[GB ended,discussion only] CRI > 80+ NICHIA 2000K-6500K [E21A/219B/219C/319A/144A/757GT-F1(Optisolis)]

Those ā€œmini COBsā€ look interesting.

Those E21A are very interesting. Imagine a 20mm triple under Carclo optics. Unfortunately this would need a special MCPCB. For good heat transfer a special AlN Board would be nice, or a direct cathode MCPCB combined with a special driver that switches battery+, so that the board wouldnā€™t have to be isolated.

3x E21A and Carclo 10511 should make a very nice beam, smooth but with some throw.

That beeing said, I would expect the NCSL219B-V1 R9080 to be quite similar concerning beam characteristics under those 105xx Carclos, but much easier to implement.

I just built up a Convoy S2 using one of the sm503 9050 219C. Looks pretty nice to my eyes, but itā€™s hard for me to tell as Iā€™m red/green colorblind. I wouldnā€™t mess with high CRI for myself, this is for a friend who will enjoy the CRI. It does appear to be a wonderfully neutral white though.

Thx for the AlN idea Chouster, will think about it.
Carclo 10511 designed favourably towards Cree XP-G in the first place (0,73mm focal plane). The rest of the emitters will need some adjustment in opticsā€™s peg height. E21A paired with 10511 isnā€™t as tight as it potentially could. The problem lies in much lower focal plane in E21A 0,27 - 0,3mm +/- 0,05mm (height vary with different CRI). Compare this to 0,4mm in NVSx219C/NCSx219B-V1/NVSx219B-V1.
We all know that domeless emitter with the same die shape should have much tighter beam. But from this beamshots, the difference is only marginal. Approx. 1 degree tighter compared to 219C (the same die as E21A).
Cree XP-L HI usually have ~20% tighter beam compared to XP-L HD in any TIR optics.

NVSW219B

NVSWE21A

NVSW219C

Just my Rp 2

Just for fun....

Hi Clemence,

I appreciate your Rp 2 very much. :slight_smile:

I read your thoughts about AlN in your VirEnce CDTP MCPCB thread, so you already mentioned it.

The beamshots and FWHM-graphs you posted are from Carclo, right?

I think their numbers are very much like I would have expected, with one big exceptionā€¦

ā€¦ the NVSL219B. I really think they mixed something up there. In fact, I have the feeling they tested a NCSL219Bā€¦

All numbers would make perfect sense to me than.

EDIT: I just wrote them an e-mail asking for clarification.

Yes, I got them pics from Carcloā€™s website.
I donā€™t think they mixed it with NCSL, itā€™s what it is.
Beam angle order in 10511: 219B - E17A - E21A - 219C - 319A (weird huh?)
If we follow common sense based on die area geometries it supposed to be like this: E17A - E21A - 219B - 219C - 319A
So far, the only explanation logcal to me is in their focal plane (die height) differences. Anything lower than ~ 0,6mm - 0,73mm (XPG) will off focus. 219B, 219C, and 319A are all have 0,4mm focal plane. Thatā€™s why their sequence looks OK.

Hi,

please take a look at the Cd/lm numbers of the 10193 optic.

  • NVSW 319A Cd/lm: 9.5
  • NVSW 219C Cd/lm: 12.5
  • NVSW E21A Cd/lm: 20.66
  • NVSL 219B Cd/lm: 23.1 (NCSL219B!?)
  • NCSW E17A Cd/lm: 34

I really do think they mixed that up.

I donā€™t know. But that looks OK to me since 219B has smaller die than 219C. E21A and E17A could be close to 30 and 40 cd/lm if the height adjusted.

Also, why would the NVSL219B have so much higher Cd/lm values than the NVSL219C, when they have about the same die-height and die-size?

We were talking about 10511. And in that particular optics the cd/lm number looks normal.
The latter optics you posted indeed has too much difference for such a slight difference in die area (219C vs. 219B)

Yup, thatā€™s right. Sorry, I was talking about the 10511 indeed. But when I looked at the numbers from other optics thatā€™s when I realized that something isnā€™t right about those numbers. Not that clear when you just look at the 10511ā€™s numbers.

Swapped xpg3 90cri out for nichia 219C sm503 in a triple x6 and it looks great with no green. As noted by TA, maybe slight blue if you are sensitive to CW but in general a very pure white.

The 4000k is just slightly warmer than I like and the 5000k slightly cooler. Iā€™m going to try 2 of each when I rebuild my s41 and see how that turns out.

Thanks Illuminos for the report. I just want to know who else got the green other than Mustsimon.
How is it compared to XPG3 90CRI? I mean real world colour reproduction?

Got my LEDs Texas! Thank you very much!

Great!

In response to the request for sm503 impressions, I gave mine before, but Iā€™ll add some white wall comparisons. I do like these emitters, but I thought I was going to love them. Iā€™m not sure if itā€™s just that nothing can compare to the 219B R9080, which is a warm fuzzy feeling turned into photons or if theyā€™re actually a little off. The 319A looks maybe a hair cooler, but no green. I think itā€™s even a tiny bit rosy, but itā€™s hard to be sure since itā€™s behind an AR lens.

So hereā€™s a 319A sm505 on the left and a 219C sm503 on the right, taken with my Nexus 5 with the white balance set to 6500K. Note that I donā€™t think the numbers indicated for the white balance correspond to reality - thatā€™s just the setting that seems to produce images that match what my eyes see.

Hereā€™s the 219C sm503 next to the 219B sw45k with the same white balance setting:

Chouster got my package !

Thanks for good delivery and all the work you put in.

Danke schƶn !

OMD! I thought you were jokingā€¦.But when I looked at your pictures it is indeed!
compared to 319A sm505, the 219C sm503 looks so much better BUTā€¦.when compared to 219B sw45k it turns ugly! :confounded:

Itā€™s not only our eyes, even your Nexus agrees :smiley:

Maukka is definitely needed now. I hope his package will arrive soon.