Why do you buy lights without High-CRI emitters?

“The End Of The World”? :smiley:

I just got another case of Warsteiner Dunkel. It’s gooooooood drinkin’!

Actually, first in a long time. Winter ain’t B33r Season…

Nice! I just had some Dunkel a few weeks ago.

Yep, good stuff…

Winter is more for Rumpleminze and Clement Orange Shrubb. :smiley:

Ooooooh, I wonder how the Shrubb would look lit up from behind by some nice 2000K LEDs. Not high-CRI by a longshot, but…

Rumpleminze is clear, and minty, so a CW would look quite nice lighting up the bottle. :smiley:

Forgot who it was, djozz?, who had a high-CRI CW LED, like 6500K or more.

Even in CW, lighting up the reds on the label would look quite nice, I imagine. :smiley:

I like it, might make for a fun pic thread.

Nice glowing brew! Founders Harvest Ale? Looks tasty.

One of my favorite drinks glows. It’s um, well, I don’t really know what it would be called on Earth. So I’ll just show you.

I may need to whip one up real quick …

… there.

Tasty, no?

Note: This image has not been edited, except to crop out some irrelevant background. It’s otherwise straight from the camera.

Clemence sells E21As in 6500K R9080. Also 2000K.

Simply because most of lights I’m interested in don’t have high CRI version or…. the other features makes high CRI LED not so important.
It’s important to me but, low/no CRI is better than no lights at all.

- Clemence

Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster!

Me too :slight_smile:

Ahh yes, the “best drink in existence,” I want one! :smiley:

Too green for me. Can we get it in a nice neutral tint?

I have the same.

I agree, and:

Having my preferred colour temp and tint is pointless, without High CRI.

temp, tint, CRI
why settle for only 2 out of 3?

Best I can do on short notice:

Pic lit by Maratac AA Cu Rev 5, Nichia (deets unknown, would love to know). I mis-spoke earlier when I said the Nichia in the Reylight Mini was about perfect for me; it has the better beam profile, but the Maratac has better tint (temps are both neutral, but again, deets unknown). The Maratac temp and tint seems really close to the BLF Q8’s to me (XPL HD V6 3D,) but obvs with higher cri.

Because I suspect that the CRI makes very little visible difference. I have tried to replicate the obvious differences in the photographs of hands under different CRI ratings, and in real life, the only thing that makes a noticeable difference is temp, even tint is only significant when white wall hunting. I realise thesr things are subjective, and that cameras bring different factors to the party,but this thread in particular has convinced me that it is not just me, it would take a lot to convince me now that CRI above 70 is worth pursuing.

Perhaps the single most blatant demonstration is my bedroom. The walls are a light cream colour, and the ceiling plain white. None of my high CRI non-neutral lights can illustrate that they are different colours, they look the same.

ALL of my neutral lights clearly show both colours distinctly.

What is the use of high CRI if it cannot show the difference in two colours side by side?

As a point of clarification, I’ve had some fun with pics here, but would agree that my pics at least are pointless in demonstrating anything other than to have a visual. You either see a difference that matters to you in real life or you don’t, no worries either way.

Seriously fellows, for some reason I am subscribed to this thread so I guess it's time to kick ass.

Do you believe CRI makes little or no difference for you? Seriously?

Aim a cheap whatever colour laser (a score of 0 CRI, I believe) at something and see if you can tell me it allows you to discern colours beyond the vicinity of the emitter frequency well. Busted, doesn't it?

We humans are adapted to the main available light sources in our evolutionary timeline: the sun and fires. These sources are spot on the black body locus with perfectly uniform spectral power distributions. Light sources which deviate from this are going to be noticed, the more the harder.

Now I must promptly say that despite leds are completely synthetic light sources, we've come far enough already but still there's way to go.

Of course I can respect what you believe and each one of you can have her/his own reasons, but when I aim a good high-CRI torch at a chosen target with a good range of vivid colours and next I do the same with a dull emitter equipped equivalent torch the difference can be quite noticeable. All my close friends are “converting” to this high-CRI religion and honestly, with little effort from my side.

Cheers my dears :-)

Original post date: Mon, 04/30/2018 - 06:26. Edited for typo fixup.

With regards to those of you who like to post pictures and namely those of you who aim to discern valuable rendering differences among them, be aware:

  • Photos are captured with a sensor/device pair a lot more limited than even the dullest healthy human sight.
  • The above captured information is then lossy compressed.
  • Later, you see the picture through another device with its own software and screen rendering limitations.

In my opinion, if all of the above still renders something worthwhile go praise the Lord because it's a freakin' miracle LoL.

Cheers ^:)

Indeed. The images here are mostly useless for CRI purposes. Digital cameras sense three specific frequencies, and computer monitors emit three specific frequencies. They can’t record or display the full spectrum, nor can they show a meaningful difference between three narrow-band lights and a full-spectrum light. Common image files only store three color channels, so there’s no place to put the extra color information even if it was available.

So this is pretty much all about how things look in person.

In person though, I’d take a 70CRI XP-L HI 3D (~4800K and slightly pink) over a 100CRI emitter at <4000K or >5500K. Because perfect CRI can’t fix a skewed color temperature.

OTOH, decent color temperature can’t make super-low CRI look good. Like, a narrow-band green LED may have the same peak frequency as a neutral white emitter, but it’ll make everything look terrible. Fortunately, nobody proposed that. It’s kind of irrelevant because zero or negative-CRI light sources aren’t really being considered.

As long as the CRI is high enough to classify a light source as “white”, like 70+, further CRI improvement is a relatively small factor in the result.