Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available

1503 posts / 0 new
Last post
JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

Micael wrote:
Hi all.

I’m excited, i got my lumen tube today so now the fun begins:)/Micael

Is a flooder or a spot giving higer lumens/Lux on the meter?


The way TA designed the tube, it should read the same.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Micael wrote:
Hi all.

I’m excited, i got my lumen tube today so now the fun begins:)/Micael

Is a flooder or a spot giving higer lumens/Lux on the meter?

They should read basically the same, although the way the light bounces around in the first chamber can effect things slightly, although this is usually due to the throwers having larger reflectors.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

steel_1024 wrote:
Arrived today

First test:LuminTop ODF30
moon: 11
Low:191
Mid:682
High:2140
Turbo:4270

[correction facto 0.8 ?]
Original factory value:
moon: 8
Low:150
Mid:540
High:1800
Turbo:3500

Congrats steel.. it’s good the TA arrived safely.. lumintop lumen are not consistent.. I don’t know how they measured.. I don’t think it really 3500 lumen.. probably around 3000 lumen @ 30 seconds..

I am guessing your correction factor is .68

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Quick update, the soldering station is on it’s way, it should show up tomorrow or the next day it looks like since the holiday delayed it.

I have all the lights waiting here for mods, I will try to knock them out as quick as possible once it shows up. Sorry about the delay.

I have been quite the last few days as I am trying to catch up on some other real life items during the down time.

Terry Oregon
Terry Oregon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2017 - 17:03
Posts: 489
Location: Beaverton Oregon

I'm now the owner of an HDS Systems Executive (200 lumens tested) and a modified Convoy S2+ from PFlexPRO (607 lumens, tested). 

.

 

THE HDS Systems Executive did not come with a calibration report, only a receipt stating it was 200 lumens (in addition to their website stating all lights are tested).

 

The PFlexPRO came with a calibration report (gotta love the potting sample in lower right):

.

Unfortunately, the results of testing both on the TA lumens tube resulted in readings that don't make sense.

.

HDS Systems

spec 200

TA Tube: 349

correction factor of .573

Note, I had an email discussion with HDS Systems (Henry Schneiker) to make sure initial turn-on (high) is where he measures the output. It was.

====================================

Convoy S2+ (PFlexPRO)

spec 607 @ 30sec

TA Tube: 790

correction factor .768 @ 30sec

 

.573 and .768 is a BIG discrepancy.  I was hoping to see both lights give results that were very close. The Convoy seems closer to what I expected.

 

I'm stumped.

 

The only other light that comes really close to the PFlexPRO correction factor would be my modified Maglite. Mat claims the 5,000 lumens is out-the-front.

 

Quote:

[Adventure Sports Flashlights custom Maglite (2X KeepPower 26650)

spec high = 5,000
TA Tube = 6,550
correction factor .763

 

 

My reviews: , My personal collection of lights LINK,  J5 Tactical V1 Pro review LINK,  Thirteen Optical Sensors review LINKZebralight SC700d review LINK,  Ray-O-Vac Super Power Sportsman review LINK,  Convoy S2+ color combos LINK,  How To flash D4V2 LINK.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

What batteries and voltage did you use?

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

And this is the problem that I and many others have had with DIY spheres. You can get 10 flashlights all rated to given numbers but get very different relative readings. This is why I gave up on using flashlights for calibration.

What tints are the lights?

HDS has an ANSI calibrated sphere but they do not take the readings at the ANSI 30 second mark? That seems odd.

PFlexPRO says his sphere is calibrated with flashlights IIRC.

This is why all DIY spheres have to average the data from as many sources as possible to try to find a common middle ground that is semi-accurate.

This is also why I will never understand why anyone lists the lumen value on a light down to the single digits, they simply can’t know that.

I honestly don’t know what to think, I thought the calibration I had was pretty good when I started this as do many others but it seems a lot of us are wrong.

Terry Oregon
Terry Oregon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 10/21/2017 - 17:03
Posts: 489
Location: Beaverton Oregon

Quote:
What batteries and voltage did you use?

 

For the HDS Systems, I used the battery shipped with it - an AW 18650 (4.13V)

For the Convoy, I used a freshly charged Samsung INR18650-25R (4.10V)

 

My reviews: , My personal collection of lights LINK,  J5 Tactical V1 Pro review LINK,  Thirteen Optical Sensors review LINKZebralight SC700d review LINK,  Ray-O-Vac Super Power Sportsman review LINK,  Convoy S2+ color combos LINK,  How To flash D4V2 LINK.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

Texas_Ace wrote:
And this is the problem that I and many others have had with DIY spheres. You can get 10 flashlights all rated to given numbers but get very different relative readings. This is why I gave up on using flashlights for calibration.

What tints are the lights?

HDS has an ANSI calibrated sphere but they do not take the readings at the ANSI 30 second mark? That seems odd.

PFlexPRO says his sphere is calibrated with flashlights IIRC.

This is why all DIY spheres have to average the data from as many sources as possible to try to find a common middle ground that is semi-accurate.

This is also why I will never understand why anyone lists the lumen value on a light down to the single digits, they simply can’t know that.

I honestly don’t know what to think, I thought the calibration I had was pretty good when I started this as do many others but it seems a lot of us are wrong.


I’m just waiting for you get your test lights back from Maukka, that he measured against his proper reference light, then test them across your remaining spheres to find the proper correction factor. That will probably be good enough for me. Thumbs Up

I think it’s just human nature for us to want to see high lumen numbers from our lights. It’s hard to accept that a light that we thought was doing 9000 luman may actually be doing closer to 6000 lumen. Nooo! Say it ain’t true! Lol

It’s like we’re living in The Matrix and we’re starting to emerge from our pods and seeing the real world for the first time. Lol

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

Matt’s homemade integrating sphere was based on TA’s calibration if I recall correctly. So we shouldn’t go by that.

If PFlexPRO is not using a NIST calibrated reference light, then we should probably ignore those results as well.

HDS Systems uses turn on lumens? How odd. I wonder if he just verifies it meets the minimum 200 lumen specification? If so, then it could actually be more than 200 lumens.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Indeed, the only reason I trust Maukka’s numbers more then most is that he has an expensive standard lamp to compare against. This is the single most important factor to a quality sphere.

I am very curious to see what the numbers work out to. Some early data says it should agree with what most others are seeing in the high .6x range.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

Texas_Ace wrote:

This is also why I will never understand why anyone lists the lumen value on a light down to the single digits, they simply can’t know that.

This is probably what they’re actual numbers are showing. It doesn’t mean it’s super exact. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. If it says 842 lumens then you know it’s probably 840 ish. Maybe even think of it as the mid 800 range.

Texas_Ace wrote:

I honestly don’t know what to think, I thought the calibration I had was pretty good when I started this as do many others but it seems a lot of us are wrong.

Don’t beat yourself up about this. It’s not that big a deal.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

JasonWW wrote:
Texas_Ace wrote:

This is also why I will never understand why anyone lists the lumen value on a light down to the single digits, they simply can’t know that.

This is probably what they’re actual numbers are showing. It doesn’t mean it’s super exact. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. If it says 842 lumens then you know it’s probably 840 ish. Maybe even think of it as the mid 800 range.
Texas_Ace wrote:
I honestly don’t know what to think, I thought the calibration I had was pretty good when I started this as do many others but it seems a lot of us are wrong.
Don’t beat yourself up about this. It’s not that big a deal.

Yeah, I know that and it doesn’t bother me directly so much as what the novice members among us think when they see those numbers. It propagates a false impression of exactness that we simply don’t have the capability of achieving.

shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1080
Location: Louisiana

Texas_Ace wrote:

I honestly don’t know what to think, I thought the calibration I had was pretty good when I started this as do many others but it seems a lot of us are wrong.

For me the biggest attraction to your sphere project is the fact that a group of people here will have a standard to compare with each other – not some exact number.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

Getting a lumen number is complicated.. everyone get different reading and different output..

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

JasonWW wrote:

I’m just waiting for you get your test lights back from Maukka, that he measured against his proper reference light, then test them across your remaining spheres to find the proper correction factor. That will probably be good enough for me. Thumbs Up

I just realized that you don’t need to test the “Maukka measured” lights across your several tubes to find an average. Since those are all based off your original tube (plus or minus 5%) it means the original tube is the average. Duh, why didn’t I realize earlier. Facepalm lol

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

maukka
maukka's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 12/31/2015 - 04:15
Posts: 2023
Location: Finland
Texas_Ace wrote:
Indeed, the only reason I trust Maukka’s numbers more then most is that he has an expensive standard lamp to compare against. This is the single most important factor to a quality sphere.

To be fair, my standard lamp isn’t expensive. It’s just calibrated against one.

Sphere images.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

Newlumen wrote:
Getting a lumen number is complicated.. everyone get different reading and different output..

No two identical flashlights ever give the same exact reading for a single integrating sphere as well. Cree bins their emitters plus or minus 7%, plus you have other smaller factors. Party

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

maukka wrote:

To be fair, my standard lamp isn’t expensive. It’s just calibrated against one.

Sphere images.


Maukka, since your test lamp sits in the middle of your sphere, how does its output compare to having it shining in through a port with a white background around it similar to how you would measure a flashlight shining into a port?

I guess it’s not very relevant for our purposes, but I was just curious.

Also, what did your standard light cost?

Does it also need a costly power supply to operate it?

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

maukka
maukka's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 12/31/2015 - 04:15
Posts: 2023
Location: Finland

The standard calibration light was under $100. The power supply doesn’t need to be super accurate as long as you have an accurate multimeter to verify the current stated on the calibration certificate when calibrating.

I used the calibration lamp inside the sphere in a E27 holder. After that I put the Emisar D4 in there at 100% 7135 for flashlight calibration (subtracting the effect of the D4 itself using an auxiliary light). After that I moved the D4 outside the sphere and measured the lux through a diffuser on the input port. I’ve noticed that a diffuser is the best single thing to improve the integration.

Now I had a calibration light for measuring other lights. I also measured the Haikelite SC02 as a second calibration light because its readings are very stable. Every time I measure lumens, I first check that the two calibration lights produce a calibration factor within 0.5% of each other. So I know if either of them has drifted for some reason.

For measuring lights I use an auxiliary light again to subtract their effect on the readings. With the diffuser in place, the small (<30mm) lights don’t really affect the readings, but for bigger lights the effect is clear (bigger readings when the reflector bounces light back to the sphere).

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Great info and also glad to hear that I am on the right track with the diffusers, I noticed the exact same results when I added them to my sphere.

I finally was able to get caught up with all the flashlight mods, I have some other things to get caught up on over the next few days but I hope to start playing with ways to make a correction factor for the spheres after that. Hopefully the lights from Maukka will be here by then.

moderator007
moderator007's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 14 min ago
Joined: 12/23/2012 - 04:47
Posts: 3180
Location: North Carolina
Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
moderator007 wrote:
Has anyone tried sixty645’s method for calibration? http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/25678#comment-25678 http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/910917#comment-910917

I have not tried that method exactly but I did try calculating the lumens early on in my sphere development and quickly dismissed it as the spheres we use are not nearly precise enough to mathematically calculate the lumens.

With a very high end “perfect” sphere, it should be possible though.

Ozythemandias
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 14 hours ago
Joined: 09/21/2016 - 08:33
Posts: 303

Micael wrote:
Hi all.

I’m excited, i got my lumen tube today so now the fun begins:)/Micael

Is a flooder or a spot giving higer lumens/Lux on the meter?

Do you have any results from the testing?

 

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Ozythemandias wrote:
Micael wrote:
Hi all.

I’m excited, i got my lumen tube today so now the fun begins:)/Micael

Is a flooder or a spot giving higer lumens/Lux on the meter?

Do you have any results from the testing?

He did send me some preliminary results and they were right in line with everyone elses numbers. Around .67 – .68. This is looking to be the target range.

I am going to go hunting today for some options to reduce the readings by that much. They have window tint film that blocks 30% of the light that should get the numbers really close, I am going to see if any local shops have some scraps I can play with.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Ok everyone. Good news, the lights from maukka showed up! Huge thanks to maukka for these!

So after testing them along with some other lights the numbers are lining up very well.

Like most I found .68 is the magic number.

So now to correct the spheres. I spent most of the morning looking at options and trying to get this to work in the simplest method possible. Including going to window tinting shops and getting some samples.

After a lot of testing I think I found a method that should work, I still need to test it on several more but the random sampling of 5 spheres I have been using are working well with it.

Even after sitting for awhile and being moved around several times and having these correction disks added they are all reading within my 5% goal (although 1 of them was right on the edge). I think I am going to raise the official specs to +/- 7% tolerance simply because I am sure there is an outlier that falls in that range and that is the Cree tolerance range anyways so why pretend that these can be more accurate then cree.

So the setup I am working with now are 2 of the diffusing sheets I used inside the sphere.

Depending which way they are orientated they can have a correction factor of ~.70 or around ~.66. So either 2% high or 2% low.

I think I am going to recommend going with the .70 correction factor and then simply rounding down your numbers since I recommend rounding them off anyways.

Plus I find that my sphere tends to drift a bit low every few weeks just due to dust and such. So that should balance out the readings to make them basically spot on since these will get dirty no matter how hard you try to not let them.

I am still going to try some other things but so far this is the closest I can get without having to stack 4-6 layers in just the right order and orientation of various materials. That is simply too much room for error for my tastes. Even how clean/dirty the disks are plays a noticeable role in the results.

The opaque diffusing sheet gets it really close with a single sheet but it is still around .65-.66 one direction or .70-.71 the other. It is simpler but slightly worse off.

Plus by sending everyone 2 of these sheets the spheres could be dialed in a bit better on a per sphere basis if a good “standard” light is ever made for individual calibration.

So opinions, how does everyone feel about a .70 correction factor?

Would you prefer .66?

Should I keep searching and find a .68 correction factor even if it is much more complicated leaving room for error?

If everyone agrees on a .70 correction factor I can get another diffusing sheet and get it laser cut this week and have it shipping out by next week.

Personally in my own sphere I will be using .70, it is good enough for me. I generally find that the simplest option is the best option. Plus since I round down anyways the numbers should be good.

Thanks for everyone having the patience to wait for a fix.

shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1080
Location: Louisiana

^^ Close enough and I like simple

hIKARInoob
hIKARInoob's picture
Online
Last seen: 14 sec ago
Joined: 08/28/2016 - 08:15
Posts: 4057

Good news TA! Thumbs Up Beer

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 3 min 44 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11900
Location: Houston Texas

I’m okay with .70 as we can round down a bit if necessary.

Do these sheets your talking about fit in front of the light meter? If so, it seems very important that it be thin. As the meter gets pushed out it effects the readings.

I just thought of something. If you use that sheet that gives a .70 correction factor we can add a tiny spacer to the meter to push it out a tiny bit and get .68. At least I can. Even a thin 1mm thick clear lense might give that bit of extra drop we need.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 20 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

JasonWW wrote:
I’m okay with .70 as we can round down a bit if necessary.

Do these sheets your talking about fit in front of the light meter? I’d so, it seems very important that it be thin. As the meter gets pushed out it effects the readings.

I just thought of something. If you use that sheet that gives a .70 correction factor we can add a tiny spacer to the meter to push it out a tiny bit and get .68. At least I can. Even a thin 1mm thick clear lense might give that bit of extra drop we need.

Yes, they sit in front of the meter and stop against the small lip inside the fitting.

They are thin enough to not effect the meter placement, the meter does not reach all the way to the back of the fitting anyways.

Although I did just realize that the 4” spheres could have an issue getting these disks to stay put as there is no lip on those fittings to hold them in. I will have to think on that.

Could possibly hot glue the disk to the meter itself but that is not as simple.

I am going to go grab a 4” and do some testing.

Pages