# 4Sevens Quark AA-Warm Comparison Review



## UnknownVT (May 17, 2010)

Hot off the press - courtesy of 4Sevens I have in my hot little hands a Limited Run Quark AA-*Warm* white.

To be clear this is a Warm tinted LED a Cree XP-G Q5 - 7A3 or 7B4 bin tint,
as opposed to the previous run of Neutral whites.
Binning sheet for the Cree XP series -






these Warm whites are in the color temperature of about 3100K (green outline)- 
most people (including me) probably won't tell any difference between the two bins - 
especially in any typical flashlight usage.

At about 3100K this is close to imitating a good incandescent halogen xenon light (max possible color temp = 3200K before it burns out).
(Note: the Neutral white used previously were about 4100K, bin: Q3-5A - in blue-gray circle)

This Quark AA Warm Tactical was actually an AA2 head that I moved onto a single AA body to make up a "Quark AA-Warm".

Size -





Head -




This time the yellow/brown tint of the phosphor in the emitter is more obvious - whereas the tint of the Neutral white emitter phosphor is just barely different from the cool white.

What about this fuss over the *Green* packaging?




well, I really like this in a reusable heavy duty zip-lock bag - that's really good thinking - far more useful than boxes that cluster up space.

So OK what is the Warm emitter like?

vs. Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA both Max and NiMH







yes, the Warm is "warmer" more yellow than the Neutral white and it is indeed brighter - as one would expect being a Q5 flux vs. the Q3 flux of the neutral white.

vs. 4Sevens Quark AA-R5 Cool White both Max and NiMH







well, not bad at all seems close in brightness - and the Warm does look like an incandescent.

Talking about incandescent - let's compare the Quark AA Warm to a real incandescent - the now legendary and one time considered a brightness monster the SureFire 9P - mine is the real original original 9P it is a Xenon powered by 3x CR123A and rated at 105 lumens......

vs. SureFire 9P (Xenon 3x CR123A) -







I would say these were pretty comparable - 
the SureFire 9P has a more intense hotspot - but that stands to reason because of the much bigger deeper reflector - but the tints in these comparison beamshots look very similar 
(but note in real-life the SF 9P seems a bit paler yellow and may have a hint of green when compared side-by-side to the eye)

So for incandescent flashaholics this is close to ideal - 
the color temperature of a good incandescent xenon light 
but with the efficiency/runtime of LED 
and now higher output and multiple levels.......

Life for flashaholics just keeps getting better.

*INDEX to Follow Up Parts* -

Comparison of 3.7V Li-Ion 14500, and 3V power (Quark AA2 and Quark 123 configurations) to incandescent SureFire 9P (xenon 3x CR123) - Post #*6*

Attempt at use of RAW to try to show difference seen by eye that photo did not show - Post #*8*
(please also see post #*341* by Canuke over at 4Sevens' CPF MarketPlace: XP-G Warm White Pre-orders! w/ GREEN Packaging! explaining why even RAW would not capture some of the tint differences I saw between warm white emitters and real incandescents )

Explanation of how different tints appear to eye and photograph - Post #*16*

Comparisons with more incandescent - Streamlight Scorpion (xenon 2x CR123), 2AA MiniMag and 1AAA Mag Solitaire - Post #*21*

Outdoor beamshots of leaves comparing Warm, Neutral and Cool White Quarks plus incandescent - Post #*23*

Three beams on one tree (Warm, Neutral and Cool White) and more outdoor leaves comparisons - Post #*39*

Flesh tone comparison of hand palm - Post #*45*

Explanation of wider hotspot of Warm XP-G than Cool White XP-G - Post #*53*


----------



## BlueMarble (May 17, 2010)

Great comparison. Thank you so much!


----------



## LightWalker (May 17, 2010)

The warm LEDs look just like incandescents in photos.


----------



## choaticwhisper (May 17, 2010)

LightWalker said:


> The warm LEDs look just like incandescents in photos.


+1
Why not throw a pic of Neutral-White vs Cool White? I think you already have pic, Dont you?

Looks great. Seems like the quark warmwhite isn't that far off from the 105 SF lumens.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 17, 2010)

choaticwhisper said:


> Why not throw a pic of Neutral-White vs Cool White? I think you already have pic, Dont you?



ha-ha! why not just click on the link I gave of: Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA just above the comparison with the Neutral White? 

But your wish is my..... 
just for you I've _thrown_ them in here 
- so you don't even have to click on the link 
Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA vs. 4Sevens Quark AA Cool White both Max NiMH


----------



## UnknownVT (May 17, 2010)

My guess the main attraction of the Warm White LEDs is that they imitate/mimic an incandescent - but with all the advantages of LED - in terms of output and efficiency, plus the ability to to have multi-modes and levels.

So I did a bit more comparisons with incandescent.

First I dropped in a 3.7V rechargeable Li-Ion 14500 -

3.7V Li-Ion 14500 vs. SureFire 9P (Xenon 3x CR123)







Now it's pretty obvious that on Li-Ion 14500 the Quark AA-Warm is brighter than the SureFire 9P - but SF 9P still has a more intense hotspot - 

The Quark heads are versatile/interchangeable with other bodies to 4.2V max -

Quark AA2-Warm (2x AA NiMH) vs. SureFire 9P







this pair looks very similar to the pair of beamshots above using 14500.

The reason the 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 isn't any brighter is because of the current regulating circuit.

4Sevens Quark series have Buck-Boost regulating circuits which bucks the voltages above Vf (forward voltage) down to the spec'd safe levels - and for voltages below Vf as in 2x AA (~3V) it Boosts the voltage to the Vf. So at the LED emitter - 
a 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 which is likely to be above gets Bucked to the Vf 
and the 2x AA NiMH (~2.4V nominal) which is below gets boosted to Vf -
therefore the output is the same as in both cases only Vf is presented.

The Quark Warm head will also work on a single 123 body making it a 
Quark 123 Warm vs. SureFire 9P







so it should come as no surprise that this set of beamshots look almost identical to the two sets above.....

Notice: the color/tint look very similar in all the photos.
However by eye I see the SF 9P as a paler straw yellow with hint of green in comparison the Warm LED has some pink-ishness.

So I'm a bit surprised that my camera did not capture the difference I see by eye - I am careful to use fixed daylight white balance - and since the beams are on the same photo - they get exactly the same treatment by both the camera and any processing - so if the camera can capture the difference it should have been shown -
BUT as I said my eyes see a difference that these beamshots do not show.

I was concerned enough that I wondered if using camera RAW could show this difference - so I took some side-by-side comparison beamshots using my dSLR shooting in RAW - as well as more comparisons with known incandescents - AA MiniMag, 1AAA Mag Solitaire, and a Streamlight Scorpion (Xenon 2x CR123) - I'll post the results later.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (May 18, 2010)

Thanks for the initial pictures. Darn that neutral white is nice.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 18, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> So I'm a bit surprised that my camera did not capture the difference I see by eye - I am careful to use fixed daylight white balance - and since the beams are on the same photo - they get exactly the same treatment by both the camera and any processing - so if the camera can capture the difference it should have been shown -
> BUT as I said my eyes see a difference that these beamshots do not show.
> 
> I was concerned enough that I wondered if using camera RAW could show this difference - so I took some side-by-side comparison beamshots using my dSLR shooting in RAW



So for those who think that regular JPG photos even with fixed daylight white balance may be the cause of the limitation of being able to capture the differences I see by eye in the tints of the WW Quark and the incandescent SF 9P (despite the fact my beamshots are side-by-side on the same photo - so the beams receive exactly the same treatment by the camera and any processing).

I took careful side-by-side beamshots in RAW with my dSLR - Pentax K-x which gets very good to excellent color accuracy ratings in reviews.

Then processed the RAW/DNG files with two different processors - Adobe Camera RAW 5.6 (latest version that supports my camera, via PS Elements 7.0) and Pentax Digital Camera Utility 4.11 (again latest version - based on SilkyPix). I used manul white balance by selecting color temperatures of 5000K (sunlight) and 6500K (CIE/international daylight - note the Pentax DCU did not have 6500K - so I used its nearest 6250K) I present the results in a matrix below -
(all the EXIF metadata should be still attached - caveat PhotoBucket can mysteriously drop metadata)















the -2 stops underexposed versions















So here's proof positive that even with RAW and careful manual white balancing using known color temperatures my camera cannot differentiate the tints that I easily saw with my eyes 
(before people make too big a deal out of this - the tint variance is noticeable if one looks for it - but overall the two tints are close - 
in other words the Warm White emitter does do a very good job of mimicking a real incandescent - 
as (ha-ha!) the photos show, albeit the photos do have limitations! 
how's that for circular logic?:huh


----------



## Yavox (May 18, 2010)

Great comparison, thanks. I will have to order warm Preon I think.


----------



## TONY M (May 18, 2010)

Very cool! Thanks for this comparison.


----------



## signal 13 (May 18, 2010)

I never really paid much attention to the Quark line, but I think this would be a good time to try a warm tinted LED light...


----------



## FroggyTaco (May 18, 2010)

Thanks for the photo's. I think I am neutral guy from now on. 

Was there a stated CRI improvement from neutral to warm?


----------



## Flying Turtle (May 19, 2010)

Thanks, again, for all your hard work, Vincent. That QMini AA with warm emitter has been calling me. Your pics really give me a good idea what to expect.

Geoff


----------



## readyme (May 19, 2010)

Let me start by asking forgiveness for my ignorance. Why is there such "love" for incandescent lights? or.....why is this "warm" light so great?
The pictures make it almost seem that the WARM LED would make everything yellow whereas the COOL LED would be more natural/neutral/white.
Just wondering...I "need" an AA Quark Tactical but I am not sure which LED to get (as an EDC).


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (May 19, 2010)

Fantastic comparisons!! I don't suppose you have any outdoor beamshot comparisons?


----------



## UnknownVT (May 19, 2010)

readyme said:


> Let me start by asking forgiveness for my ignorance. Why is there such "love" for incandescent lights? or.....why is this "warm" light so great?



Our eye/brain combination "see" differently to a camera - especially one that is using daylight white balance (eg: daylight color slide film or digital camera using Fixed Daylight White Balance) - that is like trying to view/compare under sunny noon-daylight.

Our eyes/brain adapt to lighting conditions and empirically (ie: reproducible by controlled experiments) follows the Kruithof curve (link - please read article)

There have been serious experiments to determine -
The Color of White
paper published by the WAAC - Western Association for Art Conservation -
specifically on illumination for displaying art/paintings (again please read) -
their findings fit well in the Kruithof curve. 

So put it simply when the light level is lower our eyes tend to "see" light with more yellow/amber as "white" - it could be culture/conditioning/even evolution - but that's the way it is.

That's why so many consider normal tungsten household lighting "white" until one actually compares it with daylight - then the yellowness is shown in comparison - but under normal circumstances the light will persist in looking "white" - in the absence of any reference comparison.

It should be noted that at night if the main lighting is tungsten for example and a smaller weaker light of daylight temperature like 6500K is shown it would look distinctly blue'ish to most people.

So for a flashlight which is used mainly for outdoors and shone at distance objects (where then illumination intesity would be low) a daylight-like color temperature would make the scene look gray'ish and lacking in depth. Hence the many complaints about LED flashlights used outdoors.

Whereas old fashioned tungsten flashlight would seem more realistic and fuller in color almost looking 3-D in comparison.

Photos cannot show this well - because to get a reasonably exposed photo mean that the illumination level has to be relatively high - and looking at the Kruithof curve one can see then our eyes would favor cooler daylight like temperatures.

My comparison beamshots are set to Fixed Daylight White Balance - but I compare flashlights side-by-side in the same photo - so that differences hopefully can be shown/seen.

And the beamshots show that the Warm White emitter is very close to a good incandescent light.

So if one is an incandescent enthusiast - now a very similar color temperature/tint is available in LED - with all the inherent advantages of LED like long runtimes, higher brightness and multiple mode/levels are now available.

Hope that made some sense.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 20, 2010)

Very nice post, that!


----------



## Locoboy5150 (May 20, 2010)

readyme said:


> Let me start by asking forgiveness for my ignorance. Why is there such "love" for incandescent lights? or.....why is this "warm" light so great?



If you get the chance, take or borrow an incandescent light, warm LED light and a cool white LED light outside in the woods like on a night hike. Then turn them all on and compare them to each other in the wilderness. It's hard to describe in words but once you're out in the wild, notice how everything just "comes alive" when looking at it while lit up with the incandescent and warm LED lights. Cool white LED lights make everything look "flat" by washing out the colors and thus the details. Incandescent and warm white LEDs make the colors come alive outdoors. Even neutral white LEDs are much better than cool white LEDs outdoors in the woods.

Like I said, it's hard to describe, but once you get these very different types of lights outside where they belong, then you'll see the difference. The results might surprise you if you're used to looking at things like lumen output, brightness of light, etcetera. They sure surprised me!

It would be helpful if someone could please take the Quark Warm white lights outside where they will really shine. The beam patterns on a wall indoors are helpful and thank you for posting them, but please also show them in the environment that they were designed for, the great outdoors.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 20, 2010)

Locoboy5150 said:


> It would be helpful if someone could please take the Quark Warm white lights outside where they will really shine. The beam patterns on a wall indoors are helpful and then you for posting them, but please also show them in the environment that they were designed for, the great outdoors.



I raise you this:


UnknownVT said:


> Photos cannot show this well - because to get a reasonably exposed photo mean that the illumination level has to be relatively high - and looking at the Kruithof curve one can see then our eyes would favor cooler daylight like temperatures.



....yes, I have the gift of foresight... er-hum

The only true way, is to do what you suggested of actually using one's eyes in the environment that the Warm White or incandescent "shine" (sorry about the pun.....)


----------



## Locoboy5150 (May 20, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> The only true way, is to do what you suggested of actually using one's eyes in the environment that the Warm White or incandescent "shine" (sorry about the pun.....)



Oh, I see. I've never tried taking photos of beamshots before so now I can understand what you're talking about. Well, thanks for your indoor shots though. They do help out a lot, especially the ones showing the warm white Quark LED to an incandescent light.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 20, 2010)

Locoboy5150 said:


> They do help out a lot, especially the ones showing the warm white Quark LED to an incandescent light.



Yeah, it didn't occur to me until I posted the review that the more useful comparison beamshots would be the ones that compared with the real incandescent - my comparison with the SureFire 9P wasn't quite a mere afterthought - but wasn't exactly high on my priority.... (confessions of a doofus reviewer).

So to make up for my lack of true foresight  -

Here are side-by-side comparisons with more well known real incandescents which hopefully many can related to - or even own......

4Sevens Quark AA-Warm vs. Streamlight Scorpion - Xenon 2x CR123








quick word about this comparison beamshot - although I deliberately chose a level on the Quark Warm to be as close to the incandescent compared to - I wasn't looking to compare brightness levels - but whatever I felt was the best level to compare the color/tints - 
thus although the next level up 4 - High (85 lumens) would have been more appropriate for comparing brightness - the Quark Warm has a much narrower side-spill and therefore much more concentrated - ie: brighter, that the comparison of tints/color would not have been as good as at level 3 - Medium which is only rated at about 22 lumens, and we all know the incand Scorpion is rated much closer to real OTF 60 lumens - as the -2 stops underexposed shot shows the Scorpion is much brighter.

Having said all that - it is still somewhat hard to compare the tints - simply because of the really wide side-spill of the Scorpion - look carefully at the full exposure beamshot and one can see its side-spill actually encompasses and overlaps the entire hotspot of the Quark AA-Warm - so the area to concentrate on to compare the tints is actually quite small - where there is obviously no overlap of beams - that is toward the bottom left where the beam side-spills intersect to form like an X - look at the 9 and 3 o'clock quadrants to compare the side-spill of the Quark AA-Warm and that of the Scorpion respectively..... 
Hope that was clear enough ..... 
don't make me have to draw it out for you.... 
ah, well -




hope I don't have to explain what the X1 and X2 means? (just messing with you....)

So after all that the tint of the Warm White is very close to the Xenon -
but there is the same caveat - the camera does not show everything my eyes can see - to my eyes the Scorpion Xenon seems a more pale straw yellow with a hint of green - whereas the Quark AA-Warm has more pink in its beam.

How about more down to earth incandescent flashlights?

Vs. 2AA MiniMag (Krypton on alkaline)







again pretty close in color tint - 
this time the camera may be seeing a bit closer to my eyes 
more red in the beam of the Krypton MinMag - 
and this time in comparison the Warm White LED seems more pale straw yellow and may be even a hint of green! 
- remember my eyes are not absolute measuring instruments I see differences and contrasts in comparisons.

Note: I deliberately used Alkaline AA in the 2AA MiniMag because there may be a disadvantage if NiMH are used due to their inherent lower voltage levels - and incandescent are very voltage dependent on their output.

Note2: the levels seem about the same - the level 2 - Low rating on the Quark AA is about 4 lumens - and the 2AA MiniMag has been guessti-rated at about 5.6 lumens(?)

How about the classic(-ally) maligned 
vs. Mag Solitaire 1AAA








Moonlight mode would have been way too low for a meaningful comparison and even the next level up 2 - Low seems too much - but here it is anyway......


----------



## ODatsBright (May 20, 2010)

I, too, have ordered a warm quark 123² based on the "hype" of the warms. Seeing the beam shots my first impression is "What have I done? " I'm not a fan of yellow light but I can attest to the "flatness" of a high kelvin LED by playing with my lights outside vs. my 2D Mag WA(I forget the number, something like 1217). I think it's rated about 500lm and compared to my Dereelight DBS MC-E the color temp make a big difference with perception, especially after a rain. The water drops on the grass and trees really scatters the light and creates what I can only describe as interference. It's not so much when using the incan.

Bottom line tho, I hope I made a good choice.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 20, 2010)

Locoboy5150 said:


> It would be helpful if someone could please take the Quark Warm white lights outside where they will really shine. The beam patterns on a wall indoors are helpful and thank you for posting them, but please also show them in the environment that they were designed for, the great outdoors.



Having given my caveat about outdoor beamshots - 

Originally Posted by *UnknownVT* 
_Photos cannot show this well - because to get a reasonably exposed photo mean that the illumination level has to be relatively high - and looking at the Kruithof curve one can see then our eyes would favor cooler daylight like temperatures._

nevertheless here are some - as requested - FWIW -


















first thing to notice is that the Warm version seems to have a wider hotpsot even if it's not as intense and its side-spill is relatively speaking brighter. The Neutral White version seems to have a more concentrated hot spot and relatively less bright side-spill so in the beamshot is showing less overall. I took a daylight control shot earlier in the day (obviously in daylight) to compare.

The R5 Cool white to my eyes has always seem too cool/blue'ish and this beamshot seems to confirm it - and even though details are nice and sharp, when compared to the Warm or even Neutral white it seems paler/washed out and less vibrant in color - the Warm kind of looks too warm to me, and the Neutral white is a nice compromise.

_BUT_ our eyes do not see like a camera with fixed daylight white balance, 
and in real life it'd be a toss up whether I'd choose the Warm or Neutral White.


----------



## Linger (May 21, 2010)

OK, perfect choice taking an outdoor beamshot of a tree. Excellent. But for comparison, please do a pic with two or more lights on the tree at the same time.
Two beams just separated, or if you can manage 3 in a triangular orientation.


----------



## ky70 (May 21, 2010)

Vincent, thanks for posting this great thread. This is just a wonderful tour of the quark warm lights and more importantly, an excellent introduction to the appeal of warm lights. I've never considered warm lights but after reading this thread, I'm excited about getting myself one. Thanks again for the detailed review!!


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (May 21, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> nevertheless here are some - as requested - FWIW -


 
For what it's worth? Are you kidding me?

1000 words.
$1 Million.
4Sevens - priceless

Fantastic pictures, thank you many times over. I know you say it does not show it as well as it should, but it does a very good job nonetheless. I want one so bad, I just wish so bad I could get one with the standard .9-4.2V circuit. I cannot believe that is not available in any form. I'd be willing to buy an extra tube to get the battery type I want, just give me that circuit:mecry:


----------



## geek1 (May 21, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> For what it's worth? Are you kidding me?
> 
> 1000 words.
> $1 Million.
> ...




Hmm, http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_310&products_id=2287

"Voltage range: 0.9V ~ 4.2V"

Ps: Very, very interesting article about that Kruithofcurve, well done!


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (May 21, 2010)

geek1 said:


> Hmm, http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_310&products_id=2287


 
That is the tactical curcuit, I said I wanted the standard curcuit. There are zero standard circuit warm Quarks, let alone a specific voltage of 0.9-4.2 vs. 3.0-9.0.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 21, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I just wish so bad I could get one with the standard .9-3.0V circuit. I cannot believe that is not available in any form. I'd be willing to buy an extra tube to get the battery type I want, just give me that circuit:mecry:



If you mean the regular multi-mode circuit (as opposed to the "Tactical") then I'd agree with you - it would have made my life so much easier when taking comparison beamshots not to have to program the light to get the right level when trying to match the lower incandescents.... 
"_that seems the best match... 
but which level was it?... 
darn! program it again and count this time... 
oh, missed that's now too high... 
so it was the one below - 
program it again...._"

I like the tactical switch - but I'd rather have the regular (non-tactical) multi-mode circuit 
(who voted for this? 
they ought get several tens of thousand volts )

But if you just mean 0.9-3V circuit - that is what I tested came as a Quark AA2 Warm - but Tactical circuit.... (with rant above) 
and BTW it's 0.9-4.2V, and a real 4.2V max at that - as it is a Buck-Boost current regulating circuit.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 21, 2010)

Linger said:


> But for comparison, please do a pic with two or more lights on the tree at the same time.
> Two beams just separated, or if you can manage 3 in a triangular orientation.



I can try - 
but the main objection I have 
other than extra work 
and I have to wait until dark again 
is that the beams will be on different parts of the tree - 
Plus I have to use a wider angle perspective so the details one sees will be smaller and possibly less meaningful
(... can you tell I've done this before?)

Whereas the "matrix" I displayed shows the beams on the same part of the tree, with good detail, so one can compare directly -
other than not actually being on the same photo 
- what's the objection?

Now this is different from the side-by-side comparison beamshots I do -
since that is on a sheet of plain white paper 
so the each beam is showing the "same" reflective surface 
and not different parts of the tree 
which may well have different features.


----------



## geek1 (May 21, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> That is the tactical curcuit, I said I wanted the standard curcuit. There are zero standard circuit warm Quarks, let alone a specific voltage of 0.9-4.2 vs. 3.0-9.0.



So what you actually wanted to say was "*regular* *UI *with *0.9V-4.2V* *circuit...

*If i'm not too lazy (which i usually am) i'm going to make some outdoor beamshots of my warm quarks compared to my other flashlights (neutral, cool and incandescent). I wonder if it's possible to get better quality beamshots by using HDR? Anyone ever tried?


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (May 21, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> and BTW it's 0.9-4.2V, and a real 4.2V max at that - as it is a Buck-Boost current regulating circuit.


 
Yep, I corrected my original post - thank you.


----------



## Linger (May 21, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> is that the beams will be on different parts of the tree -


Yes, true. But if it's possible to use the same tree as in the previous round of pics, we'll have enough of a baseline to know what it looked like with single torch illumination.
Yes, your time, totally true. I try to ask nicely:candle::wave:
Otherwise distances and angles can stay the same. It's not to compose a well balanced shot, just putting the two colours into the same image is wonderful.
I do believe that others may find it an informative example.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 21, 2010)

Linger said:


> Yes, true. But if it's possible to use the same tree as in the previous round of pics, we'll have enough of a baseline to know what it looked like with single torch illumination.
> 
> Otherwise distances and angles can stay the same. It's not to compose a well balanced shot, just putting the two colours into the same image is wonderful.
> I do believe that others may find it an informative example.



You mean to say the matrix is not useful to anyone?
bearing in mind I used Fixed Daylight Balance for all the shots - I was careful to do that since we are comparing tints/colors -
so one cannot compare separate photos 
even if they are right next to each other?

Distance and angle can_NOT_ possibly be the same 
as I have to cover a much wider area - 
nevertheless after it gets dark I can try again - 
it also may not be the same tree - 
as the area I used may not be able to accommodate all three beams.

- like I said I've done this before - 
perhaps you ought to try it yourself -
to see my objections are not mere excuses ?


----------



## fugleebeast (May 21, 2010)

I'm confused by the difference in beam profiles, as I noted in the Marketplace.

Since they are all XPGs in the same type of head, shouldn't they have the same beam profiles? Is it linked to the Cool, Neutral, Warm difference somehow?


----------



## bodhran (May 21, 2010)

Now that I've seen a ww in person, I think your tree photos are very good. Thanks for taking the time to provide those.


----------



## Locoboy5150 (May 21, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> nevertheless here are some - as requested - FWIW -



Those are great - thanks for posting them! Those photos definitely show the advantages of warm white LEDs compared to cool white LEDs. At least...that's how my eyes see them. When it comes to this stuff, everyone's eyes are different.


----------



## Linger (May 22, 2010)

VT, I've only written you with respect. Just like the rest of the posters here, I was the first to say thanx.
No negative vibes here: I've offered compliments and kudos, appreciating your forethought in composition, dedication in consistency, and your donation of time effort and talent.
I happen to find a particular shot quite illustrative, that's the only reason I mentioned it. From pouring over countless beamshots and taking hundreds of my own, one subject (tree) illuminated with several of the independent variables (different emitter quarks) can produce a very informative image.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 22, 2010)

As promised here are three lights on one tree - as discussed.

To show my willingness I had actually scouted two trees during the daylight hours took daylight reference shots of those, then waited til dark to take the triple beamshots. FWIW - here they are:

Version 1:







Note the leaves that the Neutral white is on are quite a bit closer than the others and there are fewer leaves in that area too. 

This is merely one of the problems trees are _NOT FLAT_ and therefore there will be some leaves closer etc. ie: inconsistencies.

Version 2:







the daylight reference shot may seem to show a more "consistent tree"...
that is until I shone the flashlights on it - then the gaps became more apparent - again the neutral white had few leaves to reflect and shone through gaps.

It is true these triple beamshots are still useful as a comparison 
but they have problems - unfortunately there is no way I can find an ideal tree....

This is the reason I much prefer the separate shots where at least I can control the area used and all the flashlights are shone on the same area - making it easier to compare the beams.

Here's another set of leaves beamshots - this time showing more of the underside of leaves:




















Do tell me please, why this matrix or the one posted in #*23* (link) are any less useful than the triple beamshots? 

In fact I will go as far to say the matrix is far more useful because we are looking at the same area, illuminated by the different flashlights, so can validly compare directly - 
whereas the triple beamshots have different parts of the tree, and for example (and I did not do this deliberately) - it is kind of hard to differentiate and see the difference between the Neutral white and the Warm white in one of the triple beamshots.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 22, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


>


That is really incredible seeing all three at the same time - thanks for all the trouble you've gone through taking these shots for us! :twothumbs


----------



## Linger (May 22, 2010)

+1**
Wow VT., those are excellent. Your dedication in site selection, exemplified in the daylight control shot, is well rewarded with a superior result.
The first triple shot (smaller beam hotspots) makes for a great photo-study illustrating that 'cool' tints reflect more on the leaves. In a forest the cool-tint user can feel surronded by a wall of folige. The warm white in that picture shows more depth in the tree, revealing branches and trunks.
The triple beamshot also shows that the cool tints really do seem to glare off the leaves. The warm tint look softer and more accessible, like it's OK to take the dew-drop off its tip.

Your pictures turned out very well, better than my own attempts with other lights. That picture is a strong comment that cool is not the write tint for wilderness use.


----------



## photonstorm (May 22, 2010)

Excellent pictures. Thank you for the reference.


----------



## photonhoer (May 23, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> Originally Posted by *UnknownVT*
> 
> The R5 Cool white to my eyes has always seem too cool/blue'ish and this beamshot seems to confirm it - and even though details are nice and sharp, when compared to the Warm or even Neutral white it seems paler/washed out and less vibrant in color - the Warm kind of looks too warm to me, and the Neutral white is a nice compromise.
> ...
> ...



VT
This thread is a _tour de force_! You have provided *enormously valuable* information. 

But, I have another context (than green leaves) to want to evaluate the warm LED: human flesh. My wife and I do medical volunteering all over the world, often having to provide our own light for surgery, biopsies, etc. One of the shortcomings of LEDs has been evaluating the color of human tissue, especially the shades of red in evaluating vascularity and inflammation. I first came across this problem at the BBQ, trying to visually establish the done-ness of beef or tuna — with an LED it all looks gray, you cant tell rare from well done. The same is true when trying to evaluate the color of tissue in a medical context.

I know this goes way beyond the call of duty, but any chance you could post some photos of the cool, neutral and warm LEDs on a partially-cooked steak of beef or tuna [sliced open to show the center] so I could get an idea how well we could use them in a medical context?

thanks, even if this is too much.

John


----------



## kaichu dento (May 23, 2010)

photonhoer said:


> I have another context (than green leaves) to want to evaluate the warm LED: human flesh.


My hand and foot are the first thing I check color on when evaluating tint. I still like to look at leaves, wood and other items, especially those that include any redness and have been pretty happy with my warmer tinted lights.

I think my 7x XR-E equipped Draco has better tint rendition than my E1e. :thumbsup:


----------



## UnknownVT (May 23, 2010)

photonhoer said:


> But, I have another context (than green leaves) to want to evaluate the warm LED: human flesh. My wife and I do medical volunteering all over the world, often having to provide our own light for surgery, biopsies, etc. One of the shortcomings of LEDs has been evaluating the color of human tissue, especially the shades of red in evaluating vascularity and inflammation. I first came across this problem at the BBQ, trying to visually establish the done-ness of beef or tuna — with an LED it all looks gray, you cant tell rare from well done. The same is true when trying to evaluate the color of tissue in a medical context.
> 
> I know this goes way beyond the call of duty, but any chance you could post some photos of the cool, neutral and warm LEDs on a partially-cooked steak of beef or tuna [sliced open to show the center] so I could get an idea how well we could use them in a medical context?



First, thank you for your kind words - there are very few occasions that I get access to steaks - beef or tuna - so the wait may be very long -

I do have - and I won't use "objections" - as that seemed to evoke emotional responses - even though strictly speaking it should be the correct word to use.

So let's just say "*caveats*":

Our eyes do not see like a camera - our eye/brain combination adapts to the lighting conditions which follows the Kruithof curve (a link well worth reading).

A flashlight is an oddity because of the way it is used - for some people it is the distant view that matters - in which case one sees that the actual illumination level is relatively speaking low - so a more yellow/amber light is more suitable. For close work where the flashlight may only be inches away - the illumination level could be quite high/intense - so we ought to prefer one that is closer to daylight color temperatures - ie: cooler/bluer.

Photographing leaves may seem to be "telling" but that is not the way we see outdoors - all the explanation etc well meaning and well done as they are - are merely an interpretation - mostly to be honest to fit in with the way we already think - 

The triple beamshot on one photo is a very case in point. There was nothing extra that I could see from such a shot over the already posted matrix of separate shots (of exactly the same area of leaves) which in theory ought to be better and more accurate for comparison - but all of a sudden with the triple beamshot on one photo - some really great interpretations/descriptions/explanations were posted.....

I don't know how much of this was "emotive" :huh: to either "placate" me from my "objections", or just to prove that a triple beamshot on one photo is "better" over a matrix of separate photos - which it patently is not. 
But, whatever, we did get much better interpretations/descriptions than any I had given so far....

*BUT a caveat* - I often do not go to this length in any explanation, 
and hardly ever describe the photos - 
because I usually leave (pun!) it to the viewers/readers to do that. 
However I always make a point of how my seeing may differ from any photos presented.

Having given my caveats (and not "objections"  ) 
I think I may still be able to give you a hand....



kaichu dento said:


> My hand and foot are the first thing I check color on when evaluating tint.


----------



## lesur (May 23, 2010)

Thank you so much for the in-depth review, photos and the link to the Kruithof curve explanation. Now I'm at a cross-roads. Warm or not.....


----------



## photonhoer (May 23, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> Having given my caveats (and not "objections"  )
> I think I may still be able to give you a hand....



[...snicker...]

You are both too good and very kind! Thanks for the hand out. Our color interpretation circuitry sure did evolve in sun light, not LED light of any kind, didn't it!

I accept your unavailability of 'raw meat' and guess I'll have to put out a plea to borrow a cool white and a neutral white lamp to look into a body cavity or two myself. Any chance someone here would be willing to lend a couple of LEDs for a week or so?

MANY THANKS. That was indeed above and beyond....

John


----------



## Xak (May 23, 2010)

fugleebeast said:


> I'm confused by the difference in beam profiles, as I noted in the Marketplace.
> 
> Since they are all XPGs in the same type of head, shouldn't they have the same beam profiles? Is it linked to the Cool, Neutral, Warm difference somehow?



I believe the "neutral" tints you are seeing is an older LED, not as bright, but a tighter hot spot. The "neutral white" quarks were available a few months ago. Not sure if they still are.

Rumor has it that if these "warm white" Quarks sell well he may sell "neutral white" Quarks with the newer R5 LED.

My neutral Quark is my favorite tinted light. Not quite so yellow as an incandescent, but noticeably better depth perception compared to my cool white LEDs.

I think the warm white would be optimal for the woods. I prefer my neutral for all around illumination, but prefer my cool white for urban settings.


----------



## 325addict (May 24, 2010)

OK, OK, very useful thread this, and now I just can't wait to get my hands on this one, it has been shipped already:

WARM WHITE Quark 123² Turbo

FINALLY a good, usable LED-light for in the woods? That would be the very first one... still can't believe it! 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, or something like that... if this one just performs NEARLY as good as one can see in the pictures, well.... the beginning of the end of the incan-era???

(and I just ordered four pieces of those monstrous FM1909 bulbs... and six AW IMR 18650s to power that 63 Watts(!) bulb...)

Timmo.


----------



## fugleebeast (May 24, 2010)

Xak said:


> I believe the "neutral" tints you are seeing is an older LED, not as bright, but a tighter hot spot. The "neutral white" quarks were available a few months ago. Not sure if they still are.




Ah, I know about the previous neutral run not being XPGs but I thought that UknownVT had some new XPG ones. Regardless though, shouldn't the Warm and the Cool have the same beam profiles since they are both XPGs? I'll put up the same picture that I did in the marketplace to show what I mean (crappy quality, sorry).






This picture was taken 10 inches away from the wall, my Warm Quark 123-2 compared to my Cool Quark R5 123-2. As you can see, the Cool has a much more defined hotspot and because of this, it throws much further. If we look at UnknownVT's pictures, it looks like his is doing the same. In the tree picture, the Cool Quark seems to have a tighter hotspot than the Warm. Since they are both XPG leds in the same heads, shouldn't the beam profile be the same?

I know that the Cool Quark will be brighter, because of the R5 flux vs the Q5, but I'm talking about the tightness of the beam, not the brightness.


Has anyone else experienced this? I'm just trying to figure out if all the Warm Quark heads will be like this or if it is a fluke. I personally like it, as the light is very floody. There are some people though, who may be expecting it to be exactly the same profile as their Cool Quarks.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 24, 2010)

fugleebeast said:


> Regardless though, shouldn't the Warm and the Cool have the same beam profiles since they are both XPGs? I'll put up the same picture that I did in the marketplace to show what I mean (crappy quality, sorry).



Have you actually asked 4Sevens about this difference?

I pointed this out earlier in Post #*23* (link) in this review 
and even acknowledged your post (less than an hour after yours) in the MarketPlace in Post #*399* over there too.

I would have thought the best person to do that would be the designer of these lights?


----------



## fugleebeast (May 24, 2010)

I know you acknowledged it, thank you.

I haven't contacted 4sevens because I'm not planning on returning the light even if it is a fluke. Since some people here don't visit the Marketplace, I thought it was an interesting point to bring up here as well as there.

Since this thread is comparing the Warm Quarks to the normal Quarks, and since your example appears to be like mine, I thought it would be a valid point to discuss.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 24, 2010)

fugleebeast said:


> I haven't contacted 4sevens because I'm not planning on returning the light even if it is a fluke. Since some people here don't visit the Marketplace, I thought it was an interesting point to bring up here as well as there.
> 
> Since this thread is comparing the Warm Quarks to the normal Quarks, and since your example appears to be like mine, I thought it would be a valid point to discuss.



So I contacted 4Sevens and got this explanation:

" _It's very possible that the warm white phosphor is thicker or taller
just enlarging the single point of light. The larger the point, the
less focus from the parabolic_ "

Hope that helps?


----------



## fugleebeast (May 25, 2010)

Vincent, thank you. I also contacted 4Sevens but haven't received an answer back. I had assumed that it might be something to do with the phosphor but I didn't know enough about LEDs to be sure. I appreciate all the work that you have put into this thread. Thanks again.


----------



## lak (May 26, 2010)

photonhoer said:


> VT
> But, I have another context (than green leaves) to want to evaluate the warm LED: human flesh. My wife and I do medical volunteering....
> but any chance you could post some photos of the cool, neutral and warm LEDs on a partially-cooked steak of beef or tuna [sliced open to show the center] so I could get an idea how well we could use them in a medical context?



So what's the verdict from those who own WW? Is it easier to see color variance in human tissue/skin/surface? I can't tell one way or the other from those hand beamshots.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 26, 2010)

lak said:


> So what's the verdict from those who own WW? Is it easier to see color variance in human tissue/skin/surface? I can't tell one way or the other from those hand beamshots.



From a non-expert at this - but since I have all three tints in question I can try to give some input.

I thought at first I should be using something like the Medium level (3 = 22 lumens) but that turned out to seem a bit low.

I ended up comparing by eye at the Max or high levels.

This is what my eyes saw I still used the palm of my hand (no raw flesh at hand) -

Cool White seemed to make things look somewhat gray-ish and a slight tinge of green at the peripheries - 
I can understand why many people do not like this for examining flesh tones.

Real incandescent (Streamlight Scorpion - xenon 2x CR123) palm looked pretty good with good separation of tones.

Warm White LED - very similar to the incandescent - with perhaps a tiny bit less red - but if I had not just used the incand I would not have noticed this.

Neutral White - you know I think I liked this the best - but remember I am nowhere near an expert, and may not be looking for/at the right things.

But my comparison with the real incand is accurate as I know how - 
so if one is happy with incands for examination of flesh - 
then the warm white most probably will do as well.

I know it's retrospective - 
I do see all this in the hand palm beamshots.....


----------



## NoFair (May 27, 2010)

Great review and thanks for taking the time to do the extra pics:thumbsup:

First thing I do with a light to check if the tint is good is look at the back of my hand in normal daylight and then illuminating it with the flashlight. If the hand still looks about the same then the tint is good. 

I prefer neutral over cool and warm as well. Put a R2 xp-e in 4D tint in my Ti AA Quark and it is now my most carried light (it wasn't when it had a cool white R5 xp-g)

Sverre


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (May 27, 2010)

I'm going against the grain here, but personally (and I admittedly have poor color distinguishing vision) I think the cool white best reflects the true skin color.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 27, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I'm going against the grain here, but personally (and I admittedly have poor color distinguishing vision) I think the cool white best reflects the true skin color.



Are you judging by eye in real life or by the palm photos?

If by the palm photos - then there is an explanation in order.

My beamshots are done with Fixed Daylight White Balance (sun symbol) - which is like comparing with sunny noon-daylight.

So the Cool White would be the closest in terms of white balance - and the warm white and incandescent will appear quite yellow.

However as explained our eyes do *not* see like a camera (with fixed daylight white balance) and emperically follows the Kruithof curve (please read).

In the absence of real daylight and having to use artificial light like a flashlight - examination of flesh tones is quite critical - incandescent have fulfilled this need for years - 

This may on the surface not make any sense - since isn't incandescent light very yellow? 

But the bias toward yellow and more importantly with good red content -
that may actually enhance our vision in distinguishing flesh tones - 
ie: some of the colors may not be as accurate - 
but we actually see better on the colors that do matter.

Whereas a cool white might be represented better when photographed - but in real-life it tends toward a grayishness without the vividness of the the incandescent.

These Warm Whites seem to imitate/mimic incandescent quite well - perhaps with very slightly less red - but they seem close to me - bearing in mind I am not an expert in this usage.


----------



## GunnarGG (May 27, 2010)

@ photonhoer and lak

I work as an ophtalmologist and got my preon 2 ww yesterday.
The light that has been in my pocket so far is this incan:
http://www.medisave.net/fortelux-n-diagnostic-penlights-silver-p-739.html

I mostly use my flashlight for looking at the conjunctiva or skin around the eyes. Sometimes mouth mucosa and other stuff.

My view of LED tints so far is:

Cool white: not good
neutral white: it works but incan better
warm white: same as incan but has just tried it a couple of times

(This is at work. At home or outdoors neutral white is best IMO but the ww isn't that bad indoors, it mix well with other incandescent light indoors)

I noticed that the ww Preon was a tiny bit on the cool side compared to the incan but that might be that it is a little brighter (on low) and maybe the batteries in the incan was a little old.

I also check pupillary reactions but then tint doesn't matter.
One thing that does matter when you check pupillary reaction is beamprofile.
I want to be able to put the lightspot on one eye with no light on the other and then shift between the eyes. The preon (as most lights) has a lot of spill but the incan is more like a bigger hotspot with no (or very low intensity) spill.
The best for this task is the ophtalmoscope that has a cirkel with totally even ilumination so that is what I use when it is in reach.

I know that one of the Streamlight penlights have a little tube that you can put on the front and I will try to find something to put on the preon to reduce the spill.

What I have learned in the different threads about tint is that we have different opinions about it.
What I like you might dislike and vice versa, this is what I think...


----------



## lak (May 27, 2010)

Thanks, Vincent and GunnarGG for your input.



GunnarGG said:


> warm white: same as incan but has just tried it a couple of times



Do you think the Preon WW could replace your Fortelux?


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (May 27, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> Are you judging by eye in real life or by the palm photos?
> 
> If by the palm photos - then there is an explanation in order.


 
Yes I was judging by your photos. Your explanations make sense, thanks for taking the time to explain.

Everything I currently own is cool white, except for my neutral-ish TK40. The problem with making comparisons is also tint shift at different drive levels. My TK40 appears to get warmer at a lower drive level, but that's just what my eye sees. I know you mentioned you did not always use the same light level in some of the comparisons, so I wonder how much of a factor that can be as well?


----------



## UnknownVT (May 27, 2010)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> The problem with making comparisons is also tint shift at different drive levels.



The shift in tint at lower current drive levels toward warm/green is reasonably well known - the shift is far, far less than the difference between Cool, Neutral and Warm White LEDs - those would be quite gross differences compared to the shift due to drive current.

But the observation of tint shift due to drive level is a good one - not many notice that until it is pointed out.

In an coincidental/accidental way - the shift kind of follows the way we see ala the now oft referenced (by me ) of the Kruithof curve.


----------



## ky70 (May 27, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> Do tell me please, why this matrix or the one posted in #*23* (link) are any less useful than the triple beamshots?
> 
> In fact I will go as far to say the matrix is far more useful because we are looking at the same area, illuminated by the different flashlights, so can validly compare directly -
> whereas the triple beamshots have different parts of the tree, and for example (and I did not do this deliberately) - it is kind of hard to differentiate and see the difference between the Neutral white and the Warm white in one of the triple beamshots.


 
I agree!! The single shots of all 3 illuminating (separately) the same area is what has me sold on the warm.


----------



## GunnarGG (May 27, 2010)

lak said:


> Do you think the Preon WW could replace your Fortelux?


 

I don't know yet but I will see how it feels next week. I think regarding tint that it could replace the Fortelux and it is also good to have that extra brightness sometimes.
The wide beam/spill is a downside at work but I think that could be fixed.

Here is a pic showing the beam from Fortelux, ophtalmoscope and Quark mini 123 neutral white (Sorry, the ww Preon2 is at work)
Just to show the difference in beamprofile.


----------



## EV_007 (May 29, 2010)

Nicely done Vincent. Taking the time to answer and illustrate viewers request is very time consuming and admirable. 

I'm really excited to see that LEDs are starting to perform like incans, although seeing a little green in the 9P beam kinda puzzles me.

Again accommodating various beamshot requests is greatly appreciated by us lurkers. Keep up the good work. 47s better let you keep the lights he sends you for your efforts. :thumbsup:


----------



## UnknownVT (May 29, 2010)

GunnarGG said:


> I work as an ophtalmologist and got my preon 2 ww yesterday.
> The light that has been in my pocket so far is this incan:
> http://www.medisave.net/fortelux-n-diagnostic-penlights-silver-p-739.html
> 
> ...



Many thanks for the invaluable input from a professional.

Looking at the specs of the Fortelux N Diagnostic Penlight both on the link you provided and on the Riester (Fortelux) own page on the light - they only say: "_2.2 V vacuum lamp_"
since it's driven by 2xAAA (=~3V) it is an over-driven incand .

_BUT_ it is in a vacuum as opposed to say halogen (like krypton and xenon) gas which retard the vaporization point to achieve about 3000-3200K max color temp (max color temp at vaporization of filament = 3400K in halogen gas). 

A vacuum bulb achieves lower color temps even if over-driven - it's simple physics any higher color temp the tungsten filament would vaporize.

My guess is that a vacuum bulb cannot exceed about 3000K(?) so produces about 2800(?) - so the Preon 2 WW would appear cooler (w more blue) as its nominal rated color temp is supposed to be about 3100K - but the incand bulb may show more red than the WW LED - 

The more relevant comparisons would be the side-by-side beamshots of the the WW vs 2AA MiniMag and 1AAA Solitaire (Post #*21*) both of which are Krypton lights at about 3000K(?) - in the pics the krypton incands do show more red in comparison....


----------



## UnknownVT (May 29, 2010)

EV_007 said:


> I'm really excited to see that LEDs are starting to perform like incans, although seeing a little green in the 9P beam kinda puzzles me.



Yes, that kind of got me too - but we are talking about side-by-side comparisons - where the eye can be very critical in picking out differences.

I think the SureFire 9P is an over-driven tungsten/xenon gas bulb - this probably achieves in the region of about 3200K color temp - which is very slightly higher than the WW emitter (~3100K) - plus driven by a single AA the WW LED may not quite achieve the rated CCT. There is a very slight tint of pink'ishness in the WW emitter - so in contrast/comparison the SF 9P will look a bit cooler more blue'ish - but perhaps that translates into more green'ishness(?) 

See Post #*21* where I compared the WW LED with Krypton incands - 2AA MiniMag and 1AAA Solitaire which would have lower color temps of about 2900-3000K(?) and had more red, 
and in comparison the WW emitter was a bit more green'ish!


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (May 30, 2010)

1) A confession:

I always thought your handle meant you lived in Vermont. I apologize.

2) An expression of gratitude:

Vincent, _thank you _for all your hard work in this thread. You really have gone to tremendous lengths to depict the differences between tints, and the time you have spent explaining in words the minutiae between what the camera "sees" and what we see is a testiment to both wanting to help others, and, quite possibility, the drive to document, discuss, and dissect which grips all of us in this (occasionally insane) hobby. 

I tip my LED-adorned hat to you.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 31, 2010)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> I always thought your handle meant you lived in Vermont. I apologize.


no apologies necessary - it was kind a deliberate choice on my part - 
that's why I remain "Unknown" - 
as for that part of the handle see this link
 


LEDAdd1ct said:


> _thank you _for all your hard work in this thread. You really have gone to tremendous lengths to depict the differences between tints, and the time you have spent explaining in words the minutiae between what the camera "sees" and what we see is a testiment to both wanting to help others, and, quite possibility, the drive to document, discuss, and dissect which grips all of us in this (occasionally insane) hobby.



Thank you so much for the kind words. 

Like the rest here I am a flashaholic - and I try to convey what I see and what I normally do when I get a new flashlight - mostly I compare it with flashlights I have that I think are close. I do not use any specialized measuring instruments - and use what most people would have at hand (eg: digital camera) - so most of what I do should be fully reproducible.

But the beauty of reviews on this forum is that I get feedback and comments which often leads me to investigate more in areas that I may not have considered when first doing the review - this one is a good case in point - where even though I knew initially that WW emitters would/should be compared with incandescent - I didn't realize that would be the main interest - which led me to compare more with other incandescent lights - which I was doing anyway - but now there was real interest. Similarly with outdoor leaves shots - I knew there would be interest - but the feedback confirmed it. 

The area I was not aware of was the flesh tones - and you can see I struggled with that one - because it is hard to represent what we see with photos. Fortunately again from feedback and responses it seems that what I observed, and retrospectively "saw" in the photos - that neutral seemed most pleasing - but the WW enhances about as well as incandescent - was about right.

So it is the feedback and responses that make the reviews better.

Thanks for the compliments.


----------



## bodhran (May 31, 2010)

The other day I was attempting to start an I.V. in a dark room and asked the family if they could turn on more lights. I had forgotten that I had put my ww cr2 mini in my pocket earlier until one of the Firemen mentioned, Hey Doc, you always have a flashlight on you. I turned it to medium and had one the the guys hold it for me. My first good look at flesh tones with the warm white, and it was great. No problem finding a vein and the Firemen were impressed also. After having enjoyed a nice Memorial Day weekend, I've noticed the reds on my sunburnt body are pretty impressive also under the ww.


----------



## UnknownVT (May 31, 2010)

bodhran said:


> My first good look at flesh tones with the warm white, and it was great. No problem finding a vein and the Firemen were impressed also. After having enjoyed a nice Memorial Day weekend, I've noticed the reds on my sunburnt body are pretty impressive also under the ww.



Great input - thank you so much -
it is really valuable to get input from people who have real serious use for the Warm Whites.

Thank you.


----------



## ky70 (Jun 2, 2010)

UnknownVT said:


> ...The reason the 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 isn't any brighter is because of the current regulating circuit.
> 
> 4Sevens Quark series have Buck-Boost regulating circuits which bucks the voltages above Vf (forward voltage) down to the spec'd safe levels - and for voltages below Vf as in 2x AA (~3V) it Boosts the voltage to the Vf. So at the LED emitter - a 3.7V Li-Ion 14500 which is likely to be above gets Bucked to the Vf and the 2x AA NiMH (~2.4V nominal) which is below gets boosted to Vf -
> therefore the output is the same as in both cases only Vf is presented.


 
Vincent, thanks for this explanation, but I have a question about if their is buck-boost regulating circuits in the qmini 123 (regular). The output for the qmini 123 is noticableably brighter with a rcr123 (3.7v) compared to cr123 (3.0v). Does this mean the qmini 123 does not have buck-boost circuitry?


----------



## UnknownVT (Jun 2, 2010)

ky70 said:


> Vincent, thanks for this explanation, but I have a question about if their is buck-boost regulating circuits in the qmini 123 (regular). The output for the qmini 123 is noticableably brighter with a rcr123 (3.7v) compared to cr123 (3.0v). Does this mean the qmini 123 does not have buck-boost circuitry?



From your description it sounds like a regular boost circuit - 

The Q-MiNi 123 specs actually says:
" _Battery: One CR123A (*3V max*)_ "

A regular boost (only) circuit is by-passed when the battery is above Vf - 
so in effect the LED is on direct drive - thus gaining in extra brightness. 

Note: the operative word *above Vf - *so by definition the LED is over-driven with a voltage that is above Vf.

The lower levels, I believe, are still there because the MiNi and Preon series use high frequency PWM.

Even though there is plenty of anecdotal evidence the light obviously "works" on 3.7V Li-Ion Rechargeable, and there are plenty of people who are quite happy using that on other flashlights which only have boost circuits (always nice apparently "getting something for nothing") - 

I still strongly suggest not using it - as it is out of spec, 
or if you are willing to risk it doing it very sparingly 
(remember do this at your own risk - and this flashlight would not be under warranty for this out of spec usage) 
- as I have a Fenix L1D-Q5 that I used to use as one of my comparison flashlights with very occasional Li-Ion - 
that has turned a distinct violet blue in tint - 
so much so that I had to replace it for comparisons. 

So perhaps Li-Ion may not cause sudden death - 
but probably long term permanent injury?


----------



## ky70 (Jun 2, 2010)

Thank you Vincent for that detailed explanation :twothumbs

Though I did like the exrta brightness of the mini using a 3.7v, I switched a while ago to a 3.0v LifeP04 123 battery so I still get the benefit of guilt free lumens without the risks of frying the LED.


----------



## Rat6P (Apr 10, 2012)

Just had to resurrect this.
Epic.
Thank you to the OP.


----------

