XP-L High Intensity vs XP-L vs XP-L DeDomed

I have just finished testing the XPL High Intensity emitter and thought I would share the results. I wanted to see the difference between the H.I. and a dedomed emitter. Keep in mind, this test was only a single emitter test and if the test were repeated several times, each outcome would probably be a little different.
I used a single host (Convoy C8 3.8A potted) and a single battery (Efest 35A 18650) for the test. I used three emitters: an XPL V5-2A, XPL V5-2A heat dedomed - unsealed, and an XPL H.I. U2-1A.
I would have preferred to use the XPL V6-1A, but I don’t stock 1A in XPL.
Each emitter was mounted in the host and the following measurements were done: OTF lumens, throw (to .25lux), and beam pattern. The test battery was recharged and allowed to rest 1 hour before and between the OTF test and the throw test. The test emitter was removed and the next test emitter was installed -then the test series was repeated.

For the output test, I mounted the light in my integrating sphere. Although, I was only looking for the ANSI –30 second measurement, I continued to three minutes and plotted the results of all three on one graph:
!!

The flashlight was fan cooled during the output test -I have adjusted the fan to approximate the amount of cooling as if the flashlight were being handheld…although, for a 3 minute run, the cooling doesn’t make much difference.

Output test result:
!!
The overall output for the dedomed was just over 10% less than the domed version. The output of the H.I. was about 12% less (remember, I’m comparing a V6-2A to a V2-1A)…I haven’t checked the specs…but that sounds about right. I was hoping the H.I. would be higher that the dedomed, but it’s slightly lower…still close.

Next, I checked the throw for each emitter setup calculating meters to .25lux as specified in ANSI FL-1. I have recorded the throw on a photograph of the beam shots. I want to apologize, but my house doesn’t have a white wall…so the photos are on a ‘Toasted Cashew’ wall. I used manual exposure (same exposure for each) and I set the white balance to 6000°K.
!!
As expected, the dedomed had considerable color shift. Any color difference seen between the XPL and XPL H.I. is a result of using a 2A emitter and a 1A emitter.
I added one more photo of the H.I. emitter using an Orange peel reflector…this was an afterthought…all of the output test were done with a smooth reflector. Notice, the rings in the dedomed and H.I. emitter with the smooth reflector. I knew the orange peel reflector would smooth out the beam pattern, but it’s the first time I’ve taken a controlled reading on the effect of orange peel on throw. The orange peel reflector caused an 8 meter drop in throw…with a much nicer beam. I’ve always use a smooth reflector in my personal lights, but I think I will keep the orange peel in this light.

Back to the results: So, in this limited test, the dedomed was brighter than and had better throw than the XPL High Intensity…but by only a very small margin. The results were close enough, I think if I had sealed the dedomed led, the High Intensity may have come out on top.

The important thing is: no more weird color shifts, no more broken bond wires, no more stopped up led seal nozzles…no more dedoming for me!

This is great! I am thinking of dropping in a XP-L HI into my C8 and this is just what I was looking for. I am with you on the no more DeDoming, I have only done a couple, but this HI version is just the ticket for me. I think it is interesting that the Orange Peel reflector only lowers the throw by 8 meters… If you get time, post some outside beamshots with the XP-L HI and both reflectors, probably can not tell the difference then…

Thanks for this write up…

Thanks for showing us the results of your testing. Nice looking sphere.

Thanks! :beer: :beer:

Whoa. Nice setup!

Thanks for sharing the info!
No more dedomes!

Thanks for great review!

It’s very helpful.

We need to organise a get together, a few us distract pflexpro, while I steal the sphere.

Wow thanks for the comparison. Exactly what I have been waiting for.
The XPL HI 1A seems perfectly pure white, totally different from a dedomed XPL.
Now I will just wait for a nice thrower with REAL XPL HI cool white.
Thanks again! Cheers!

Wish you could do some outdoor beam shots to see tint difference. :slight_smile:

You know you’ve been robbed by a flashaholic when your integrating sphere is stolen, but the laptop sitting next to it is left behind.

Fixed that for you. :slight_smile:

come on…I just rebuilt that battery pack with 6 Panasonic 3400s.

HA! I was thinking the same thing…

On the other hand, Perhaps our OP has been the ultimate lurker…. ~73 posts and a member with an integrated sphere since 2013… someone has been holding out…

Very good news! Thanks for the comparisons.

I strategically did the test so the XPL HI would be left in the flashlight last. I intend on rerunning a similar test in the M1 -I want to see if an M1 with the high intensity will come close to the throw of a C8 with a standard XPL or XML2. I can do some real beam shots with that test.

I’ve also started offering the HI in the small Convoy S2 and S2+ -with such small reflectors, more throw will be a good thing and with no dedoming…why not?

Now that’s a sphere !!! Wonder if I can make one of those with my old Weber grill. LOL

I would say that your results fit into the CREE datasheets ratings, here I mean the percentage difference between the XP-L HD V5 and XP-L HI V2 is 14%
lower lumen output according to the datasheets (3A current), and you test shows 13% lower lumens at 0.5minutes mark. Yes, throw is another thing but I was only pointing out the lumen difference between those 2 bins.

1A is not totally pure white, in the shots you see the close-up hot spot at high current, and you can see the spill is blueish. But anyway I speak from personal experience saying that 2A or even 2B will be the pure white one and the 1A is still the classic slight blueish cool white. If you are after something that gives the impression of pure white I high recommend you try those tints.

I think everything is fairly close. The only variation may be the dedomed. I find that sealing the emitter after dedoming lowers the output some…depending on how many coats of sealer is used. I seem to remember finding that hot dedoming yields a little higher output than solvent. If dedoming is properly done (heat dedome and 2 coats of ‘led seal’), I think the the XPL HI would have had higher output and more throw…but again, it’s close enough for me.
All of this is water under the bridge…I don’t plan on intentionally dedoming an XPL or XML2 again. I may still dedome a few XPG2 emitters…but that will be very few.

Everything in the specs pointed to the results I got, but I always want to see it for myself.

Thanks for the test! No more dedoming for me as well.

Tint > output in most situations.