic, but if the NovaTac uses a constant power regulator, as I understand it, any changes in the Vf of the emitter over time shouldn’t effect the light output. The driver should decrease the amount of current supply thereby keeping the power constant.

IMO Ideally the runtimes should but performed 4-5 times with 4-5 different cells and 4-5 individual lights and the results all averaged out and the deviations also shown on the plots. (My wife would flip if I set that up in our living room ) Averaging (arithmetic mean) a data set DOESN'T make it more accurate, it just shows a central tendency.

I’m fairly new here and you know the score better than me, if you think the plots are misleading even with the notes then I’m happy to remove them and just use them for my own reference.

Regards,

Terry


----------



## Xygen (Aug 19, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> click-click-press-hold will take you from 60 lumens to 85, and then onto 120lumens. I was trying to see if the light output when running at 60 lumens for some time had increased above or to a similar level as the next step-up i.e 85 lumens.


Understood.
Regarding removing the plots: No! You did a good job. Don't remove the plots, please!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Aug 19, 2007)

Keep the runtime plots in. yaesumofo was passing on some information in a helpful manner. 

You did good with your runtime tests.

Bill


----------



## half-watt (Aug 19, 2007)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Keep the runtime plots in. yaesumofo was passing on some information in a helpful manner.
> 
> You did good with your runtime tests.
> 
> Bill



+1 on both statements, i.e. 

+1 yaesumofo's comments - he seems like a decent guy and helpful from his other posts that i read and not one who tends to be unduly critical of another, IMO,...

as well as +1 on your fine plots - i've already saved them to my HD for offline reference - thank you very much for your fine work. it is appreciated.


----------



## eltel999 (Aug 19, 2007)

Half-Watt, Bullzeyebill and Xygen, thanks for your positive replies.

My offer to remove the posts was out of genuine concern that the plots were perhaps inconsistent and misleading. Yaesumofo has over 2000 posts and I too enjoy his post and comments, so his advice to be more consistent just made me concerned.

So, I'll keep trying and make my notes a little clearer and appear with each post.

This runtime plot is my Novatac 120P compared against my HDS Basic 60 which I modded myself with a Seoul USW0H from PhotonFanatic.

_Notes to consider:_
This is a runtime plot with a single run only
1 minute sample intervals
Same MP 700mAh RCR123 Cell used each time
Test shows the first 60mins only, not a complete "run till flat"
These result may well vary with other NovaTacs / HDS lights






Beamshots of these two lights can be seen here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/171394

Post #11

Regards,

Terry


----------



## BBL (Aug 20, 2007)

I was expecting this nice flat HDS-regulation from my novatac. I wonder how they screwed it up that it looks like that.


----------



## half-watt (Aug 20, 2007)

eltel999 said:


> This runtime plot is my Novatac 120P compared against my HDS Basic 60 which I modded myself with a Seoul USW0H from PhotonFanatic.
> 
> Beamshots of these two lights can be seen here:
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/171394




many thanks for more of your hard work.

i don't find the ~10% increase in light output on the Novatac too disconcerting. i'd prefer flatter, but it's not too bad. that other plot with a near 100% increase though - something is probably designed incorrectly, IMO. 

the beamshots are very telling. i really like outdoor shots more than white wall. IMO, there should be a STANDARD BEAM TARGET designed and used in all outdoor shots so that there is one COMMON REFERENCE in all outdoor shots, as by their very nature, each person's outdoor shots will be somewhat or entirely different. i'm thinking that besides a good sized targeting disk, one or two fold out arms could be added to the target for ease of use (one can only make a disk so big, so that at a standard distance of let's say 50' or so (doesn't mean one couldn't do other outdoor beamshots at greater distances, but a standard outdoor beamshot ought to be done), the "arms" would provide other info about spillbeam. probably should also make the disk fold up too for ease of transport.

just a thought. hey, i would imagine, some entrepreneur here could even sell some AFTER a standard is decided upon.

perhaps another Thread should be started by interested parties to come up with a CPF-Outdoor-Beamshot Standard (CPFOBS)? i've never owned a camera, so i'm not much help here.


----------



## aceo07 (Aug 20, 2007)

Thanks for the additional HDS comparison graph.


----------

