# Incan versus LED...



## bdws1975 (Jul 5, 2008)

Hi all,

I'm really just learning about the wonderful world of flashlights. Could someone point me to a place or express why they prefer incandescents to LED's, or if most folks are one or the other?

thank you,
brett


----------



## Flashlight Aficionado (Jul 5, 2008)

LEDs will win in the end. :nana: Had to say that in the incan forum. 

Incans AT THE MOMENT have better color rendition. i.e. red looks red under sunlight and incan. Same for the other colors. With LED, it is not perfected yet. But at least the technology is there.

Brightness. Single bulb versus single LED, the LED generally wins, new in box. Except for hotwires where incan blows LEDs away.


----------



## Gunner12 (Jul 5, 2008)

I prefer Incans for the better color and LEDs for the longer runtime.

For the smaller sized lights, good LED lights usually beat incan lights of the same size.

But for those who don't nee that much runtime, Incans provide superior color rendering.


----------



## bdws1975 (Jul 5, 2008)

That's pretty much what I thought. I really appreciate a good long runtime, but can also see the lighting part.

thanks for the responses.

brett


Gunner12 said:


> I prefer Incans for the better color and LEDs for the longer runtime.
> 
> For the smaller sized lights, good LED lights usually beat incan lights of the same size.
> 
> But for those who don't nee that much runtime, Incans provide superior color rendering.


----------



## Yoda4561 (Jul 5, 2008)

Actually the big thing with incans isn't so much that the render color more accurately, it's that they artificially enhance contrast and we're very accustomed to it. Even if we make an LED with perfect sunlight spectrum output the incan color spectrum will still have better contrast outdoors. That aside LED's have them beat in almost every other area, and the contrast advantage of incandecents can eventually be overcome with the right phosphor/emitter.


----------



## carrot (Jul 5, 2008)

http://cpf.carrot.googlepages.com/flashlight_guide#incandescent


----------



## adamlau (Jul 5, 2008)

Big power out over a distance is why I reach for incandescent lights.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 5, 2008)

I have a tough time starting my campfire with my LED-powered lights!



Karl


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 5, 2008)

Not too many LED Jockeys have come out for this party.....maybe they are learning.

In a nutshell, LED's have narrow & mostly an unnatural color spectrums, flood type beams (except when used with an aspheric lens), best for indoors, generally longer run times and more efficient use of battery source.

The LED design on a flat heatsink does not have the ability to project like a light bulb into the focal length of a quality reflector...so they don't have the ability to focus or throw like incands. There are many incan hotwire setups that are insanely brighter than any LED, and what you are seeing to try an compensate for this LED "short ball hitter" is modders adding multiple LED's into the same head. Of course doing this results in a huge heat and energy sucking sound from the batteries.

Both types (as well as HIDs & Lasers) all have their uses and benefits. In large part, it matters how you intend to use your light(s). There is not one type that fits all circumstances. 75% of my custom incans are too bright to use indoors. 85% of my LED's are too weak/floody/unnatural to use outdoors. 100% of my HIDs are only practical outside. Lasers aren't practical anywhere for the hobbyist.


----------



## mdocod (Jul 5, 2008)

The topic has been discussed at length in probably at least 100 or more additional threads. The incan/LED debate very closely mimics that of a left-wing-right-wing political debate. Both sides have staggeringly massive and compelling arguments for their case, both sides have their moments of truth and moments of bias and moments of innocent ignorance. 

In the end, you just have to use some lights and see what works best for your application because no single LED or single incan light is suitable for all applications.

BUY BOTH!!!


----------



## KeyGrip (Jul 5, 2008)

mdocod said:


> BUY BOTH!!!



Exactly. The right light for the right situation regardless of technology. Do you homework and you'll be fine.


----------



## Gunner12 (Jul 5, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> In a nutshell, LED's have narrow & mostly an unnatural color spectrums,



LEDs actually have a pretty full spectrum, look at LEDmuseum's charts. They lack output in the lower spectrum and the higher spectrum and that is probably why they don't look so natural but they do output light in those spectrums.



LuxLuthor said:


> ... flood type beams ...



Have you seen the Dereelight DBS, Tiablo A9s and similar lights? They have a pretty narrow beam and can throw pretty far for a single LED light. LED lights don't necessarly need a lens to throw far. Of course, the contrast isn't as good as an incan.

LEDs also have a smaller lumen per emitting space ratio(I forgot the tecnical term) so that should give the throw advantage to the Incans.



LuxLuthor said:


> ...There are many incan hotwire setups that are insanely brighter than any LED...



Agreed, but most single die LEDs can't run safely above 4-5 watts in contrast to the over driven 10-200+ watt incans. There are multi die LEDs that can hit 1000 lumen, but of course, better contrast from the incans and heat won't be much a problem for the incan bulbs themselves.



LuxLuthor said:


> ...Of course doing this results in a huge heat and energy sucking sound from the batteries...



Less heat and more output(lumen wise) then an incan of the same wattage, but of course, LEDs don't like heat while incas need it to run. Different ways of producing light. Don't similar lumen incans take in more energy the LEDs? But for larger lights, I'd also much rather grab a powerful incan then a LED, with HID above all of these.



LuxLuthor said:


> Both types (as well as HIDs & Lasers) all have their uses and benefits. In large part, it matters how you intend to use your light(s). There is not one type that fits all circumstances. 75% of my custom incans are too bright to use indoors. 85% of my LED's are too weak/floody/unnatural to use outdoors. 100% of my HIDs are only practical outside. Lasers aren't practical anywhere for the hobbyist.



Agreed, use what suits you best, weather this be incan, LED, HID, fire, or glow.

I better leave now before all the incan people burn me to death with your lights.

Don't take me as in incan hater(sorry if I came across as someone like that). I'm also thinking about a 100+ watt hotwire, but I'll have to wait till I get a job, a credit card, and a paypal.


----------



## CLHC (Jul 5, 2008)

mdocod said:


> BUY BOTH!!!


Maybe I'm stretching it a little, but buy three (3) of a kind!

Incandescent(s)
LED(s)
HID(s)

:wave:


----------



## LukeA (Jul 5, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Not too many LED Jockeys have come out for this party.....maybe they are learning.
> 
> ...very biased statements...



Maybe because this is posted in the incandescent forum, the one that virtually no one looks at anymore?


----------



## adamlau (Jul 5, 2008)

Touché? Not quite. I knew the jockeys would be showing up sooner rather than later  .


----------



## BMF (Jul 5, 2008)

CLHC said:


> Maybe I'm stretching it a little, but buy three (3) of a kind!
> 
> Incandescent(s)
> LED(s)
> ...


 

Well, a true flashaholic needs to buy 4:

Incandescent(s)
LED(s)
HID(s)
Laser(s)

Did I miss anything light related?


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 5, 2008)

I think this debate will be changed dramatically with the introduction of the quad-die Cree MC-E in neutral and warm white bins, which will be able to match ROP-Hi bulbs (the "mildest" of the hotwires) for overall output, and very closely approximate the spectrum of an incan at the same time if that is desired. 

My experience with 5A q3 bin Crees is also quite good -- the neutral white LEDs look a bit ugly (brownish) on a white wall, but are fantastic in real use, Color temp on these is 4300k, roughly in between typical 6500k LEDs, and 3500K hotwires. To my eyes the render outdoor scenes similar to how they appear under daylight (note, incans actually enhance contrast but are less color-accurate, simialr to wearing blue-blocking glasses).

The traditional "incan vs LED" has generally only considered the "cool white" variety of LEDs, which has much poorer color rendering properties than either the neutral or warm. This poorer color quality is not outweighed by an extra 15% lumens in my opinion.

Here's a quick thought-exercise, the respective advantages of a Warm-White MC-E vs ROP matchup:

MC-E 

3:1 efficiency advantage at 100% output, bigger advantage at lower output
 Multi-level output (possibly down to a fraction of a lumen) without color shifting
 More flexibility for battery options (eg, 4-parallel off 3 NiMH, 2s2p with 2 LiIon, 4-series off a high-voltage pack)
ROP
 Option to preserve cam focusing on Maglite (due to no heatsinking requirements)
 greater throw with similar-sized reflector, especially if artifacts are tolerable (eg, SMO reflector)
 Marginally better performance for differentiating close shades of red (no longer a staggering difference as with cool LEDs)
 Much easier to build -- just drop-in a few parts


----------



## CLHC (Jul 5, 2008)

BMF said:


> Well, a true flashaholic needs to buy 4:
> 
> Incandescent(s)
> LED(s)
> ...


Fire! Like from a match or lighter! :laughing:


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 5, 2008)

CLHC said:


> Fire! Like from a match or lighter! :laughing:


I have to admit though, it's much more fun to light campfires with a Mag4C 64611 (overdriven 50W incan). Of course, the flashlight is a lot more likely to start an _unwanted_ fire too, as third-parties tend to treat hotwires with significantly less respect than they would a lighter or match.

For example, there was a recent incident where a guest picked up a Philips 5761 (~40W) I had around, then set it bezel-down on a table (still on) and forgot about it. Luckily I saw the red glowing enamel on the table quickly! 


I am now in the process of installing multiple failsafes in a couple of my hotwires. Switching will be accomplished using n-channel mosfets (the stock switch will only activate the gate), with an additional thermal switch that will turn OFF the light if the head temp gets too high. I may even throw in a magnetic reed switch as well, which reuires a magnet to work.


----------



## CLHC (Jul 5, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> I have to admit though, it's much more fun to light campfires with a Mag4C 64611 (overdriven 50W incan). Of course, the flashlight is a lot more likely to start an _unwanted_ fire too, as third-parties tend to treat hotwires with significantly less respect than they would a light or match.
> 
> For example, there was a recent incident where a guest picked up a Philips 5761 (~40W) I had around, then set it bezel-down on a table (still on) and forgot about it. Luckily I saw the red glowing enamel on the table quickly!
> 
> ...


Yup! I remember the USL and seeing what it can do!


----------



## Aluminous (Jul 6, 2008)

BMF said:


> Well, a true flashaholic needs to buy 4:
> 
> Incandescent(s)
> LED(s)
> ...



Fluorescent?
Glow-in-the-dark/tritium?


----------



## TDKKP (Jul 6, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *BMF*
> 
> 
> _Well, a true flashaholic needs to buy 4:_
> ...


 


> Fire! Like from a match or lighter! :laughing:


 


Aluminous said:


> Fluorescent?
> Glow-in-the-dark/tritium?


 

There are 3 Free lights last forever: sunlight, moonlight and starlight.

And the most expensive disposable light that doesn't last long: BUDLIGHT.


----------



## Icebreak (Jul 6, 2008)

Carbon Arc lights are fairly bright incandescents and have a little more throw than my LED lights.

By contrast, this post...


LukeA said:


> Maybe because this is posted in the incandescent forum, the one that virtually no one looks at anymore?


...is not very bright and throws with all the might of a school girl tossing a muffin.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 6, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> Carbon Arc lights are fairly bright incandescents and have a little more throw than my LED lights.


I'd classify carbon arc as incandescent/HID hybrid. The arc certainly falls into the "discharge" category. The glowing carbon contacts on the other hand are incandescent. Either way though, you have a carbon arc in a flashlight!? I don'y think I've ever seen anything like that. Do you have any beamshots?


----------



## Icebreak (Jul 6, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> I'd classify carbon arc as incandescent/HID hybrid. The arc certainly falls into the "discharge" category. The glowing carbon contacts on the other hand are incandescent.



Thanks for the technical clarification. Also, My ears perk up every time I see you mention the quad-die Cree MC-E. It's one of the things that keeps me interested in CPF.



2xTrinity said:


> Either way though, you have a carbon arc in a flashlight!? I don'y think I've ever seen anything like that. Do you have any beamshots?



No, I don't have one but I want one just so I can have an avatar that can compete with yours.

I was just about to send FiveMega some specifications for a Carbon Arc Bike Light to see if he's interested in doing a run. My idea is for the power source to be a generator attached to the rear wheel. A tiny custom low gear will need to be installed. Now, the bike won't be just real fast but you'll be able to see where you are going. It should be a good workout too. huff puff huff puff. Maybe a miniature turbo jet engine would be a better way to go. Mmmm...still have a few bugs to work out. I'll let you know how it works out.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 6, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> Carbon Arc lights are fairly bright incandescents and have a little more throw than my LED lights.
> 
> By contrast, this post...
> 
> ...



Priceless, and apropos!



Gunner12 said:


> LEDs actually have a pretty full spectrum, look at LEDmuseum's charts. They lack output in the lower spectrum and the higher spectrum and that is probably why they don't look so natural but they do output light in those spectrums..



I have not looked at his charts recently, and am more directing my not liking the LED's I have for outside use vs. incans in terms of natural color rendition.



Gunner12 said:


> Have you seen the Dereelight DBS, Tiablo A9s and similar lights? They have a pretty narrow beam and can throw pretty far for a single LED light. LED lights don't necessarly need a lens to throw far. Of course, the contrast isn't as good as an incan..



Again, I am not an LED Jockey. I am an Incan Jockey! As such, I really don't have the interest to look into many of the nuances yet. I know enough to realize what I am looking for is not yet available. Once you get into multi emitter setups, heat and efficiency becomes a problem. I know nothing about those specific models you mentioned though.



Gunner12 said:


> LEDs also have a smaller lumen per emitting space ratio(I forgot the tecnical term) so that should give the throw advantage to the Incans..



Yes I know they are more efficient, but I buy a light to have it show me what I need...not because I am interested in its energy efficiency...the throw is also because the LED is a blob on a flat plane and cannot be inserted into the focal length of a reflector, so it just floods out. Someone needs to invent an LED on a stalk than can be put into a reflector for throw.



Gunner12 said:


> Agreed, but most single die LEDs can't run safely above 4-5 watts in contrast to the over driven 10-200+ watt incans. There are multi die LEDs that can hit 1000 lumen, but of course, better contrast from the incans and heat won't be much a problem for the incan bulbs themselves..



People are overhyping the multi die LED's hitting 1,000 lumens....the heat becomes a major problem, still have appearance, color, and focus of those lumens that don't deliver what an incand can do easily.


----------



## IMSabbel (Jul 6, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> Carbon Arc lights are fairly bright incandescents and have a little more throw than my LED lights.
> 
> By contrast, this post...
> 
> ...is not very bright and throws with all the might of a school girl tossing a muffin.



Carbon Arcs arent incans and his post certainly is a lot brighter than your piece of wasted digital forum space. Just compare posting and view rates between the two sub-forums.


----------



## mdocod (Jul 6, 2008)

play nice. don't force a thread closed on account of feeling the need to spew a few quick witted insults.


----------



## signal 13 (Jul 6, 2008)

From my experience in police work, LED just doesn't cut through the darkness (especially at distance) the way that incandescent lights do. 

And whenever i'm in a semi-lit area, the LED just doesn't light up targets. That's why I just went back to using an incan for my main light. I'll keep a SF LED light on my belt for a backup.


----------



## RichS (Jul 6, 2008)

If the situation allows, I would always choose an incandescent over LED outdoors. It may have some to do with color rendition/separation, depth perception, cutting through fog/rain, etc., but I essentially can just "see" much better with an incandescent outdoors. Even friends of mine who aren't "flashaholics" like me instantly see the benefit of a good incandescent over even my best LED outdoors.

These threads come up all the time, and a previous post of mine illustrates what I mean when I say I see better with incans outdoors. There are a couple of pics that demonstrate this here: 

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2359656&postcount=21

LEDs definitely have the compact size, efficiency and runtime, and many times I don't have the luxury of incandescent lighting, in which case a good LED does just fine. Trust me, I have several to choose from. But my preference is incandescent which is still the best illumination if runtime/size is not the deciding factor.

Now as for indoors, a good floody LED works great. My current favorites are Malkoff M60F, and Novatac all day long....


----------



## Icebreak (Jul 6, 2008)

IMSabbel -

In a carbon arc lamp the electrodes are carbon rods in free air. To ignite the lamp the rods are touched together allowing a relatively low voltage to strike the arc. The rods are then slowly drawn apart and electric current heats and maintains an arc across the gap. With the ends of the rods spaced at the right distance, the electrical current flowing through the arc of vaporizing carbon creates an intense white light. The tips of the carbon rods are heated to incandescence, also creating light. The carbon arc itself is bright, but the tips of the carbon rods are brighter.

In most arc lamps the light results mostly from the luminescence of the gas (plasma); however, in the carbon arc lamp the light is produced more so by the incandescence of one or both electrodes. It is the positive electrode that is in the focal point of the reflector because it is the brighter of the two. The core of the positive carbon electrode can be filled with the rare earths, cerium and lanthanum, which burn off as a bright, incandescent gas.

I think 2xTrinity’s description of the carbon arc lamp as being a hybrid is accurate. I would add that incandescence is a major player in the production of light from a carbon arc.


----------



## SafetyBob (Jul 7, 2008)

Brett, the most important thing is you need to have a couple of LED lights to use during extended power outages and a couple of incan lights to impress the unsuspecting, start a campfire, or search for missing animals or children. 

I have made many LED lights and give many of them away to family and friends because they are so much better than what they can get at the store. I reserve the incans for me (except for the POB that the wife is allowed to use) because except for the ROP, they deserve consideration to prevent "poof". 

Bob E.


----------



## Wattnot (Jul 7, 2008)

mdocod said:


> The topic has been discussed at length in probably at least 100 or more additional threads. The incan/LED debate very closely mimics that of a left-wing-right-wing political debate. Both sides have staggeringly massive and compelling arguments for their case, both sides have their moments of truth and moments of bias and moments of innocent ignorance.
> 
> In the end, you just have to use some lights and see what works best for your application because no single LED or single incan light is suitable for all applications.
> 
> BUY BOTH!!!


 
This quote should be second and last post in every one of these threads!! Extremely well said!!

But if you want the opinion of someone relatively new, I've come to find I like the LED's in the physically smaller lights and incans in the larger ones. I just got a Tiablo A9 which is designed as an LED long distance thrower but so far I'm not crazy about it. The beam is very narrow and the spill is almost nil. Whatever it lights up in the distance STILL isn't easy to "see."


----------



## RichS (Jul 7, 2008)

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned in these threads is that you *can* have your cake and eat it too when it comes to the best of both worlds in one light. There are several lights that offer high output incandescent with an LED low built into the same light.

I can take my Wolf-Eyes Rattlesnake or Eagle 4 out for a camping trip or long hike and know I won't be left in the dark. I can use the incandescent output for pure illumination when needed, with the knowledge that the 5 LED tailcap will not leave me in the dark as it will run virtually forever on 2x18650s. In the dark, the LED tailcap will give you plenty of light for virtually any close/medium range need. Another option is the SF A2, with beautiful incandescent output as well as the long-run LED option when it is needed - all in a pocketable, very compact light!

So when you can't decide, and made need both but don't want to buy two lights, buy one with both technologies!


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jul 7, 2008)

IMSabbel said:


> Carbon Arcs arent incans and his post certainly is a lot brighter than your piece of wasted digital forum space. Just compare posting and view rates between the two sub-forums.


And lets compare the quality of said posts and ammount of knowleadge shared in both forums. There is no comparison. Wonder why that almost 99% of CPF's "Masters" are all in the Icans or Spotlight forums?


----------



## FredM (Jul 7, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> People are overhyping the multi die LED's hitting 1,000 lumens....the heat becomes a major problem, still have appearance, color, and focus of those lumens that don't deliver what an incand can do easily.



The heat on my ROP HO is also a problem and this is about 25% watts of your top ten incans.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 7, 2008)

FredM said:


> The heat on my ROP HO is also a problem and this is about 25% watts of your top ten incans.


the heat on a ~30W ROP (at least on the light itself) will actually be roughly equal to that of a 12W LED. That's because in the case of the incan, most of the heat still radiates away as invisible infrared radiation only a fraction of that gets absorbed by the reflector and heats up the host. In the case of the LED, ONLY the light produced in the visible spectrum is radiated, ALL the waste heat accumulates inside the light itself. LEDs are also more sensitive to overheating.

In my opinion the biggest advantage of multi-chip LED lights compared to incans is the option to run at reduced output efficiently (incans become yellower and less efficient as dimmed). LEDs can be run at partial output most of the time, and used at 100% output in bursts as necessary. A good light should also actually incorporate a thermal feedback to reduce maximum allowable brightness as the host heats up so it can't possible exceed unsafe limits.

In some of my "bleeding edge" hotwires, I'm actually modifying the switches to use a power transistor to turn the light on and off, instead of a phyical switch. This allows me to isntall a temperature sensitive circuit breaker chip to turn the light OFF if it gets too hot (the concern here isn't damaging the light as much as preventing a fire...)


----------



## Woods Walker (Jul 7, 2008)

Thread to avoid:

1. AK47 vs. AR15
2. Down vs. Synthetic sleeping bags.


I am going to add Incan vs LED to my list.


Just kidding......:nana:


----------



## DM51 (Jul 8, 2008)

IMSabbel: although you have been here for 3 years, you still don’t seem to have learned that rudeness, baiting and trollish remarks are not acceptable. You can now take some time off, and I suggest you utilise some of it to consider your posting style and to make a careful study of Rule #4.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 9, 2008)

I finally took some beamshots I took tonight mainly of the aspheric LED's, but also threw in a couple of incan lights which somehow seems to fit this topic also.

In person, the incan's didn't look quite this yellow, and the LED's didn't look quite that blue....I set the camera AWB to "Daylight" which is what Mr. Ted Bear told me he uses for spotlight shootouts.


----------



## pirinst (Jul 9, 2008)

I work inside truck trailers on swingshift. 
Been doing the job for three years now. Started with small incans-
single AAA and single/double AA styles- pocket pen lights, focusable 
mags. Tried the cheapo led upgrade which wasn't much of an upgrade
light wise but good battery wise.

They (the bulbs) just couldn't take the bumps and drops.
Tried an led lenser- single AA and it worked just fine. Dropped several 
times no problems. Wanted more power, Scotty, and put out the bucks
for the CR123 single battery led lenser- that's been my edc at work for at
least two years running. Fits in the pocket well and has enough power
for inside the trailers. Bought rechargable batts since it runs through
them pretty fast. Ran it through the wash machine one time and 
heard it clanging around in the dryer-no issues...

Most of the guys have switched to LEDs at work. Several of them have
gone with 3 watt big brightness models but that's almost too much light
for close up work and large size doesn't fit well in the pockets. 

Have a three cr123 incan but don't use it for fear of dropping it and 
not having any extra bulbs.


----------



## EV_007 (Jul 13, 2008)

Both have their uses.


----------



## FlashInThePan (Jul 14, 2008)

TDKKP said:


> There are 3 Free lights last forever: sunlight, moonlight and starlight.
> 
> And the most expensive disposable light that doesn't last long: BUDLIGHT.


 
Naw, these ones only have a runtime of a couple billion years. And even worse, they're not regulated like LEDS; the sun keeps getting dimmer, and dimmer, and dimmer....

The good news is that they run on 2x123s, so you can probably replace the batteries when they run out. Someone tried to convince me that the sun runs on nuclear fusion, but I peeked inside, and saw two little red batteries labeled "Surefire."

- FITP


----------



## jcvjcvjcvjcv (Jul 14, 2008)

TDKKP said:


> There are 3 Free lights last forever: sunlight, moonlight and starlight.
> 
> And the most expensive disposable light that doesn't last long: BUDLIGHT.


 
The moon is more like a mirror, not a lightsource itself. 

Just want to share something:

no light:






MagLite 4D LED (@4 Ni-Mh AA):





MagLite 2D with 6D Xenon bulb @ 6 Ni-Mh AA in two KD 3AA > 1D adapters





MagLite 3D with Welch Allyn 1185 30 Watt Halogen bulb, KD SMO reflector, KD glass lens, KD G4 Bi-pin socket with FM 9AA > 3D with 9xNi-Mh





All with not completely full batteries 

P7 parts incoming (no five-day shipping this time from KD), so soon I'll be able to check LED vs Incan myself. As far as the MagLED 4D goes: the beam sucks. It's either a very small hotspot or it's a black hole in the middle :shakehead


----------



## lctorana (Jul 15, 2008)

jcvjcvjcvjcv said:


> The moon is more like a mirror, not a lightsource itself.


 
The moon casts a nice, even flood because of the heavy stippling.






And the sun? It's just a big gas lantern.


----------



## baterija (Jul 15, 2008)

One thing not mentioned in a tactical light, all that "wasted" IR from an incan can be useful for those using night vision. An IR pass filter turns an Incan into a nice active illuminator. 



TDKKP said:


> There are 3 Free lights last forever: sunlight, moonlight and starlight.



Hopefully they have a long warranty because my models are pretty unreliable. I swear the sun fails completely on me daily. It's also not very good in the cold. It runs for shorter periods before failing when it's cold out. Other times during the winter I swear it's weeks where it only runs on low-low in between failing. The moon is a little better but fails on me pretty much every month too and mine is always ramping either up or down. Don't get me started on the stars, any time it gets cloudy they start failing on me.


----------



## jumpstat (Jul 15, 2008)

Both incans and leds have their merits. I have both. I use incans mostly in my area as I live on a hill and on misty nights incans are more useable. Leds comes in small form factor thus very useful for edc'ing. For me most important apart from beam quality is the ability to use rechargeables for 'Guilt Free Lumens'. This will enable me to enjoy using lights and not so bothered with costs of feeding them that much. So best is to experience the benefits of each incans and leds oneself as for me both are useful in their on virtues.


----------



## JJV (Jul 15, 2008)

I like them both. LEDs are great because they are small enough for EDC and they have generally good output. Plus there's the cool factor-several levels in one light. That to me is also their downside-too fiddly sometimes. Incans are simple-twist on, twist off. No worrying about the programming being off.

I really like my LEDs but sometimes I wonder if people prefer them just because of the geek factor, you know? Kind of like the latest and greatest techie-whatever. Sometimes pen and paper are preferable, IMO.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 15, 2008)

JJV said:


> I really like my LEDs but sometimes I wonder if people prefer them just because of the geek factor, you know? Kind of like the latest and greatest techie-whatever. Sometimes pen and paper are preferable, IMO.


LEDs can do lots of things incandescents can't. It's as simple as that. They come in colors. They come in various shades of white. They can be dimmed without changing color. They give as much as ten times the light per watt. Most importantly if designed into a device properly they just don't burn out. That's always been one of my biggest pet peeves with incandescents. LEDs are just better for most things, period. For those few things where they aren't it's only a matter of time. LEDs are really what got me interested in lighting. After years of frustration with incandescents I had pretty much thrown in the towel trying to do things like light my bike, or my scale models. LEDs suddenly made old projects viable again, and spurred me to try new ones.


----------



## JJV (Jul 15, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> LEDs can do lots of things incandescents can't. It's as simple as that. They come in colors. They come in various shades of white. They can be dimmed without changing color. They give as much as ten times the light per watt. Most importantly if designed into a device properly they just don't burn out. That's always been one of my biggest pet peeves with incandescents. LEDs are just better for most things, period. For those few things where they aren't it's only a matter of time. LEDs are really what got me interested in lighting. After years of frustration with incandescents I had pretty much thrown in the towel trying to do things like light my bike, or my scale models. LEDs suddenly made old projects viable again, and spurred me to try new ones.


 
Hey, no reason to get defensive-it's just a thought I had. I agree and admit that I am easily wowed by the geek factor as well. Incans are under fire almost everywhere-they're not even politically correct for home lighting anymore. And for good reason. 

I agree with everything you posted, and I ask one more question then I think I will bow out of this discussion forevermore: have you ever had a problem with an incan UI? Maybe you're exceptionally bright and understanding, and can pick up some of the more complicated LED UIs without a hitch. Maybe I'm just dumb, but the Jetbeam I.B.S. setup gave me a little trouble at first. I never had that problem turning on an incan. True, they do only one thing. But sometimes simplicity is better, I think. 

With that, my last post on this subject, even if you decide to flame me 

Wanna get into a Fenix v. Surefire debate? :devil:

Cheers!
John


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 15, 2008)

JJV said:


> I agree with everything you posted, and I ask one more question then I think I will bow out of this discussion forevermore: have you ever had a problem with an incan UI? Maybe you're exceptionally bright and understanding, and can pick up some of the more complicated LED UIs without a hitch.


Honestly some of the LED UIs are overly complicated. However, that's not a deficiency of LEDs but rather those who design with them. I recently modded a light for a friend and couldn't really find a simple two-level step-up driver board. All of them had 10 or 20 mostly useless modes. Sure, I picked it up after playing around a few minutes, but I'll bet in a few months I won't remember everything. And the programmable UIs, forget it. Thankfully I can't afford those kinds of lights anyway.

Also, no need to bow out of the discussion. I'm not offended at all. I was just pointing out that LEDs are catching on like wildfire for lots of good reasons. I'll admit incandescent is still useful if you need lots of throw for a relatively inexpensive price. HID of course can do the same thing with less power, but at much greater cost. Other than that, I'm hard-pressed to find a whole lot where incandescent is clearly superior in some nonsubjective way to other lighting technologies. Some may say for color but to me LED honestly makes things look more natural. For the same reasons I use full-spectrum flourescent for general lighting. The off-white of incandescent was always one of its weak points to me, so in my mind that makes saying color is one of incandescent's strengths purely subjective. In any room you'll probably find as many people who don't like it as like it.


----------



## woodrow (Jul 15, 2008)

I personally love almost everything about leds over incans.... except for 1 HUGE thing.

I really miss my Surefire Gpz Nitrogen light! Great switch, light weight, great size and feel in my hand.

I could get the led version... but even with the aluminum head, HO led drop ins just produce too much heat. With a bulb, all the heat went out the front. (and many-many batteries went out the back ) But it was still one of my favorite lights ever, and thats one thing incans can to that leds can't... be bright in plastic!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 15, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> LEDs can do lots of things incandescents can't. It's as simple as that. They come in colors. They come in various shades of white. They can be dimmed without changing color. They give as much as ten times the light per watt. Most importantly if designed into a device properly they just don't burn out. That's always been one of my biggest pet peeves with incandescents. LEDs are just better for most things, period. For those few things where they aren't it's only a matter of time. LEDs are really what got me interested in lighting. After years of frustration with incandescents I had pretty much thrown in the towel trying to do things like light my bike, or my scale models. LEDs suddenly made old projects viable again, and spurred me to try new ones.



Yeah, I was just saying last night that it is has been at least 2 days since we had a *real LED Jockey* come into the incan section (once again) to give all of us ignorant Incan Jockeys a lecture about what idiots we are.  :bow::bow:

JTR, just because it's you....:wave:..Let's see, where do I start (again) in bringing sanity to this endless LED Jockey irrationality once again being spewed in the Incan section of the forum. I have no illusions that this post will prevent the same occurrence again in a few days. But what the heck, how about I start at the beginning of your wonderful post, but change a few words to restore some balance:*Incans can do a lot of things that LED's cannot. *​"What" (you ask)? 
"Yes, it's true" I respond. 

Incans are vastly superior to LED's in throw (adding an artificial aspheric lens to certain LED's being the one exception), penetrating fog/smoke/mist, overall lumen output, and being able to use a variety of reflectors to focus the beam--to name a few. The superior incan color rendition is a huge issue that cannot be minimized. oo:

Incans can be dimmed with no loss of color. Have you heard of PWM ? Look up AW's C & D Mag drivers.

You think coming in colors is a serious LED asset/exclusive? You have heard of painting an incan bulb, or putting it behind a colored glass/plastic filter/lens....as in stoplights throughout the world, right?

They (LED's) give up to 10 times the light per watt? What is your evidence and documentation for that, pray tell? Are you aware of the L/W of Osram IRC bulbs? This L/W or "efficiency" argument which even may be true in some (or many) instances is *NEVER *anything I think about when deciding which flashlight to take outside. You do realize there are these things called battery chargers, right? :duh2:

I am sure that 99.999% of flashlight users do *not *look at their flashlights and ask themselves: "_*Now let's see here, which of these flashlights for my night activity is the most efficient producer of lumens per watt?*_" 

Rather they look at which lighting tool will give them the light they need for that job/activity. It may be LED, it may be Incan, it may be HID, it may be an AC powered incan, or a lovely mercury filled CFL mandated replacement, or it may be an actual candle...as in a romantic dinner. Please tell me you don't have fake LED candles for those intimate dining events.

Many flashlight incans have a life of 1,000 to 5,000 hours at default values. Let's say an average person uses a flashlight at most a couple hours per week, that works out to a lifetime. A flashaholic may use a particular light 10-15 hours per week which means it would last a number of years....then you are subjected to the emotional crisis of actually having to unscrew the head and replace the bulb. Shield me Lord, from such a traumatic event. 

Most shades of "White" (which I would call shades of blue-white) LED's are not ideal for rendering accurate colors or detailed contrast outdoors. They give a surreal flood illumination that just does not work well outside. Some modders have tried to balance this glaring abnormality by designing a multi-emitter (if they can heatsink it properly), one of which is usually a reddish color. Why would a modder even think about that if LED's had the perfect colors???

LED's are *not *better for most things, period. Rather, *Incans are better for most things, period*. I would have no problem lighting a bike or model displays with incans. Cars headlights use incans (with some starting to use HIDs--which can be towards the blue spectrum, and quite irritating to oncoming traffic). 

Almost all the lamps used for illuminating photography, television, movie sets, etc. are incans because they are mega bright, and realistic color spectrums.

Anyway, I grow weary.


----------



## santza (Jul 15, 2008)

lctorana said:


> The moon casts a nice, even flood because of the heavy stippling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Someone should make a SMO reflector for sun and direct it to earth. 
Or a big aspheric lens :devil:


----------



## Sgt. LED (Jul 15, 2008)

baterija said:


> Hopefully they have a long warranty because my models are pretty unreliable. I swear the sun fails completely on me daily. It's also not very good in the cold. It runs for shorter periods before failing when it's cold out. Other times during the winter I swear it's weeks where it only runs on low-low in between failing. The moon is a little better but fails on me pretty much every month too and mine is always ramping either up or down. Don't get me started on the stars, any time it gets cloudy they start failing on me.


 
AWESOME! 

I was one of those LED only guys untill recently. See username above! Now I have both and I am happy. I got the 5 mega bi-pin D26 socket recently and it's neat trying out all the different options, quite time consuming! I have a C3 on the way and I think it will stay incan. I also just rigged up my departed grandfathers flashlight with a 2 cell xenon bulb running on 1 18650 in a neat little adaptor. It is a great tribute light that I wouldn't feel right as an led. It has white output but I don't know how long runtime will be yet. All I need now is new glass.

The CPF motto was right all along, buy both!!


----------



## monkeyboy (Jul 15, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Incans can be dimmed with no loss of color. Have you heard of PWM ? Look up AW's C & D Mag drivers.



That's not true, dimming an incan with PWM does change the colour. The filament does not react anywhere near fast enough to dim to zero and reach full brightness in the time taken for one pulse. The effect is the same as reducing the voltage.


----------



## jcvjcvjcvjcv (Jul 15, 2008)

santza said:


> Someone should make a SMO reflector for sun and direct it to earth.
> Or a big aspheric lens :devil:


 
No, one should make a PWM dimmer for the sun, it's getting way too hot down here :naughty:, especially in the middle-east; a lot of people are overheated over there :huh:


----------



## AzN1337c0d3r (Jul 15, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> You think coming in colors is a serious LED asset/exclusive? You have heard of painting an incan bulb, or putting it behind a colored glass/plastic filter/lens....as in stoplights throughout the world, right?



Actually. Yeah. It is a huge asset. I believe it's been widely accepted that >90% of the energy used by an incan is wasted, mostly as heat. Add in a colored filter to absorb the rest of the visual spectrum that you don't want generates astoundingly horrible efficiency of incands for use in traffic signals.

Modern day LEDs with their ability to emit light concentrated on one part of the spectrum do not need said filters and also do not generate much IR radiation (essentially, heat). Also, because traffic lights are located far up off the street, it becomes fairly expensive in terms of man-hours to replace them. LEDs, lasting perhaps 10 to 100 times that incands do, make them a far superior choice to be used as the lighting choice for traffic light signals.

Which is why you probably see that if you live in a upper-scale neighborhood, the new traffic lights being put in are LED-based lighting devices.

I do agree with the rest of your points though.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 15, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Incans are vastly superior to LED's in throw (adding an artificial aspheric lens to certain LED's being the one exception), penetrating fog/smoke/mist, overall lumen output, and being able to use a variety of reflectors to focus the beam--to name a few. The superior incan color rendition is a huge issue that cannot be minimized. oo:


Didn't I say incans _at this point_ have superior throw and output per unit cost compared to LED? No argument here. As for penetrating smoke/fog, it's a myth that yellow light is better. There have already been several threads on that. Incans penetrate better simply by virtue of their focusability and overall output.



> Incans can be dimmed with no loss of color. Have you heard of PWM ? Look up AW's C & D Mag drivers.


PWM reduces the average power to the filament. The filament can't turn on and off instantly due to the thermal mass therefore it runs at a lower average temperature (i.e. it gets yellower).



> You think coming in colors is a serious LED asset/exclusive? You have heard of painting an incan bulb, or putting it behind a colored glass/plastic filter/lens....as in stoplights throughout the world, right?


I know that but the colors of filtered incan aren't as saturated as LED. And if they are it means a narrow-band filter (i.e. overall efficiencies probably under 1 lm/W)



> They (LED's) give up to 10 times the light per watt? What is your evidence and documentation for that, pray tell? Are you aware of the L/W of Osram IRC bulbs? This L/W or "efficiency" argument which even may be true in some (or many) instances is *NEVER *anything I think about when deciding which flashlight to take outside. You do realize there are these things called battery chargers, right? :duh2:


Note the operative words up to. I was going to use up to 20 times but I figured that may rattle some people's cages too much. For colored light an order of magnitude efficiency jump is generally the rule. See here. For white light the difference isn't usually quite as dramatic although it can be at times. I'm aware IRC lamps overdriven can achieve in excess of 40 lm/W (yes, I've read your destructive incandescent testing thread-very interesting). The best production LEDs are not much over a factor of two better than that. However, the grain-of-wheat lamps I used to use to light model trains are typically only 2 or 3 lm/W. Even commodity white LEDs these days are about 20 times more efficient than that. Since yes, for some applications LEDs can be more than an order of magnitude more efficient. For others the efficiency may be practically the same.



> Please tell me you don't have fake LED candles for those intimate dining events.


I hate candlelight with a passion so no, I wouldn't use LED candles at intimate dining events. I wouldn't use regular candles, either. I like to see what I'm eating, and if anything is crawling around near the plate. Moreover, I like to see who I'm with. I'm not big on dining in dimly lit establishments.



> Many flashlight incans have a life of 1,000 to 5,000 hours at default values. Let's say an average person uses a flashlight at most a couple hours per week, that works out to a lifetime. A flashaholic may use a particular light 10-15 hours per week which means it would last a number of years....then you are subjected to the emotional crisis of actually having to unscrew the head and replace the bulb. Shield me Lord, from such a traumatic event.


And such a long life means driving the filament at a lower temperature (i.e. the sickly orange color which I hate). Besides, it does nothing for shock resistance. Did I ever tell you how many bike light bulbs I blew out over potholes. It got to the point where I just gave up, at least until LED came.



> Most shades of "White" (which I would call shades of blue-white) LED's are not ideal for rendering accurate colors or detailed contrast outdoors. They give a surreal flood illumination that just does not work well outside. Some modders have tried to balance this glaring abnormality by designing a multi-emitter (if they can heatsink it properly), one of which is usually a reddish color. Why would a modder even think about that if LED's had the perfect colors???


Ever heard of the Nichia 083? The colors are so accurate even a doctor is using it for throat examinations. I'm well aware of LED's deficiencies in the red area of the spectrum. For my uses and my eyes this isn't a big deal. The current crop of cool white emitters are usually "good enough" even if not perfect. However, I'll welcome and use emitters with better color rendering. Believe me, this issue is being worked on since general lighting is the next big market for LEDs.



> LED's are *not *better for most things, period. Rather, *Incans are better for most things, period*. I would have no problem lighting a bike or model displays with incans. Cars headlights use incans (with some starting to use HIDs--which can be towards the blue spectrum, and quite irritating to oncoming traffic).


Well, I've been there, done that with bike lighting and lighting scale models. After years of frustration I gave up. Fact is incans couldn't do what I needed them to do. They didn't last on my bike. I couldn't see well with the yellow light they gave. I didn't want to carry around a few pounds of batteries for decent runtime and output. For scale models, forget it. The heat warped the plastic sometimes. Bulbs burning out meant disassembling a scale model. And try to get some approximation of fluorescent lighting with incandescents (this is more accurate for many of the trains I model). I tried blue-filtered bulbs. I ended up needing a ridiculous amount of power (I think about half an amp per HO coach). That's 6 watts of heat that needed to be gotten rid of. I'll leave the results of that to your imagination. Now I do the same thing with 4 white LEDs driven at 10 mA with a step-up driver. Only 0.03 amps at 12 volts. I even put in a small rechargeable battery so the coach stays lit for up to an hour when slowed or stopped. With the incan setup I'd be lucky to get 2 minutes battery life. Believe me, I gave incan a good run over the years. If it could have worked it would have. Fact is it didn't. Oh, I forgot to mention cost. Those grain of wheat incans which I hated cost $1, at best $0.50. The LEDs which replace them are about a dime.



> Almost all the lamps used for illuminating photography, television, movie sets, etc. are incans because they are mega bright, and realistic color spectrums.


Some newsrooms have been using full-spectrum fluorescent. Also, what about HID? Those can have great color rendering with a sun-like spectrum. HID is actually what I've seen the few times I've been near outdoor movie sets.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 15, 2008)

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that I thoroughly enjoy participating in threads like this every few months as LED evolves more and more. While I still have to concede some points to the incan lovers I wonder how threads like this will go in a few years time. For example, say in 2011 we have 15 watt, 150 lm/W emitters with very high color rendering ( this is quite likely I think ). At that point how much of an argument in favor of incandescent will be left? At this point the only arguments I see are raw output and color. A 2000+ lumen single LED emitter with CRI in the mid 90s will pretty much quash both those arguments. I imagine at some point it'll be like the people arguing that tube stereos sound better, or perhaps there's a certain charm to glowing filaments in a glass tube. I have no such sentimentality. As much as I like fluorescent at this stage I'll ditch it in a New York minute when LED is better. And same thing if something better than LED comes along. I have no loyalty to any particular technology. I just use what works better in any given application. Almost forgot-incans will always make great heat lamps. Even the best ones emit 90% of their output as heat. That's something LEDs will never touch. I'm not saying this sarcastically. Seriously, heat lamps for therapeutic reasons are one niche function where incans will always reign supreme.


----------



## Black Rose (Jul 15, 2008)

My incan experience has been limited to 2D Garrity lights and minimags/solitaires, so not a lot of experience with "real" incans.

For the most part I really like LEDs and that is what got me back into lights, first dropping in LED upgrades in my minimags and now at the point where I am designing some LED lighting for a particular application where electricity is not available.

Anyway, last night I really discovered the value of incan lighting, if only on a small scale.

A national electronics chain here in Canada is liquidating a lot of their electronic components, so I picked up a lot of multipacks of resistors for 96 cents each.

So last night I was going through the packages and sorting them to put into an organizer box. It was late when I was doing this, so I was using a halogen desk light complimented by a 1W luxeon flashlight. 

When I got to the 47 ohm resistors I had a problem; I couldn't figure out one of the colours. Under the halogen and LED light, it looked like Yellow Brown Black Gold...that's 41 ohms. The package said 47 ohms WTH? I noted it and went to bed.

Remembering what was mentioned earlier in this thread about incan and colour rendition, this afternoon I grabbed my 2xAAA minimag. That Brown turned out to be Voilet...47 ohms afterall. 

Yeah, lots of words for such a small milestone, but that's my 2 cents on the subject


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 16, 2008)

monkeyboy said:


> That's not true, dimming an incan with PWM does change the colour. The filament does not react anywhere near fast enough to dim to zero and reach full brightness in the time taken for one pulse. The effect is the same as reducing the voltage.


That was not my understanding of PWM with specific regards to discerning between color change vs. luminance . I may be wrong about this since the relationships of PWM to: 
Color Spectral Power Distribution,

Luminous Efficacy, Scotopic/Photopic Vision

Degree of tungsten burning in a halogen sealed bulb

Light Brightness, etc.

are not simple topics. For example, I am not exactly sure how the human eye using scotopic vision *perceives *the difference between a tiny, tiny tungsten filament heated to within 50 °C of its boiling point vs. a large filament heated to a lower level--both in a halogen environment, and taking into account the inverse square law. 



AzN1337c0d3r said:


> Actually. Yeah. It is a huge asset. I believe it's been widely accepted that >90% of the energy used by an incan is wasted, mostly as heat. Add in a colored filter to absorb the rest of the visual spectrum that you don't want generates astoundingly horrible efficiency of incands for use in traffic signals.
> 
> Modern day LEDs with their ability to emit light concentrated on one part of the spectrum do not need said filters and also do not generate much IR radiation (essentially, heat). Also, because traffic lights are located far up off the street, it becomes fairly expensive in terms of man-hours to replace them. LEDs, lasting perhaps 10 to 100 times that incands do, make them a far superior choice to be used as the lighting choice for traffic light signals.
> 
> ...



I have never disputed the increased efficiency and longevity of LED's vs. incans and their relatively high IR (heat) output. My points have been about the many other features that distinguish the categories.

When you talk about *REPLACING *existing traffic lights (vs. installing new ones from scratch), you must include the entire cost and labor expense of taking down, disposing, fixed municipal maintenance salaries (wouldn't it be nice if they actually got rid of workers because there were less traffic light bulbs to change--fat chance!), costs of electricity, & costs of installing new colored LED sources vs. replacing a set of incan bulbs every 2-3 years (& that may have been purchased in bulk). 

I'm not sure where the price break with LED's takes over the continued use of existing incans. Surely, figuring out all these costs in an unbiased manner is not as simple as you might think....but yeah, if we could have started with LED traffic lights from their inception, that would probably have made more sense.



jtr1962 said:


> Didn't I say incans _at this point_ have superior throw and output per unit cost compared to LED?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No. You didn't. 



jtr1962 said:


> No argument here.


OK, whew!  Seriously though, between you, me and the handful of people actually taking the time to read this whole post, it is getting increasingly tedious to defend incan vs. LED's, in direct proportion to the rapidity of LED development. I'm beginning to "grasp for straws," but not yet "giving up the ship." :candle:



jtr1962 said:


> As for penetrating smoke/fog, it's a myth that yellow light is better. There have already been several threads on that. Incans penetrate better simply by virtue of their focusability and overall output.


 I didn't say anything about yellow light, although I agree with your unrelated point. I claim the superiority of incans in smoke/fog/mist based upon your next sentence, and to some degree because of enhanced incan color spectrum contrast vis-a-vis the human eye's scotopic/photopic vision sensing.



jtr1962 said:


> PWM reduces the average power to the filament. The filament can't turn on and off instantly due to the thermal mass therefore it runs at a lower average temperature (i.e. it gets yellower).
> 
> I know that but the colors of filtered incan aren't as saturated as LED. And if they are it means a narrow-band filter (i.e. overall efficiencies probably under 1 lm/W)
> 
> ...



See above discussion with monkeyboy & AzN1337c0d3r. I am prepared to concede this point. However, I am *not actually* conceding it yet, but rather have prepared for the possibility of conceding.  I'm holding out primarily on the basis of realistic human perception limitatoins. :laughing:



jtr1962 said:


> Note the operative words up to. I was going to use up to 20 times but I figured that may rattle some people's cages too much. For colored light an order of magnitude efficiency jump is generally the rule. See here. For white light the difference isn't usually quite as dramatic although it can be at times. I'm aware IRC lamps overdriven can achieve in excess of 40 lm/W (yes, I've read your destructive incandescent testing thread-very interesting). The best production LEDs are not much over a factor of two better than that. However, the grain-of-wheat lamps I used to use to light model trains are typically only 2 or 3 lm/W. Even commodity white LEDs these days are about 20 times more efficient than that. Since yes, for some applications LEDs can be more than an order of magnitude more efficient. For others the efficiency may be practically the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually forgot that your reference to LED's & models was related to using the miniature lights in things like train models. I was thinking about this in the context of using LED overhead/ambient/spot lighting to illuminate doing model construction work (like building model airplanes, cars, fishing lures, macrame projects, etc.). 

With this reminder, I fully agree with regards to the superiority of low voltage, small LED display diodes that are used in a myriad of electronic devices and small hobby models, etc.. 

I was talking about white lights (vs. colored lights efficiency), flashlights, and practical illumination devices....so I think this topic is "kosher" between us. :grouphug:



jtr1962 said:


> I hate candlelight with a passion so no, I wouldn't use LED candles at intimate dining events. I wouldn't use regular candles, either. I like to see what I'm eating, and if anything is crawling around near the plate. Moreover, I like to see who I'm with. I'm not big on dining in dimly lit establishments.
> 
> 
> LuxLuthor said:
> ...



All I can say here is "chick magnet," the importance of which cannot be underestimated in my reality. 



jtr1962 said:


> And such a long life means driving the filament at a lower temperature (i.e. the sickly orange color which I hate). Besides, it does nothing for shock resistance. Did I ever tell you how many bike light bulbs I blew out over potholes. It got to the point where I just gave up, at least until LED came.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think both of us are guilty of pushing the extremes to make some cheap points. Quoting bulb life ranges of 1,000 to 5,000 hrs only serve to give me references for degree of overdrive.  

Default voltages with longer life ratings do not get into a "sickly orange" category, or noone would have ever used them. 

I never lost an incan bike light from trauma, but then I used them to avoid the potholes. :devil:



jtr1962 said:


> Ever heard of the Nichia 083? The colors are so accurate even a doctor is using it for throat examinations. I'm well aware of LED's deficiencies in the red area of the spectrum. For my uses and my eyes this isn't a big deal. The current crop of cool white emitters are usually "good enough" even if not perfect. However, I'll welcome and use emitters with better color rendering. Believe me, this issue is being worked on since general lighting is the next big market for LEDs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I never heard of that LED brand before _(sample link for other Incan Jockeys)_. Not sure how widely available & prices, but this color/contrast issue, as well as throw, and brightness are all very important areas for me. 

I really dislike having to put up with the surreal color spectrum outside. I feel like I'm watching a B&W rerun of The Twilight Zone with Rod Serling droning away: "Imagine if you will..."




jtr1962 said:


> Some newsrooms have been using full-spectrum fluorescent. Also, what about HID? Those can have great color rendering with a sun-like spectrum. HID is actually what I've seen the few times I've been near outdoor movie sets.
> 
> 
> LuxLuthor said:
> ...



Yeah, there are some full-spectrum fluorescent & HID's in use, but the mainstay for these purposes are incans. Other than special effects/props, LED illumination does not yet give the needed spectrums and intensity.



jtr1962 said:


> Oh, I almost forgot to mention that I thoroughly enjoy participating in threads like this every few months as LED evolves more and more.....


Ditto. There are VERY few people for whom I have sufficient affection & respect, so as to motivate such a series of intricate responses. Bilateral Props!  Imagine if I had not taken steps to avoid the forum crash before posting this just minutes ago. oo:


----------



## climberkid (Jul 16, 2008)

lux you make me proud to be here on CPF. haha  just reading your thread summed it up for me, even if that wasnt your intention.


----------



## monkeyboy (Jul 16, 2008)

These new SSC P4 LED's with a higher CRI of 93 might also be of interest. The efficiency is lower than the regular SSC P4's though.


----------



## Norm (Jul 16, 2008)

I really don't understand why people become so polarised about this subject, if you like one style of light that's great but there is no need to try and convince others whose opinions or experiences vary from yours. 
Variety is the spice of life I don't see the need to tie myself to one type of technology, I enjoy playing with anything that creates light no matter how that light is generated. 
For me there is no "Ican versus LED" 
This thread was never ever going to go in any direction except the way it has, I can see no reason why this thread was started, it all seems very close to Trolling to me. 
Norm


----------



## monkeyboy (Jul 16, 2008)

Norm said:


> This thread was never ever going to go in any direction except the way it has, I can see no reason why this thread was started, it all seems very close to Trolling to me.
> Norm



I don't see starting this type of thread as trolling at least not until the personal insults start flying around. With a username like "monkeyboy", I'm usually the prime target. Perhaps having this thread in the incan forum is not the best idea though; general flashlight discussion is more appropriate. I like to hear peoples opinions on benefits and drawbacks of these two technologies and try to keep an open mind. Sometimes people bring up valid arguments that I hadn't thought about before. After all, isn't that what these forums are all about?


----------



## woodrow (Jul 16, 2008)

The main problem with these threads (although I do love a good argument that does not involve bush, mccain or obama) is that people try to prove which is better, and that cannot be proven.

Digital is better than film, most would say, but I still like my old film slr better than any digital I have used for 3 reasons. 1. more shallow depth of field 2. better colors 3. the surprise of picking up prints and seeing how I did
But, film is a dying medium, as in lights, incans are declining in use. It does not make them irrelevant.

I like the cold bluish light of leds better than the warmer more natural light of incans. It does not matter to me which shows colors better, but I would gladly concede that incans most likely do. In a 2x123a or 18650 light, a led will normally be brighter than a incan. Put in bigger or more batteries and the battle will quickly switch to hotwires.

So part of the issue is when it comes to which is better... they both are at certain things, including personal preference.


----------



## Norm (Jul 16, 2008)

Looking back to the first post it seems the question asked was innocent enough. Seems it took a wrong turn somewhere along the way.
Norm


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 16, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> That was not my understanding of PWM with specific regards to discerning between color change vs. luminance . I may be wrong about this since the relationships of PWM to:
> Color Spectral Power Distribution,
> 
> Luminous Efficacy, Scotopic/Photopic Vision
> ...


There certainly is a difference. In the case of the AW driver, between 100%-power, and 30%- power (~10% output) color temperatrue changes from over 3500k to about 2600k -- lower than a long-life flood lamp. 

Outdoors this is enough differnece to make a lawn that looks green and fresh look dead due to the higher weighting of red/brown, and make violet flowers look more red.

Now, let's say that 10% was still too much, and I wanted to dim an incan to <1% of its overall output. I'd probably be using 15% power, and the light would be an extremely dull red. With LEDs on the other hand, I can actually have ranges of output between a small fraction of a lumen (useful for working inces away from my face int he dark) to hundreds of lumens in the same light, without substantial color shifting, and with an actual increase in efficiency.



> I didn't say anything about yellow light, although I agree with your unrelated point. I claim the superiority of incans in smoke/fog/mist based upon your next sentence, and to some degree because of enhanced incan color spectrum contrast vis-a-vis the human eye's scotopic/photopic vision sensing.


The point JTR was making is based on a myth that yellow fog lights work better because of less rayleigh scattering (eg, the tendency for shorter wavelength light to scatter more). That is not true for fog, as Rayleigh scattering only applies where the particles are smaller htan the wavelength of light. Fog droplets are mcuh larger than the wavelength of light, so all colors are reflected indistriminantly.

However, outdoors in nature looking at things like trees, and dirt, there is very little blue reflected. However, any blue in your beam IS reflected by the fog, so a cool white LED will have brighter backscatter relative to the light reflected off the target. This effect is also amplfied by the eye's higher sensitvity to blue light at low illuminance.

However, this effect is insignificant compared to beam profile considerations, and moving away from the extremely cool 6500k LEDs to even a neutral LED temperature like 4000k will greatly mitigate this effect.




> Default voltages with longer life ratings do not get into a "sickly orange" category, or noone would have ever used them.


This is simply a matter of opinion. I personally greatly dislike the color temp of long life incans. I like the 3500-5000k range if possible. 



> Not sure how widely available & prices, but this color/contrast issue, as well as throw, and brightness are all very important areas for me.
> 
> I really dislike having to put up with the surreal color spectrum outside. I feel like I'm watching a B&W rerun of The Twilight Zone with Rod Serling droning away: "Imagine if you will..."


Check out the link in my sig about LED color rendition (neutral LED, cool LED, incan). These aren't specialty "high CRI" LEDs, but imply Cree's normal warm and neutral bins. Both do a far better job than the cool white Crees. And efficiency isn't too much worse, either. Warm bins are quite close to incandescent rendition now as well -- better than any CFLs I've seen in warm temperatures.


----------



## tsask (Jul 16, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> . LEDs are really what got me interested in lighting. After years of frustration with incandescents LEDs suddenly made old projects viable again, and spurred me to try new ones.


 
x2 YES! my avitar (green LED vehicle lighting) is what first exposed me to LEDs and potential applications.

My only issue with LED light is the inability to read street signs at night. The beam "white outs" the sign obscuring the street name. Even at lower power it's an issue with some reflective paint.

For me to describe my affection for LEDs and their positive attributes would a far greater time consuming effort


----------



## Pher (Jul 16, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> Now, let's say that 10% was still too much, and I wanted to dim an incan to <1% of its overall output. I'd probably be using 15% power, and the light would be an extremely dull red. With LEDs on the other hand, I can actually have ranges of output between a small fraction of a lumen (useful for working inces away from my face int he dark) to hundreds of lumens in the same light, without substantial color shifting, and with an actual increase in efficiency.




Heres my thought. So if you were using <1% with a light, it would probably because you needed to preserve your night vision. So if you used an incan in a very low output, it would put out a very dull red. But isn't red supposed to preserve your vision? And a led doesn't change much in output, it would still have a lot of white/blue, and eyes are very sensitive to blue. So that can ruin your night vision. I probably am wrong somewhere but thats just my 2cents about it.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 16, 2008)

Pher said:


> Heres my thought. So if you were using <1% with a light, it would probably because you needed to preserve your night vision.


Not necessarily. Things like reading maps, or looking throjugh drawers at close range where color rendition is important, are still better off with just as much light as necessary, rather than too much causing glare.



> So if you used an incan in a very low output, it would put out a very dull red. But isn't red supposed to preserve your vision? And a led doesn't change much in output, it would still have a lot of white/blue, and eyes are very sensitive to blue. So that can ruin your night vision. I probably am wrong somewhere but thats just my 2cents about it.


The idea of using white LEDs dimmed to preserve night vision is different than using red light. With red light, a HUGE amount is necessary for it to be useful. With white light used carefully, you can actually _utilize_ your night vision, rather than simply avoiding it. For example, my 1/3rd lumen keychain flashlights is enough to hike with comfortably, once I'm dark adapted. Levels of output that low are like a half-phase moon, where night vision is actually used.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 17, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> There certainly is a difference. In the case of the AW driver, between 100%-power, and 30%- power *(~10% output) color temperatrue changes from over 3500k to about 2600k* -- lower than a long-life flood lamp.
> 
> Outdoors this is enough differnece to make a lawn that looks green and fresh look dead due to the higher weighting of red/brown, and make violet flowers look more red.



2x, (you don't mind if I call you "2x" do you? ) thanks for your post. I'm not understanding where this information comes from (see my red highlighting). I'm not saying you are wrong, just not connecting the dots with translating % PWM to your *~10% output*, and then how you turned that into specific K temps of Tungsten. I'm just not understanding what you said. :thinking:

I find little use for AW's driver at the low 30% setting, so on a practical basis, I was also questioning the reality of K temp rendering vs. human eye scotopic color sensing between the 60% PWM & 100% settings. Said another way....assuming you are correct, and there is indeed a color spectrum change with PWM, and avoiding the extreme...is the human eye/brain able to tell a difference between the perceived colors at PWM 60% vs. 100%, or is it more a matter of the overall intensity. 

I'm thinking of an example where a smaller incan filament was heated to a typical incan Tungsten evaporating temperature, and then compared to a larger filament incan bulb running at 60% PWM, so that when lumen measurements were done, both bulbs would measure the same on the meter. In this example, would the two bulbs appear to illuminate my environment differently to the human eye/brain? 

I just took a bunch of lights outside and looked at a variety of colors of flowers, trees, plants, and grass. With the AW driver in a 3s Li-Ion WA 1331 & 3s 1185 mags, there is excellent color viewing on 60% or 100%. (I agree 30% is sad). When I contrast the color rendering to SF-L2, Jetbeam P3, Mac's Aspheric P4, and Mac 1D P4 "U" Bin Warm white Seoul LED, only the last *approaches *an acceptable color rendition among the LED's. 

However, I find more realistic colors outside with the 60% PWM of the various incans in comparison to even the warm P4. That is the observation that led me to assert the idea of PWM preserving the color as perceived by the human eye. It is an interesting inquiry, in any case.



2xTrinity said:


> *Now, let's say that 10% was still too much, and I wanted to dim an incan to <1% of its overall output. I'd probably be using 15% power, *and the *light would be an extremely dull red.* With LEDs on the other hand, I can actually have ranges of output between a small fraction of a lumen (useful for working inces away from my face int he dark) to hundreds of lumens in the same light, without substantial color shifting, and with an actual increase in efficiency.



I'm not understanding your use of the % numbers, but observing PWM driver with incans is not giving me a result that correlates with what you are saying. *Even on the 30% setting, I am seeing any shade of orange or red. * It is just a dull white, and reminds me of the old default Maglite stock setups...so please understand that I just cannot accept this if it is not what I see with my own eyes.



2xTrinity said:


> The point JTR was making is based on a myth that yellow fog lights work better because of less rayleigh scattering (eg, the tendency for shorter wavelength light to scatter more). That is not true for fog, as Rayleigh scattering only applies where the particles are smaller htan the wavelength of light. Fog droplets are mcuh larger than the wavelength of light, so all colors are reflected indistriminantly.
> 
> However, outdoors in nature looking at things like trees, and dirt, there is very little blue reflected. However, any blue in your beam IS reflected by the fog, so a cool white LED will have brighter backscatter relative to the light reflected off the target. This effect is also amplfied by the eye's higher sensitvity to blue light at low illuminance.
> 
> However, this effect is insignificant compared to beam profile considerations, and moving away from the extremely cool 6500k LEDs to even a neutral LED temperature like 4000k will greatly mitigate this effect.



I have long known about the yellow fog light nonsense. I did not bring up that subject, JTR did. Again, I make the same point that was in my original post, (and the 2nd sentence of that JTR paragraph) regarding why I consider incan superior in fog/mist/smoke environments.



2xTrinity said:


> This is simply a matter of opinion. I personally greatly dislike the color temp of long life incans. I like the 3500-5000k range if possible.



To some degree it is a matter of opinion, but IMHO, it is also a matter of misrepresented distortions/exaggerations on this color issue. I have always been talking about the kind of incans we use in this forum, and most of those that are relatively popular & sold retail. 

They have never appeared as the "sickly orange" that I responded to, and which I believe is a distortion. I have no idea what type of incan lights people would buy and then describe as a "sickly orange" color, but I have not seen them in my entire life. What I am talking about is that incans have a much closer representation to natural sunlight spectrums than the LED's I have seen.



2xTrinity said:


> Check out the link in my sig about LED color rendition (neutral LED, cool LED, incan). These aren't specialty "high CRI" LEDs, but imply Cree's normal warm and neutral bins. Both do a far better job than the cool white Crees. And efficiency isn't too much worse, either. Warm bins are quite close to incandescent rendition now as well -- better than any CFLs I've seen in warm temperatures.



I have always conceded the efficiency issue to LED's. Honestly, I don't care about efficiency in a flashlight, or L/W. I doubt I ever will. What I care about is how the light works and looks for my intended purpose. I agree that warm/neutral bin LED's are better rendering than cool bin, but still not as nice or realistic/contrasting as incan colors. Then there is the other list of attributes with incans that are a part of the whole package.

I have taken enough photos of various flashlights, using various AWB & other settings to be able to understand that photos & camera features look very different than in person visualization. So your comparison photos give a relative idea of some aspects of a flashlight beam appearance, but it is hard to go beyond that for me.

*Again, thanks very much for your post and information*. I find it hysterical that having these conversations back and forth appear to some members as trolling, going the wrong way, or polarized. I certainly have not read anything in this thread that I would describe as a personal insult. To me this is an educational process. If you don't ever have to question or explain your own ideas/opinions, they are without any merit. This is the nature of a discourse, and is distinct from blind acceptance.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 17, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> However, I find more realistic colors outside with the 60% PWM of the various incans in comparison to even the warm P4. That is the observation that led me to assert the idea of PWM preserving the color as perceived by the human eye. It is an interesting inquiry, in any case.
> 
> I'm not understanding your use of the % numbers, but observing PWM driver with incans is not giving me a result that correlates with what you are saying. *Even on the 30% setting, I am seeing any shade of orange or red. *It is just a dull white, and reminds me of the old default Maglite stock setups...so please understand that I just cannot accept this if it is not what I see with my own eyes.


After reading through your response to 2xTrinity I think I finally understand why we're both apparently saying different things about PWM incandescent. Interestingly, it's somewhat related to our preferences for general lighting. You have mentioned many times that you consider incandescent to give a very nice light in your home. I've said many times in many threads that I totally hate household incandescents. This isn't a case of my eye lens yellowing with age or some other physical reason why I should prefer bluer light. I've always had this preference. Even back in the days when the only alternative to incandescent was lousy cool white fluorescent I preferred to be under the fluorescent even though it didn't render colors as well as sunlight. Why? Think of the auto white balance function of a camera. Your eye, or rather your brain, does the same thing. It makes light which might appear yellow to a camera with the white balance set to sunlight appear white, or at least less yellow. Anyway, it appears our brains have different auto white balance ranges. For me personally it's in the 3500K to 6500K range, with 5000K or so appearing white to me without any corrections by my synapses (i.e. it's the CCT I'm least likely to get headaches under). This is why for me I detest incandescent. There is no white point! I get awful headaches trying to correct for one but in the end I just can't do it. So to me a hotwire right on the edge of boiling will appear acceptably white (barely). However, dim it to even 60% PWM and it'll appear at best yellow. Household incandescents at 2500K to 2700K appear some shade of the sickly orange I mentioned.

Now let's talk about you. Perhaps your optimum CCT is in the low 3000s. You can probably acceptably adjust to something as low as perhaps 2400K but even you have your limits (which is why you said 30% PWM looks sad). The high end is the problem for you. I'd guess once you start getting into the high 4000s the light starts to look bluish and you can't auto white balance it. Even the warmer shades of cool white LEDs are generally above this so it's no wonder you find LED light objectionable. It's blue to the point where you can't correct it in your mind! That's why things look ghostly under it to you. The way you see a 5500K LED is probably how I would see an 8000K one (yes, those are annoying blue to me). And how I see a hotwire dimmed to, say, 2800K, is equivalent to how you might see a 2200K hotwire. When you PWM dim a hotwire, it still appears white but less intense to you. To me it goes from borderline white (perhaps slightly yellow-white) to orange-yellow or even orange.

So neither of us are really right or wrong here. It's only a matter of perception. 



> Ditto. There are VERY few people for whom I have sufficient affection & respect, so as to motivate such a series of intricate responses. Bilateral Props!


Thanks for the compliments. I feel likewise. Irrespective of our light preferences we can both learn a lot from each other. I've enjoyed your destructive incandescent testing thread. Fascinating stuff and a lot of work and money obviously. And to use a line I've used with my other hobby of railroading-so long as it runs on rails I like it. In other words even though I might prefer electric trains doesn't mean I dislike steam or diesel. And even though incandescent isn't always my first choice for lighting, so long as it emits light I can't help but like it.

P.S. I do enjoy bringing out my 55W halogen spotlight when I'm looking for raccoons in the yard. Not so much that I find the light better, but there's so much more of it compared to my LED lights. And I still dearly love a ~4 inch 1000W, 120V halogen lamp that I found in a garbage pile once. Putting wires to each end makes you think you bought the sun indoors!


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 17, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> 2x, (you don't mind if I call you "2x" do you? ) thanks for your post. I'm not understanding where this information comes from (see my red highlighting). I'm not saying you are wrong, just not connecting the dots with translating % PWM to your *~10% output*, and then how you turned that into specific K temps of Tungsten. I'm just not understanding what you said. :thinking:


I did it the other way around. I used various color temp fluorescents as references, then looked at them side by side with a 5761 driven by an AW switch a while back. On the brightest setting, the light appeared to be the same color, or even slightly higher color temp, as a 3500k fluorecent torchiere in the room. On the lowest setting, apparent color temp was lower than a 4000 hour halogen flood lamp. 

Based on your own destructive testing, efficiency for a bulb close to instaflash (eg, one running at nearly the melting point @ ~3700k) is typically about 3x higher than default for a 4000 hour bulb. 1/3rd of 30% is 10%.



> I find little use for AW's driver at the low 30% setting, so on a practical basis, I was also questioning the reality of K temp rendering vs. human eye scotopic color sensing between the 60% PWM & 100% settings. Said another way....assuming you are correct, and there is indeed a color spectrum change with PWM, and avoiding the extreme...is the human eye/brain able to tell a difference between the perceived colors at PWM 60% vs. 100%, or is it more a matter of the overall intensity.
> 
> I'm thinking of an example where a smaller incan filament was heated to a typical incan Tungsten evaporating temperature, and then compared to a larger filament incan bulb running at 60% PWM, so that when lumen measurements were done, both bulbs would measure the same on the meter. In this example, would the two bulbs appear to illuminate my environment differently to the human eye/brain?


I just did a test where I took a three-level switch outdoors, lit up a tree in the distance, lowered the setting, aimed the light at a similar, closer tree, then lowered the setting again, and aimed it at an evne closer tree, to accomodate for the changing brightness. Between 100% and 60% the difference is subtle, but still noticeable. Between 60% and 30%, as you acknowledge, the difference is pretty big. While this test isn't as well controlled as your proposed experiment, it is a simialr concept.

The effects are also more noticeable if there are other light source to use as references (no other major visible lights where I did the test mentioned above).



> I just took a bunch of lights outside and looked at a variety of colors of flowers, trees, plants, and grass. With the AW driver in a 3s Li-Ion WA 1331 & 3s 1185 mags, there is excellent color viewing on 60% or 100%. (I agree 30% is sad). When I contrast the color rendering to SF-L2, Jetbeam P3, Mac's Aspheric P4, and Mac 1D P4 "U" Bin Warm white Seoul LED, only the last *approaches *an acceptable color rendition among the LED's.


I'm not claiming the color rendering to be bad on anything but the 30%. Most of the time I use those three-level lights I run 60%, and use the 100% for bursts.



> However, I find more realistic colors outside with the 60% PWM of the various incans in comparison to even the warm P4. That is the observation that led me to assert the idea of PWM preserving the color as perceived by the human eye. It is an interesting inquiry, in any case.


I understand where your'e coming from with this. Physically I don't see how it would be possible, as far as the filament concerns, a 30% PWM at a frequency faster than it takes for the filmanet to completely cool (eg, faster than a few Hz) will be the same as reducing voltage. Most other attributes of incans -- eg efficiency, spectrum, life span -- are all a function of the temperature, which is itself a function of power dissipation.



> I'm not understanding your use of the % numbers, but observing PWM driver with incans is not giving me a result that correlates with what you are saying. *Even on the 30% setting, I am seeing any shade of orange or red. * It is just a dull white, and reminds me of the old default Maglite stock setups...so please understand that I just cannot accept this if it is not what I see with my own eyes.


It's not that any shades "disappear", more like the contrast effect of throwing a pair of blue-blocking sunglasses on. The reds are in effect boosted relative to greens. It's most noticealbe when looking at flowers, or anything that reflects blue, though even green objects will appear darker relative to their surroundings.



To some degree it is a matter of opinion, but IMHO, it is also a matter of misrepresented distortions/exaggerations on this color issue. I have always been talking about the kind of incans we use in this forum, and most of those that are relatively popular & sold retail. 

They have never appeared as the "sickly orange" that I responded to, and which I believe is a distortion. I have no idea what type of incan lights people would buy and then describe as a "sickly orange" color, but I have not seen them in my entire life. [/quote]
I personally tend to find standard 750 Hr lamps reasonable, but dislike trying to do any sort of task under a household bulb that has been dimmed significantly, even if you normalize for brightness as in your proposed experiment above. Given a choice, I tend to use no lower than 3000k for ambient low level lighting, 3500k for general household lighting, 5000k for workshop lighting.



> What I am talking about is that incans have a much closer representation to natural sunlight spectrums than the LED's I have seen.


I'd call incans similar to sunlight behind brown-tinted sunglasses. EG the colors are all still present, but contrast is enhanced for certain things. Not the same as with the cool LEDs where red is all but missing, even compared to color rendition under >5000k fluorescents.



> I have taken enough photos of various flashlights, using various AWB & other settings to be able to understand that photos & camera features look very different than in person visualization. So your comparison photos give a relative idea of some aspects of a flashlight beam appearance, but it is hard to go beyond that for me.


Understood. Choosing an arbitrary white balance isn't accurate to what my eyes see, especailly for lights with color temps well outside the range, bt neither is auto, which is "too good" so to speak. I don't really know of a good method to take photos "as my eyes see them" without explicitly doctoring the photos.

*



Again, thanks very much for your post and information.

Click to expand...

*


> I find it hysterical that having these conversations back and forth appear to some members as trolling, going the wrong way, or polarized. I certainly have not read anything in this thread that I would describe as a personal insult. To me this is an educational process. If you don't ever have to question or explain your own ideas/opinions, they are without any merit. This is the nature of a discourse, and is distinct from blind acceptance.


Thanks, yourself. I find these types of discussions interesting, myself.


----------



## Flipside (Jul 17, 2008)

Relative to the others, I'm not even a newb. I'm still a smile on my Dad's face. But, I feel compelled to jump into the pool. 

Mac's Torch led me to this forum... 

LED's were my first mod. 

Incans are on my workbench now.

What's on my nightstand: LED. 

What's in my truck: LED. 

What I use to show off to the innocent: Incans. 

Going for a walk in the woods: Incans. 

What has failed me most often: Incans - drop 'em once and they're gone, in my experience.

:tinfoil:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 20, 2008)

JTR & 2X, I'm really glad we had this discussion, as it has had me reading many fundamentals that gives me a much fuller appreciation for this whole topic of light sources & human perception.

I would bet these individual color preferences come down to genetic differences in the relative quantity & sensitivity to the 3 different S/M/L cone types in the human eye (Note Wiki "Color Perception" section). 

The XeRay 50/75W Spotlight (& other lights) report using 4200-4300°K HID bulbs appear clearly as a blue shaded light color to my eye.

I see an increasing number of (likely) aftermarket auto HID headlights that have various shades of blue that have an irritating, more blinding effect on my vision than normal sealed beam incan headlights. 

In addition, if I use fluorescent 4 foot long tube (overhead in offices) bulbs, I almost *MUST combine *a "Cool White (4100°K" that appears bluish alone) with a wide spectrum (i.e. Sylvania Gro-Lux brand listed as 3400°K or 3500°K) that appears pinkish alone. I have spent my own money replacing bulbs in several work environments _(with consent of owner)_ in the past.

Using this handy °K color lighting guide which displays example photos of different environments, I can now see that the 3500°K is too red, but 4100°K is too blue even in these photos. If I don't get a proper light in my environment, I accumulate an increasing level of stress _(minor, but quantifiable)_ over time. 

This last link finally explains what I could never quite specify until now. I now see that they don't make the correct bulb to fit my preferences, which would be about *3750°K*. I had never taken the time to understand all of this until now.

I know there are many people like me from conversations they bring up when being in this type of "combination of bulbs" environment. Often they will say something about how pleasant a room looks where I did the bulb changes, but they won't know why it feels different until I point out the light and room colors.

Some of this is correlated to the research done on the effect of colors on humans. However, I also believe there are anatomical variations from person to person in the quanity & relative reactiveness of the S/M/L cones. On a more extreme example, if I use a Black (UV) Light for some special purpose, or even when I go into Halloween Haunted Houses, my eyes begin burning and filling with tears within seconds.

Now bringing this all back around to the topic title....the last series of posts were mostly about the color differences betwen Incan and LED, which were very worthwhile. However, I must not be remiss in underscoring all of the other superior aspects of Incans that I mentioned earlier irrespective of color preferences. LOL! :nana:


----------



## TDKKP (Jul 20, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> JTR & 2X, I'm really glad we had this discussion, as it has had me reading many fundamentals that gives me a much fuller appreciation for this whole topic of light sources & human perception.
> 
> I would bet these individual color preferences come down to genetic differences in the relative quantity & sensitivity to the 3 different S/M/L cone types in the human eye (Note Wiki "Color Perception" section).
> 
> ...


 

So what do you think of the color of this web site back ground?

After a long time reading in front of computer screen, I'm using laptop, the white/blue background bothers me a bit.


----------



## carrot (Jul 20, 2008)

The site background is #FFFFFF unless you've set it differently. The way that #FFFFFF (designated white) looks on your monitor may appear completely different than it does on mine.


----------



## mdocod (Jul 21, 2008)

here's a fun trick...

re-calibrate your monitor to a different white point. From the factory, most monitors are set to a very high white point, like 9300K or something like that, but there are user adjustable options here:

There are other "standardized" white points used by different industries for different work... you may find settings called "D50 or D65" available, and on some models, you can manually adjust white point... If you are using your machine set to "native" white point, and then set it to D50, it will suddenly look almost grossly yellow, then set it to D65, it'll suddenly look very natural, then set it back to the native point, and it will suddenly look very blue-ish... but if you use the monitor set to "native" white point (or other 8500+K setting) normally, then you will quickly adjust back to that looking normal....

Sometimes I run D65, other times native, the cool white appearance is just more familiar to me when using a computer. 

I guess what I am getting at, is that color temperature is relative, once you get used to a color being used as "white" it works fine, then when you switch, something can seem way out of whack for awhile.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 21, 2008)

> So what do you think of the color of this web site back ground?


 I used to administer an internet forum several years ago. The viewers complained about the overly bright background, so I started a poll -- light or dark background, with fairly strong opinions on both sides and a relatively even split vote. I ended up "splitting the difference" and going with a gray background.


> re-calibrate your monitor to a different white point. From the factory, most monitors are set to a very high white point, like 9300K or something like that, but there are user adjustable options here:


 9300k is a throwback to older CRTs. Every LCD I've ever used, ann even newer CRTs all default to 6500k. I wouldn't recommend deviating from the D65 standard that as that's what digital photographers and web designers expect users to be running.


> I see an increasing number of (likely) aftermarket auto HID headlights that have various shades of blue that have an irritating, more blinding effect on my vision than normal sealed beam incan headlights. In addition, if I use fluorescent 4 foot long tube (overhead in offices) bulbs, I almost MUST combine a "Cool White (4100°K" that appears bluish alone) with a wide spectrum (i.e. Sylvania Gro-Lux brand listed as 3400°K or 3500°K) that appears pinkish alone. I have spent my own money replacing bulbs in several work environments (with consent of owner) in the past. Using this handy °K color lighting guide which displays example photos of different environments, I can now see that the 3500°K is too red, but 4100°K is too blue even in these photos. If I don't get a proper light in my environment, I accumulate an increasing level of stress (minor, but quantifiable) over time. This last link finally explains what I could never quite specify until now. I now see that they don't make the correct bulb to fit my preferences, which would be about 3750°K. I had never taken the time to understand all of this until now.


 This is interesting, but I believe this has more to do more with light sources that are tinted, or slightly off compared to blackbody, than it does with the color temperature. For example, my neutral LEDs are all around 4000k, but when viewed side-by-side with cool white fluorescents, the fluorescent appear blue-green, and the LED appears red. 3500k tubes on the other hand tend to have a reddish tint. This is very obvious if you run a hotwire at 3500k near a fluorecent, the hotwire will appear yellow and the fluorescent will look red. Combine the blue-green hue of the 4100k tube with the red hue of the 3500k tube, and you should end up with a correct white balance. It should be perfectly possible to make a tube with a phosphor that is an equal blend of the 4100k phosphor, and a 3500k phosphor, and have a perfectly white-balanced 3750k tube.


----------



## mdocod (Jul 21, 2008)

yea those ancient CRTs, what was I thinking... oh.. woops.. I have 3 on my desk, lol.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 21, 2008)

Web page or other object colors have little to do with this discussion. I'm talking about lighting transmission wavelengths having a long term effect on human physiology, and eye sensitivity perception vis-a-vis S/M/L cone distribution.

This website has a white background with various shades of blue that are no problems to visualize. Having a proper computer display is a whole other can of worms, and is related to many factors. 

Again, the issues in this topic are not about being able to look at colors in a photo/webpage/object, etc. My issues regarding LED's are due to their very narrow (usually only 30 nm) band at a specific nanometer wavelength that is not realistic or ideal in most outdoor circumstances. 
Eyes have rods, and 3 different types of cones that are used to properly render colors, hues, and contrasts. Humans can see 10 million colors in the light wavelength range of 380 to 760 nm.

Having *a narrow 30nm LED wavelength **spike is an ineffective light source for the human eye as compared to broad spectrum incandescent*, even if both have an identical so called "*dominant wavelength*" color (i.e. the same 3500°K). 

The broad spectrum nature of sunlight and incan light sources are given the highest "100" score on the CRI (Color Rendering Index), even if its "dominant (color temperature) wavelength" is not ideal to a particular circumstance. 

These sources (sun/incan) will use the three types of cones more completely which is an important part of seeing accurate colors and contrasts. LED's cannot achieve this with their narrow band of lighting. LED's do not utilize the complex biological evolutions of the human eye.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 22, 2008)

I have it on good authority that the men who use LED's have mothers who wear Army pants.


----------



## karlthev (Jul 22, 2008)

Well, *finally* you were clear on this one!



Karl


----------



## cat (Jul 22, 2008)

LuxLuthor, I think the high frequency flickering of fluorescents is also a factor (particularly when combined with the high frequency flickering / refresh rate of computer monitors), with some people more sensitive to it than others. 

Here where I sit at work, there are two 3x36W fluorescents above me. (And a fitting with 3 shorter tubes about 2 meters in front of me.) Only one of the six tubes is working; the others, I've insisted that they don't replace them. I don't need them, I work on computers and the one tube and the rest of the ambient light around is enough for reading and writing on paper anyway.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 22, 2008)

cat said:


> LuxLuthor, I think the high frequency flickering of fluorescents is also a factor (particularly when combined with the high frequency flickering / refresh rate of computer monitors), with some people more sensitive to it than others.


Fluorescents don't flicker any more. That used to happen when they still used magnetic ballasts. If your work place is using those then they should replace them ASAP. The power saved by using T8s instead of T12s will more than pay for the new fixtures/lamps.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jul 22, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Having *a narrow 30nm LED wavelength **spike is an ineffective light source for the human eye as compared to broad spectrum incandescent*, even if both have an identical so called "*dominant wavelength*" color (i.e. the same 3500°K).


Monochrome LEDs have a fairly narrow bandwidth, not whites. Every white LED spectrum I've looked at is pretty broad. The main things lacking are reds past about 600 nm and a small dip in the 500 nm area. This problem could easily be corrected in the future with better phosphors.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 22, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> Fluorescents don't flicker any more. That used to happen when they still used magnetic ballasts. If your work place is using those then they should replace them ASAP. The power saved by using T8s instead of T12s will more than pay for the new fixtures/lamps.



Agreed. My color balance issues were never about flickering fluorescents or interactions with CRT's that need to have a proper refresh rate, background ambiance lighting, limited exposure times, adequate eye blink rates, etc. My previously mentioned color light issues were not related to computer use at all.

I don't care about efficiency, so I don't care about replacing T12's with T8's anymore than I care about the irrelevant (to me) promotion of L/W LED efficiency (assuming the numbers were properly obtained with an adequately calibrated for LED output light meter). What I care about is having the right light for the right job. It's why I bought about 1,500 incan bulbs after seeing the enviro-terrorists get the mercury filled CFL replacing incan law passed.



jtr1962 said:


> Monochrome LEDs have a fairly narrow bandwidth, not whites. Every white LED spectrum I've looked at is pretty broad. The main things lacking are reds past about 600 nm and a small dip in the 500 nm area. This problem could easily be corrected in the future with better phosphors.



 I have always agreed that LED's are making progress, and the white LED's (i.e. a narrow band blue monochromatic LED with a yellow phosphor coating) are better despite their Stokes shift issues and missing spectrum elements you listed. 

For my purposes, these so called "white LED's" are still not "soup yet" from what I have seen or read about. I believe the best hope lies with multi-emitter combinations, but then you start losing those pesky heat and power source attributes which LED Jockeys adore. 

Eventually LED's will be closer to the CRI 100 of incan/sunlight which is why it keeps getting harder to defend incan superiority for outdoor uses. *However, for the 39th time, the proper human eye light spectrum is just one of the many factors I list about incan vs. LED*...so let's not get too sidetracked here. :candle:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 22, 2008)

duplicate


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 27, 2008)

Do you guys know if this aspheric display of a Fenix P2D using Rebel is an intentional partial phosphorous coating to achieve a better color? I posted pix in this thread on aspherics.


----------



## saabluster (Jul 28, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Do you guys know if this aspheric display of a Fenix P2D using Rebel is an intentional partial phosphorous coating to achieve a better color? I posted pix in this thread on aspherics.



I accidentally posted a response in the other forum. Short answer is no. Enough blue escapes from the phosphor layer as is. There is no reason to allow more through.


----------



## bridgman (Aug 3, 2022)

OK, 14 years later and it's getting closer to an apples-to-apples competition.

LEDs are winning on runtime for the same brightness across the board, but there are still big ongoing debates about LED colour temperature and what best competes with an incandescent for colour rendition. 

Pictures suggest that a natural white LED is far ahead of incandescent in terms of colour rendition, but when you hold the flashlights in your hand it seems that LEDs aren't really there yet. I have trouble with that because it seems that enough years have passed for LED vendors to get the phosphor mix right and stomp incandescents into the dirt, but it doesn't seem to have actually happened yet.

The flipside though is that most vendors have gone over to the dark (LED) side and are not really competing on the incandescent front any more. I hope it's not just Lumens Factory competing on the incandescent side, but even if it is they are doing a fantastic job and deserve our support. I just ordered a couple of Seraph hosts and a half dozen bulbs.

I guess it's all going to boil down to a question of what is the most perfect colour temperature. The highest CRI seems to be associated with bulbs in the incandescent range of colour temperatures, but the latest LEDs seem to be giving better colour rendition from LEDs in the 4000K range, which seem to be the exclusive domain of LEDs.


----------

