[Review] SST-20 in FW3A is divine!

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
thisnameisvalid
thisnameisvalid's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 06/03/2017 - 15:54
Posts: 162
Location: England, United Kingdom

Neutral > Rosy > Green is my order of preference.

Compared to super green LEDs like the FB4 SST rosy ones look much better to my eye. However if I have a neutral tint (FD2 SST 20 and my good tint lottery 219cs in my D4) I find I much prefer it to a particularly positive or negative DUV.

To me the SW45K looks great next to super green LEDs, but when I compare it to any emitter that’s remotely neutral it looks pretty bad (even if it ends up making me perceive all others as “green”). It’s offensively rosy in the same way some are offensively green. That’s just my experience anyway ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The FD2 is as close to perfect as I’ve seen so far.
g_damian
g_damian's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 08/20/2017 - 06:52
Posts: 469

Has anyone tried minus green filter on glasses?

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA
g_damian wrote:
Has anyone tried minus green filter on glasses?

haha, that seems to be what people want Smile

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 35 min 41 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16111
Location: Amsterdam
Joshk wrote:
g_damian wrote:
Has anyone tried minus green filter on glasses?

haha, that seems to be what people want Smile


these will substract maybe a bit more duv than required
Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA
contactcr wrote:
Joshk, feel free to try out the new C-800 firmware and do the TM-30-18 report
contactcr wrote:
Hell if I know, but if this is set to replace Ra/R9 we should probably figure it out Smile

Ah ha! It’s actually a Locus that merges the BBL and the Daylight Locus. Very cool. It does so by using the 5000k-4000k region to transition.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7698
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

Joshk wrote:

Ah ha! It’s actually a Locus that merges the BBL and the Daylight Locus. Very cool. It does so by using the 5000k-4000k region to transition.


But… WHY? If the Daylight Locus is more green than the BBL, what is the supposed advantage of “merging” them this way? To say it another way: What light source is anyone measuring that they’d want to skew the “results” in this way?

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA
DavidEF wrote:
But… WHY? If the Daylight Locus is more green than the BBL, what is the supposed advantage of “merging” them this way?

Are you seriously complaining about the color of daylight? The advantages are numerous for technical and non-technical reasons. We evolved under daylight. We want our lighting to agree with daylight. Not have some weird discrepancy.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 17 hours ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7698
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

I understand that our eyes are naturally matched to daylight. But, why merge the lines? What advantage is it in scientific testing of “fluorescent” lights, including LEDs? The two lines exist already, and can be measured against, so what does this add that we need?

EDIT: BTW, I’m not complaining about daylight. That would be silly! Silly

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

contactcr
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 7 min ago
Joined: 05/19/2017 - 18:52
Posts: 2854
Location: US

I love these new below BBL LEDs for photography!!!!

Bob_McBob
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 22 sec ago
Joined: 08/14/2016 - 04:53
Posts: 545
Location: Canada
Joshk wrote:
Are you seriously complaining about the color of daylight? The advantages are numerous for technical and non-technical reasons. We evolved under daylight. We want our lighting to agree with daylight. Not have some weird discrepancy.

Again, studies pretty clearly demonstrate we don’t want that. It’s extremely useful to have a proper daylight reference in many situations, but it doesn’t mean it’s what people want for general lighting, especially at night. User preference is much more important than achieving the one true neutral tint.

CLB
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2019 - 17:38
Posts: 57
Location: California

contactcr wrote:
I love these new below BBL LEDs for photography!!!!

Ain’t that the truth. Looks just like a 219B SW45K to me Wink
Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA
Bob_McBob wrote:
but it doesn’t mean it’s what people want for general lighting, especially at night.

I think you are confusing rosy with warm. Warm light is awesome at night. But it’s still neutral.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10090
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3
Joshk wrote:
Bob_McBob wrote:
Joshk wrote:
We want our lighting to agree with daylight.

Again, studies pretty clearly demonstrate we don’t want that. It’s extremely useful to have a proper daylight reference in many situations, but it doesn’t mean it’s what people want for general lighting, especially at night. User preference is much more important than achieving the one true neutral tint.

I think you are confusing rosy with warm. Warm light is awesome at night. But it’s still neutral.

If what Bob said doesn’t make sense, you may be confused. But this is not a bad thing. Being confused can be a very useful thing, if one is able to recognize it.

One day, students went into their physics class and the teacher showed them a large thick metal plate with one end very close to a fire and the other end a couple meters away. The teacher instructed the students to feel the metal plate, and they felt that the end near the fire was cooler while the end away from the fire was warmer. So the teacher asked the students to write down a guess about why.

Some students wrote things like “because of how metal conducts heat” or “because of how air moves”, but no one wrote “this doesn’t make sense” or “this seems impossible”. So no one got the right answer… which was that, just before the students came into the room, the teacher had turned the plate around.

The students failed because they did not notice their confusion, and thus ignored the most important clue they had.

Usually, when one is confused, it means that one has a false belief or a false assumption. The sensible way to respond to confusion is by trying to identify what that false belief is… and get rid of it.

In this case, I think the confusion may be caused by the false belief that humans in general want artificial lighting to be identical to daylight (or at least on the blackbody line). The available data on this topic indicates that most people actually do not want this, and instead prefer something a bit more rosy in tint. A perfect blackbody radiator may be ideal in a mathematical sense, but that does not mean it produces an ideal lighting spectrum for human use.

Or perhaps the confusion may be caused by the false assumption that Bob doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But he does, and he’s not confusing duv with CCT.

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA
ToyKeeper wrote:
Joshk wrote:
Bob_McBob wrote:
Joshk wrote:
We want our lighting to agree with daylight.

Again, studies pretty clearly demonstrate we don’t want that. It’s extremely useful to have a proper daylight reference in many situations, but it doesn’t mean it’s what people want for general lighting, especially at night. User preference is much more important than achieving the one true neutral tint.

I think you are confusing rosy with warm. Warm light is awesome at night. But it’s still neutral.

If what Bob said doesn’t make sense, you may be confused. But this is not a bad thing. Being confused can be a very useful thing, if one is able to recognize it.

One day, students went into their physics class and the teacher showed them a large thick metal plate with one end very close to a fire and the other end a couple meters away. The teacher instructed the students to feel the metal plate, and they felt that the end near the fire was cooler while the end away from the fire was warmer. So the teacher asked the students to write down a guess about why.

Some students wrote things like “because of how metal conducts heat” or “because of how air moves”, but no one wrote “this doesn’t make sense” or “this seems impossible”. So no one got the right answer… which was that, just before the students came into the room, the teacher had turned the plate around.

The students failed because they did not notice their confusion, and thus ignored the most important clue they had.

Usually, when one is confused, it means that one has a false belief or a false assumption. The sensible way to respond to confusion is by trying to identify what that false belief is… and get rid of it.

In this case, I think the confusion may be caused by the false belief that humans in general want artificial lighting to be identical to daylight (or at least on the blackbody line). The available data on this topic indicates that most people actually do not want this, and instead prefer something a bit more rosy in tint. A perfect blackbody radiator may be ideal in a mathematical sense, but that does not mean it produces an ideal lighting spectrum for human use.

Or perhaps the confusion may be caused by the false assumption that Bob doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But he does, and he’s not confusing duv with CCT.

You are know TK, I’m getting tired of you deleting the relevant parts of my quotes to make me look confused. Let me quote that properly for you to read again.

Joshk wrote:
We want our lighting to agree with daylight. Not have some weird discrepancy.
contactcr
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 7 min ago
Joined: 05/19/2017 - 18:52
Posts: 2854
Location: US

Arguing opinions with opinionated people, why bother. Different people have different preferences regardless of if one is talking about CCT or Duv. Are these studies more than just surveys anyways?

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10090
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

Joshk wrote:
You are know TK, I’m getting tired of you deleting the relevant parts of my quotes to make me look confused. Let me quote that properly for you to read again.
Joshk wrote:
We want our lighting to agree with daylight. Not have some weird discrepancy.

My apologies. I may have left out another important bit too, and should quote it in case it was missed earlier.

ToyKeeper wrote:
from research studies, the average preference is about -10 to -15 mduv, and about 5% to 10% of the test subjects disliked a +0.0 mduv light enough to call it unacceptable.



It’s an interesting study, and I recommend reading the entire thing since it’s written in a very accessible manner compared to most research results. The findings are summed up pretty well below though:

Joshk wrote:
Are you seriously complaining about the color of daylight?

Yes. People on average seem to find true daylight less preferable than a slightly rosy alternative.

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA

In cases where there is no ambient light from the sun, like a flashlight in a dark house, yea I would believe most people prefer BBL to daylight if that’s what the studies/surveys say. But for the majority of use cases there will be daylight bleeding into the artificial lighting. Like street lights experience. Or houses with windows. Or security lighting. And when you have a BBL based light in one area, and it shifts into a daylight based light (the sun) weirdness happens. Sure, that weirdness goes away when the sun completely sets. But is it worth it? Who cares, because it is just a locus, and you can still have personal preference.

Bob_McBob
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 22 sec ago
Joined: 08/14/2016 - 04:53
Posts: 545
Location: Canada

Before commenting any further, everyone should read this article carefully. It explains the NIST and other research into colour perception and preference TK and I are discussing and how it has influenced ANSI colour standards. Not only were very negative Duvs strongly preferred at all CCTs by most test subjects, but the cutoff for even perceiving a tint as white is also much lower at 4000K and below. For most people, a perfectly neutral Duv is not preferable after becoming accustomed to the light source. That doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be any neutral lighting, or that a daylight reference isn’t useful, but user preference is ultimately what matters.

https://www.ledsmagazine.com/smart-lighting-iot/white-point-tuning/artic...

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA

I think we posted at the same time Bob_McBob. Yea I could believe that your vision could shift that far in a completely dark room. But daylight blends in from everywhere in our daily lives.

contactcr
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 7 min ago
Joined: 05/19/2017 - 18:52
Posts: 2854
Location: US

These two experiments on 18 and 21 people appear to just be a way of requesting further funding and research for a more comprehensive study. While I don’t doubt people prefer negative Duv (to what extent who knows) this article is far from gospel and highlights that people like TK are still “not average” and apparently neither are people who prefer something closer to the BBL.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10090
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

I understand that it can be frustrating when things don’t quite line up. Humans evolved on this planet, so human vision should be perfectly aligned with this planet’s natural light source. But it’s not… and that’s okay. Almost nothing ever lines up perfectly. The universe is an incomprehensibly vast gallery of slightly-tilted paintings.

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 28 sec ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 3239
Location: US

In the past, I’ve asked many non flashlight folks to get their opinion on which beam color they prefer the most. If the CCT is about the same, EVERYONE ALWAYS say they like the below BBL tint more than On the BBL and they dislike the above BBL tint. Sunlight is above the BBL and to me only looks great only when the intensity is high and does not look good when only a faint amount of daylight gets in the house. However, no flashlight can achieve lumen output anywhere close to sunlight so for most cases during night time, I can confidently say the majority will prefer negative duv.

My ideal is slightly rosy with DUV between -0.002 to -0.005. 219B SW45K measures -0.01x on turbo, which is a bit too pink but I still prefer it over a positive BBL. In fact everyone I showed my 219B sw45k flashlights to like the tint better than any on or above bbl 4000K-5000K flashlights.

CLB
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2019 - 17:38
Posts: 57
Location: California

Bob_McBob wrote:
very negative Duvs strongly preferred at all CCTs by most test subjects,

Why, exactly, are we invoking merely statistical studies here, especially ones with all of sixteen people as subjects? If these studies are meaningful, it is to lighting marketers, not consumers. As the researchers clearly point out, “Color preference or perceived color is subjective. It depends on the light level, the surrounding environment, or even the observer’s cultural background.” So in what way are preference statistics relevant to what you or I like, or to the relative chromaticity merits of the SST-20 versus the 219B (which is how this discussion started)?

Edited to remove my own confusion between “perceived whiteness” and “preferrred tint.”

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA

Ok I stepped away to take some pics.

If we light the right side with “daylight” and the left with rosy, our eyes need to pick a white balance. They pick daylight, and make the left side red-tinted.

Now if our brain sees the rosy side as white, but there is daylight too, the daylight looks green. And again this is weird.

But if we have matching light sources, there is only one white point and all is white.

So unless you can eliminate the daylight from the sky, you are forced to agree with it.
And yes, if you do eliminate the daylight, there is a preference for a rosy lights, but you don’t really notice it’s rosy after you adjust.

CLB
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2019 - 17:38
Posts: 57
Location: California
ToyKeeper wrote:
I understand that it can be frustrating when things don’t quite line up. Humans evolved on this planet, so human vision should be perfectly aligned with this planet’s natural light source. But it’s not… and that’s okay. Almost nothing ever lines up perfectly. The universe is a vast gallery of slightly-tilted paintings.

That’s hanging a lot of metaphysical weight on a couple of very small studies. Generally, when things appear not to line up, scientists look for a reason. And they usually find it (or hypothesize it). Are you sure the paintings are tilted?

Bob_McBob
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 22 sec ago
Joined: 08/14/2016 - 04:53
Posts: 545
Location: Canada
CLB wrote:
That’s not how I read the results:

The figure you posted is from the LRC research on what people perceive as untinted white light at various CCTs. As you can see, this is slightly above BBL at higher CCTs, but quite a bit below BBL at lower CCTs. The NIST research further demonstrates that regardless of CCT and perception of neutral tint, most people still prefer a very negative Duv at all CCTs. Further research has broken this down more, but it is clear neutral light is often not actually preferred at lower CCTs in particular even when carefully controlling for numerous other factors in ways that wouldn’t necessarily be feasible in general lighting, and negative Duv often naturally correlates with these as demonstrated in previous research.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/06/f52/RoyerWilkersonWei_Sa...

Bob_McBob
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 22 sec ago
Joined: 08/14/2016 - 04:53
Posts: 545
Location: Canada
Joshk wrote:
So unless you can eliminate the daylight from the sky, you are forced to agree with it. And yes, if you do eliminate the daylight, there is a preference for a rosy lights, but you don’t really notice it’s rosy after you adjust.

There is a preference for rosy tints at 2700K even after adjustment and careful experimental control of colour rendering in the reseach I posted. You keep talking about daylight, but in the vast majority of cases where I use artificial lighting, it’s either the primary light source or it’s after dark. You can’t just say the sun always comes first in colour preference and only 12 hours of the day actually matter to most people.

Joshk
Joshk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 15 min ago
Joined: 09/09/2015 - 12:12
Posts: 1767
Location: USA

Yea, I agree with everything you are saying Bob. I never said daylight is first in preference. I was saying that dang thing didn’t come with an off switch. Silly

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10090
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3
CLB wrote:
in what way are preference statistics relevant to … how this discussion started)?

I think it was mostly because of comments like this, which don’t seem congruent with empirical data:

BlueSwordM wrote:
The SST-20 is better than the 219B in every aspect, even in terms of tint
Joshk wrote:
the 219B is obsolete by all perceivable measures.

Some comments even seem to make fun of those with different preferences:

Joshk wrote:
green-tint phobia

contactcr wrote:

I love these new below BBL LEDs for photography!!!!

I haven’t been particularly nice either. I tend to call out errors and jabs which are probably too minor to really justify attention, and some of my comments probably sound pretty condescending.

… and after starting, the arguments continued when people doubled down instead of updating beliefs to match the data. Sad

To be clear, SST-20 isn’t bad. In some cases, like for some members of this thread, it’s pretty close to optimal. And that’s awesome. But that’s a somewhat atypical result, and the “obsolete” emitter seems to fit the most common case a bit better so it’s inaccurate to call it obsolete.

Of course, none of that matters for personal use. Only individual preference matters there. It’s just a bit misleading to present personal preferences as if they are true for everyone. We could avoid most of this just by weakening the wording a bit, like saying “219B is obsolete for me“ instead of asserting it’s obsolete period.

But the disagreements continue because exaggerations continue:

Joshk, on a flashlight forum full of night owls wrote:
for the majority of use cases there will be daylight bleeding in
Joshk, paraphrased wrote:
[My eyes] pick daylight, and … you are forced to agree with it.

Due to the strength of the assertions made, framing one person’s perceptions as normal and others as aberrant or nonexistent, it sounds as if being in the pink-biased part of the population is somehow bad, like there’s something wrong with people if they don’t prefer 0.000 duv to all other tints. Those people are implied to be invalid or broken. Maybe that’s not the message it was intended to convey, but if not, it would be helpful to word things a bit less aggressively.


Anyway, I hope this episode of “Today’s Argument, Abridged” answers the question adequately.

CLB
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2019 - 17:38
Posts: 57
Location: California

Bob_McBob wrote:

The figure you posted is from the LRC research on what people perceive as untinted white light at various CCTs. As you can see, this is slightly above BBL at higher CCTs, but quite a bit below BBL at lower CCTs. The NIST research further demonstrates that regardless of CCT and perception of neutral tint, most people still prefer a very negative Duv at all CCTs. Further research has broken this down more, but it is clear neutral light is often not actually preferred at lower CCTs in particular even when carefully controlling for numerous other factors in ways that wouldn’t necessarily be feasible in general lighting, and negative Duv often naturally correlates with these as demonstrated in previous research.


You’re absolutely right about my confusion between “perceived whiteness” and “preferred tint,” which I realized as soon as I re-read the article, and I have edited my earlier post. Thanks. But I still am not seeing the relevance of these studies to the discussion of the chromaticity merits of two different emitters. If we were discussing the relative literary merits of two books, popularity would be a pretty uninteresting metric. In books, food, and light, I suppose what is popular is not identical to what is “good” from some critical standpoint or another. Now, the question of WHY people would consciously prefer a tint which is perceived as “less white” is interesting.

Pages