Help with my D.I.Y. Sphere Calibration

46 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA
Help with my D.I.Y. Sphere Calibration

I’m confused on calibrating my 12” D.I.Y. Polystyrene (“Foam”) integrating sphere, modeled after this build thread by djozz with pics in post #64. Few things about my sphere: it’s sanded with 100 grit sandpaper inside, luxmeter is the “good” LX1330B and set into the foam a bit (no baffle, but shouldn’t get any direct light). Entrance hole is approximately 90mm at the top and 80mm at the bottom inside edge. I did NOT paint or cover the outside. Lux readings were taken in nearly complete darkness (verified that any ambient light was negligible beforehand), and during each “measurement session” I started with my EDC Convoy S2 on a freshly charged cell to be sure I was getting +/- the same readings as during it’s initial measurement. “Consumer” flashlights with ANSI ratings were all tested with brand new Alkalines, and I even tested some 12v MR16’s and 2 household LED bulbs. Readings were always taken with the light’s bezel +/- even with the bottom of the entrance hole.

I don’t have many (if any) reputable regulated lights to calibrate to and so I chose to use a co-workers Fenix HL55 headlamp with a fully charged cell. This headlamp has been tested in a DIY sphere at CPF with it’s ANSI ratings pretty well verified. I tried using a Princeton tec Apex headlamp (again – not mine) running on NiMh cells as a “calibration check” light, but the manufacturer doesn’t list their spec as ANSI nor outputs for separate modes (I now think the Princeton Tec’s “275 lumen” rating is with both the spot & flood LEDs on high together (a mode I didn’t measure in). Other ANSI lights I tested were a 2D LED Maglite, a 2AA Xenon Mini-Maglite, a 3AAA Home Depot 100 lumen XB-D light, a 3C Defiant XM-L (light prior to the “Super Thrower” which isn’t in my spreadsheet yet), a Walmart “Ozark Trail” 2AA XB-D and Ozark Trail 3AAA headlamp, Rayovac Sportsman Extreme 3AAA, and a Thrunite Ti (though I could not confirm it’s ratings are actually “ANSI”).

So I determined an average “sphere multiplier” using the Fenix HL55’s Low, Med, & High modes and then used it to calculate lumens on the rest of the lights. As you can see in the spreadsheet below, some lights check pretty well, but others are way off. I don’t know if the ANSI ratings are false, were tested on different batteries, or what. What do you think? Do I need some more regulated trustworthy lights to check my calibration with? Is there a proper procedure like calibrate to a low lumen level and check a high level? Or average a low & high “multiplier”?

Thanks,
Garry

MRsDNF
MRsDNF's picture
Online
Last seen: 4 min 48 sec ago
Joined: 12/22/2011 - 21:18
Posts: 11341
Location: A light beam away from the missus in the land of Aus.

Congrats on the sphere. I’m sure someone here will have an answer for you.

My current and or voltage measurements are only relevent to anything that I measure.

Budget light hobby proudly sponsored by my Mastercard and unknowingly paid for by a hard working wife. 

djozz said "it came with chinese lettering that is chinese to me".

old4570 said "I'm not an expert , so don't suffer from any such technical restrictions".

Old-Lumens. Highly admired and cherished member of Budget Light Forum. 11.5.2011 - 20.12.16. RIP.

 

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

(Insert twiddling thumbs smiley here). . .

I didn’t clarify some things in that spreadsheet. My lumen calcs are based on the multiplier shown beside “Alternative Average (dropping Low & Turbo)=”. I then have new “multipliers” calculated down that right side for lights that I had some sort of lumen output rating for to get a comparison against the multiplier being used. I also carried out those multipliers to 9 decimal places because I want to be extremely accurate Smile .

-Garry

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 6041
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

I’ve been meaning to do this sometime… http://www.flashlightreviews.ca/Lightbox.htm

… but so far I just have a simple multiplier.

I used an original ZL SC52 as the primary reference point for the multiplier, since it was by far the most accurate light I had at the time. Since then, I’ve confirmed the calibration on a variety of other lights but have not needed to update that calibration.

However, when I make a new djozz sphere #4, I want to do the actual selfbuilt-style calibration in hopes of getting more accurate results.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

Thanks for the link TK, so is calculating a single “multiplier” not the correct thing to do? Or was that because Selfbuilt was only using a milk carton and not a round polystyrene ball? I’m not looking for extreme accuracy, but I don’t want to post numbers that are way off base either.

-Garry

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 6041
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

The multiplier is the easy method, but it’s not the most accurate method.

I know my measurements are off, primarily because I’m using a multiplier. So my lux-to-lumens conversion function is a straight line instead of a curve. I happen to have a straight line which is pretty close to selfbuilt’s curve for most of the range I’m interested in… but it’s still the wrong shape.

However, calculating the curve is not a simple task and requires a lot of measurements and a lot of outside data. So I haven’t done it yet. Hopefully the new sphere will provide motivation for me to do it.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

I just for the first time read selfbuilt’s write-up about the correlation between his milk carton and other people’s integrating spheres, and I’m a bit surprised for two reasons, 1) that the correlation with increasing outputs is not lineair, and 2) that he accepts this as a fact and compensates for it, but he does not ask himself why the correlation is not lineair? (I don’t have a direct suggestion btw, would have to ponder on that before having any clue)

@Garry, I think your results are as good as you can expect for this type of sphere, I see a working multiplier of about 0.37 in many measurements, and multiplier values very far off are probably because the specs of that flashlight are not right.

As stated in the build thread of this type of sphere, it will not be really accurate because the reflectivity of the sphere (which directly relates to the multiplier) changes with whatever is in the entrance hole: a big reflector flashlight with ss bezel will increase the inner reflectivity and therefore measures relatively high, while a small reflector flashlight with black bezel will measure relatively low. In my other integrating spheres I compensate for that (by measuring the changed reflectivity for each measured flashlight, I use a constant output lightsource build into the sphere for that). Without compensation you can easily be a couple of percents off.

To get a feeling for how tricky light measurements are, and what variation you can expect:
*take a small zoomie in spot position (with partly drained cell and on low setting because then hopefully the light output will not change too much) and shine it (at the same position in the entrance hole) in different angles into the sphere, write down the lux-values and calculate how large the variation among the values is in percentage. This is an indication of how good the integration is, if this variation is lower than (say) 5% the sphere is doing its job quite well.
*shine your Thrunite ti into the sphere at the edge of the entrance hole, and while keeping it there, write down the changing luxvalues holding several different flashlights (switched off) in measuring position in the middle of the entrance hole. This gives the variation of reflectivity (and thus multiplier) caused by the diverse types of flashlights.

In the end, if you get within 10% of a real lumen value with your sphere, you are doing a very good job.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

Thanks djozz, I’ll have to experiment with what you said next opportunity (free time is scarce). I also have my PVC light tube built (3” PVC), but never really used it since I only had the crappy luxmeter at the time. Perhaps I should try it out calibrating it with the Fenix HL55 and measuring some of the same lights again to see if I get Lumen values in the same ballpark.

Painting the outside of the sphere won’t really help in attaining a better multiplier, will it?

-Garry

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 18 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 6041
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

djozz wrote:
it will not be really accurate because the reflectivity of the sphere (which directly relates to the multiplier) changes with whatever is in the entrance hole

I wonder what effect there is from putting a white tight-fitting stencil around each light so that only the tip of the light is visible from the inside of the sphere, and there is reduced loss through the entry hole.

I expect the results will be significantly different than not using a stencil (I’ve already tested that), but I haven’t checked the inter-measurement consistency of a bunch of stencil readings versus non-stencil readings.

This is also part of why I don’t have useful measurements for my Blackshadow Terminator. I haven’t built a Terminator-shaped quad-bezel stencil.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

ToyKeeper wrote:
djozz wrote:
it will not be really accurate because the reflectivity of the sphere (which directly relates to the multiplier) changes with whatever is in the entrance hole

I wonder what effect there is from putting a white tight-fitting stencil around each light so that only the tip of the light is visible from the inside of the sphere, and there is reduced loss through the entry hole.

I expect the results will be significantly different than not using a stencil (I’ve already tested that), but I haven’t checked the inter-measurement consistency of a bunch of stencil readings versus non-stencil readings.

This is also part of why I don’t have useful measurements for my Blackshadow Terminator. I haven’t built a Terminator-shaped quad-bezel stencil.

You do not know how much a white stencil affects the multiplier until you measure it.

The widespread misconception is that you need to keep as much light inside the sphere as you can for the best accuracy. Keeping the light inside helps the amount of integration but with a well-build sphere that is not your problem, if your total of holes is under 5% of the inner surface (this is a rule-of-thumb number for a very good reflecting inner surface, our polystyrene surface is worse than that so I keep them under 2%) the integration is good enough to worry about other, bigger flaws.

What is really needed is not maximising the reflectivity at all times, but keeping the reflectivity constant. Then your multiplier is fixed. Wether you need the white stencil (or not, or any shade of grey) around a flashlight can only determined by measuring the reflectivity.

For improving accuracy for this type of sphere, you can either minimise reflectivity variance caused by entrance hole effects by reducing the hole/inner surface ratio (i.e. small hole in large sphere), or you can measure the specific sphere reflectivity for each to be measured light source before doing the actual light measurement (using a constant output light source elsewhere in the sphere) and then adjust the multiplier accordingly.

In my sphere #4 with build-in reflectivity measuring light source, I do not adjust the multiplier, but I have build in a simple device that for each flashlight optically adjusts the reflectivity of the sphere to a constant value.

sixty545
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 10/25/2010 - 14:15
Posts: 699
Location: Denmark (GMT + 1)

The question about calibrating a sphere, I have answered several times since 2011. Perhaps it needs to become sticky’d.
There is a very simple, scientific way to do the calibration, without guesswork about some stock lights output.

All you need is a parallel beam of light (a thrower) and a luxmeter and the formula

lux x hole area (in square meters) = lumens

The method is described here:

and also here:

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

sixty545 wrote:
The question about calibrating a sphere, I have answered several times since 2011. Perhaps it needs to become sticky’d.
There is a very simple, scientific way to do the calibration, without guesswork about some stock lights output.

All you need is a parallel beam of light (a thrower) and a luxmeter and the formula

lux x hole area (in square meters) = lumens

The method is described here:

“and also here:”:http://budgetlightforum.com/node/1763


Thanks for the links, I never read those posts Smile

A few concerns with that method (in no way implying that these concerns are any worse than the concerns with other calibration methods):
-the sun’s brightness changes per second (at least here in the Netherlands), so using the same luxmeter for the sphere and the lux-measurement in front of the hole can lead to inaccuracies
-the hotspot of a thrower flashlight is never uniform in brightness so you have to work with an average brightness of the light entering the sphere.
-the method is vitally dependent on a luxmeter that is correctly calibrated for the colour temperature of the light source (sun or flashlight), I would not trust any cheap meter for that.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

djozz wrote:

For improving accuracy for this type of sphere, you can either . . . or you can measure the specific sphere reflectivity for each to be measured light source before doing the actual light measurement (using a constant output light source elsewhere in the sphere) and then adjust the multiplier accordingly.

In my sphere #4 with build-in reflectivity measuring light source, I do not adjust the multiplier, but I have build in a simple device that for each flashlight optically adjusts the reflectivity of the sphere to a constant value.

Is there a link showing how you’ve done this? And/or can you go into some detail on it? Could I do something like create a hole where I tightly fit a Convoy S2/S2+ being certain to always insert to where the light’s bezel is flush with the inside surface, and run the light at a low to medium level on a AMC7135 regulated driver? I guess that requires getting a very good lumen measurement on that S2/S2+ light to begin with. Then my next question is, is that “hassle” worth it? Are we talking narrowing down our overall accuracy from say 10% to 5%? Or is it more like 30% to 5%?

Is there a source where BLF users are posting lumen measurements for guys like me to reference and compare to? Or are they just scattered through posts everywhere?

-Garry

mhanlen
mhanlen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/01/2013 - 11:42
Posts: 2605
Location: Eastern USA

I use a flat multiplier for my device.. and it’s .26. I don’t have any of those lights you’ve listed, so I can’t tell you how close your measurements are. I know some lights are quite off, per their supplied specs. I calibrated my device at first with a Fenix HL50 and later a Zebralight SC600MkII. I have since lost my Zebralight, but I’d like to get one of their current generation lights to see how close the light stacks up to my old calibration light.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA
mhanlen wrote:
I use a flat multiplier for my device.. and it’s .26. I don’t have any of those lights you’ve listed, so I can’t tell you how close your measurements are. I know some lights are quite off, per their supplied specs. I calibrated my device at first with a Fenix HL50 and later a Zebralight SC600MkII. I have since lost my Zebralight, but I’d like to get one of their current generation lights to see how close the light stacks up to my old calibration light.

Thanks for your response. I was just finishing reading this thread where you were posting about figuring out a multiplier. Are you using a round “polystyrene” sphere or a PVC light tube? Are you finding your calculated “lumens” seem consistent from low values to high values and also from throws to flooders? Glad to hear you are also seeing some lights being off stated specs.

-Garry

sixty545
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 10/25/2010 - 14:15
Posts: 699
Location: Denmark (GMT + 1)

djozz wrote:
sixty545 wrote:
The question about calibrating a sphere, I have answered several times since 2011. Perhaps it needs to become sticky’d.
There is a very simple, scientific way to do the calibration, without guesswork about some stock lights output.

All you need is a parallel beam of light (a thrower) and a luxmeter and the formula

lux x hole area (in square meters) = lumens

The method is described here:

“and also here:”:http://budgetlightforum.com/node/1763


Thanks for the links, I never read those posts Smile

A few concerns with that method (in no way implying that these concerns are any worse than the concerns with other calibration methods):
-the sun’s brightness changes per second (at least here in the Netherlands), so using the same luxmeter for the sphere and the lux-measurement in front of the hole can lead to inaccuracies
-the hotspot of a thrower flashlight is never uniform in brightness so you have to work with an average brightness of the light entering the sphere.
-the method is vitally dependent on a luxmeter that is correctly calibrated for the colour temperature of the light source (sun or flashlight), I would not trust any cheap meter for that.

Hi, Djozz
I see what you mean about the sun’s brightness. I did not use the sun because the sun overloaded the sphere’s meter. The sun was just to illustrate the method of a parallel light beam. I used a thrower with a nice, even hot spot and was aware of the voltage sag so I took more than one sample pair of “lux in front of hole” and “sphere meter value”.
As you can see the sphere meter was occupied (build into the sphere) so the “lux in front of hole” has to be measured with a separate luxmeter.

It is impossible to say which is the best method, the imperical with an expensive flashlight or the scientific, by using the formula. That depends on the equipment used.
In my case there was no doubt about the method because I don’t own an expensive light other than an Zebralight H50. Fortunately it turned out to measure 60 lumens after my calibration which I think is the “correct” value. The sphere also confirms the binning of LED’s on stars.
I made that one calibration on the sphere in 2011 and have had no reason to distrust it since.
Happy measuring!

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

sixty545 wrote:
djozz wrote:
sixty545 wrote:
The question about calibrating a sphere, I have answered several times since 2011. Perhaps it needs to become sticky’d.
There is a very simple, scientific way to do the calibration, without guesswork about some stock lights output.

All you need is a parallel beam of light (a thrower) and a luxmeter and the formula

lux x hole area (in square meters) = lumens

The method is described here:

“and also here:”:http://budgetlightforum.com/node/1763


Thanks for the links, I never read those posts Smile

A few concerns with that method (in no way implying that these concerns are any worse than the concerns with other calibration methods):
-the sun’s brightness changes per second (at least here in the Netherlands), so using the same luxmeter for the sphere and the lux-measurement in front of the hole can lead to inaccuracies
-the hotspot of a thrower flashlight is never uniform in brightness so you have to work with an average brightness of the light entering the sphere.
-the method is vitally dependent on a luxmeter that is correctly calibrated for the colour temperature of the light source (sun or flashlight), I would not trust any cheap meter for that.

Hi, Djozz
I see what you mean about the sun’s brightness. I did not use the sun because the sun overloaded the sphere’s meter. The sun was just to illustrate the method of a parallel light beam. I used a thrower with a nice, even hot spot and was aware of the voltage sag so I took more than one sample pair of “lux in front of hole” and “sphere meter value”.
As you can see the sphere meter was occupied (build into the sphere) so the “lux in front of hole” has to be measured with a separate luxmeter.

It is impossible to say which is the best method, the imperical with an expensive flashlight or the scientific, by using the formula. That depends on the equipment used.
In my case there was no doubt about the method because I don’t own an expensive light other than an Zebralight H50. Fortunately it turned out to measure 60 lumens after my calibration which I think is the “correct” value. The sphere also confirms the binning of LED’s on stars.
I made that one calibration on the sphere in 2011 and have had no reason to distrust it since.
Happy measuring!

I really like the scientific method, going to give it a try sometime and see how it differs from my current calibration. Smile

And I still have in the planning to someday spend some serious money ($400) on first building a dead-constant led light source and then have it officially measured at a facility here in the Netherlands that does certified light measurements with a professional sphere. At least I already own a very good luxmeter that was once officially calibrated (but the certificate is expired now).
mhanlen
mhanlen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/01/2013 - 11:42
Posts: 2605
Location: Eastern USA
garrybunk wrote:
mhanlen wrote:
I use a flat multiplier for my device.. and it’s .26. I don’t have any of those lights you’ve listed, so I can’t tell you how close your measurements are. I know some lights are quite off, per their supplied specs. I calibrated my device at first with a Fenix HL50 and later a Zebralight SC600MkII. I have since lost my Zebralight, but I’d like to get one of their current generation lights to see how close the light stacks up to my old calibration light.

Thanks for your response. I was just finishing reading this thread where you were posting about figuring out a multiplier. Are you using a round “polystyrene” sphere or a PVC light tube? Are you finding your calculated “lumens” seem consistent from low values to high values and also from throws to flooders? Glad to hear you are also seeing some lights being off stated specs.

-Garry

I’m using a PVC pipe. I am happy with my multiplier. In all my videos, since summer on of last year I compare my outputs with the manufacturers ratings. Sometimes they’re close and sometimes they’re not. Like my recent slew of Nitecore lights, I’ve found on the top end my lights measure slightly more than advertised on most. But in other lights, say the Acebeam T20, my top mode was less (only by a little bit) then theirs. Here are a few observations that I can say about my measurements.

1. Sometimes my highs and turbo modes read a bit higher than others who measure the same lights I do. BUT those measurements are still lower sometimes than the manufacturer.

2. High modes and turbo modes drop the fastest, so I calibrated with one of the medium modes on the Zebralight.

3. I tried several modes on the Zebralight, and created a multiplier for each. Then I tested each one of those multiplier against higher and lower modes on the Zebralight. The medium and the .26 multiplier seemed to produce the most accurate results compared to other modes.

4. Fenix and Zebralight both seem close when cross calibrated and compared to one another.

5. Sometimes when I test a brightness and it reads higher than the advertised spec, the runtime can be shorter than advertised as well.

6. When I do beamshot comparisons on “high modes” my tested specs and the relative brightness to one another is often reflected in the beamshot section. Although it can be hard to tell visually between a 900 lumens and 1000 lumens.

7.I think generally overall my specs are slightly higher than other reviewers. Not by much, but with random sampling I’ve done. As far as I know, no one has ever compared my testings to other peoples. I’ve only made 1 or 2 transcription errors that people ave brought up in my reviews. Those were actually because I forgot to double check my notes or math… not because of a bad reading on my lumen device. I’ve talked privately to one or two reviewers who got slightly lower readings on one light than I did. But no real “Those are wrong” call outs. That might be because people don’t take my findings as seriously as other reviewers, or that people are generally satisfied with my findings. I can’t say for sure, but I prefer the later explanation.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

Thanks for the response. Your method on the Zebralight sounds like what I was trying to do on the Fenix HL55, except that I didn’t run my “calibration multiplier” back against the other modes.

-Garry

sixty545
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 10/25/2010 - 14:15
Posts: 699
Location: Denmark (GMT + 1)

djozz wrote:

I really like the scientific method, going to give it a try sometime and see how it differs from my current calibration. Smile

And I still have in the planning to someday spend some serious money ($400) on first building a dead-constant led light source and then have it officially measured at a facility here in the Netherlands that does certified light measurements with a professional sphere. At least I already own a very good luxmeter that was once officially calibrated (but the certificate is expired now).

I like that and are seeing forward to the outcome!
The last 10 years of my working life I worked in a facility here in Denmark that does certified light measurements. We had a 2m professional sphere that got on sale. At first no one wanted to buy it but eventually it was sold for appr. 33000 EU, if I remember it right.
No wonder they charge really big money for trackable measurements.

mhanlen
mhanlen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 23 hours ago
Joined: 03/01/2013 - 11:42
Posts: 2605
Location: Eastern USA

garrybunk wrote:
Thanks for the response. Your method on the Zebralight sounds like what I was trying to do on the Fenix HL55, except that I didn’t run my “calibration multiplier” back against the other modes.

-Garry

I wouldn’t bother too much with the highest modes… in every light I’ve tested those always drop the fastest. Startup… and 30 seconds in are always significantly different. And they all continue to drop after 30 seconds anyway.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

BTW – found a link to this thread someone was given the opportunity to measure 68 lights in a professional sphere (though measurements taken at 5secs not 30secs) and the results are pretty disappointing for someone like me trying to calibrate! Offers more assurance though that I’m not way off since I see many other lights missing their stated specs. Searching Ebay for used Fenix or Zebralight lights isn’t yielding much (at least not in my “affordable” range).

-Garry

sixty545
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 10/25/2010 - 14:15
Posts: 699
Location: Denmark (GMT + 1)

garrybunk wrote:
Thanks for the response. Your method on the Zebralight sounds like what I was trying to do on the Fenix HL55, except that I didn’t run my “calibration multiplier” back against the other modes.

-Garry


OK, The sphere was calibrated first (using the method described), and afterwards exposed to the Zebralight that turned out to be 60 “MyLumens”.
garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

sixty545 wrote:
garrybunk wrote:
Thanks for the response. Your method on the Zebralight sounds like what I was trying to do on the Fenix HL55, except that I didn’t run my “calibration multiplier” back against the other modes.

-Garry


OK, The sphere was calibrated first (using the method described), and afterwards exposed to the Zebralight that turned out to be 60 “MyLumens”.

Sorry, I was responding to mhanlen.

-Garry

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

garrybunk wrote:
BTW – found a link to this thread someone was given the opportunity to measure 68 lights in a professional sphere (though measurements taken at 5secs not 30secs) and the results are pretty disappointing for someone like me trying to calibrate! Offers more assurance though that I’m not way off since I see many other lights missing their stated specs. Searching Ebay for used Fenix or Zebralight lights isn’t yielding much (at least not in my “affordable” range).

-Garry


I read that story last year and it was a really fun read, and indeed a pity that he did not measure at 30 seconds, not only because 30 seconds is according the ANSI method, but also because measuring after 5 seconds does not give an as repeatable indication of light output than measuring after 30 seconds.

Btw, last year I spent a really enjoyable weekend with folks from TLF and had the opportunity to re-measure 4 of those 68 actual flashlights in one of my integrating spheres that I brought with me. It appeared that my readings across those 4 lights (measured at 5 seconds to repeat the method) were almost consistently 9% higher. A TLF member present with his own lumen measuring device who had done his own calibration as well, also measured those 4 flashlights and found his values also 9% higher than what was measured earlier at the Zweibrüder sphere. So our calibrations agreed, but were higher than Zweibrüder.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

djozz, did you see my post #13 above?

-Garry

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

garrybunk wrote:
djozz, did you see my post #13 above?

-Garry


Oh, sorry, yes I did, and then something else happened en then forgot to respond. (and now I need to sleep again, so a short answer for now):

I went along your lines with using a mildly 7135 driven power led for a constant light source, then for my sphere#3 (link via my sigline) I found that a ordinary white 5mm led driven at a constant 6mA by a simple circuit with a LM317 regulator is about the ideal constant light source for building into a sphere, but the low light level requires a luxmeter that can measure quite low levels.

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

Did the testing suggested and it appears my sphere has pretty good integration. However, I do see quite an affect of different size lights placed at the opening (and the Fenix headlamp I calibrated with fit the full width of my hole). I shot video of the tests and will try to upload them tomorrow.

-Garry

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

Videos of my tests posted to YouTube. During the 3rd video (testing my 3 inch PVC Light Tube) I ran out of battery in the camera. Basically my Thrunite Ti’s readings would vary greatly depending on where I placed the light, HOWEVER doing the 2nd test (testing for increased reflective surface area due to size of light placed at the opening) I saw extremely little affect even when placing my largest light (Courui) at the opening – which made sense to me since it seams the PVC Tube system is less likely to be reflecting light back toward the entry hole. I am however concerned how accurate measurements can be in the PVC since they vary so much as you move the light around. Perhaps me using only 3 inch PVC amplified that issue. Other’s see this issue in their PVC Light Tubes?

By the way, I had issues trying to do my test with dropping the light too far down into the entry hole and skewing the readings. (Was trying to watch the meter and not paying enough attention to where the light was positioned.) I tried to redo readings if I saw myself doing that, so be sure to watch the videos through to the end.

Videos:

Testing My Sphere for Proper Light Integration:

Testing Affect of Various Sized Lights Placed at the Opening:

Testing my PVC Light Tube:

Thoughts? Sphere seems to integrate light very well, wouldn’t you agree? I didn’t actually compute up how much change the size of the lighthead is causing. Seems to me if I calibrate with a medium sized light I should be within reason as I test smaller and larger lights. Problem is if I calibrate to a small light and then try to test a very large light. As I said in the previous post, the Fenix headlamp I calibrated to took up the full width of my opening, but it’s somewhat narrow leaving open space in the hole. Therefore I would consider it a medium to medium-large sized calibration light.

-Garry

garrybunk
garrybunk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 6 hours ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 09:25
Posts: 5887
Location: Johnstown, PA

So I ran a few lumen calcs on the Thrunite Ti by itself and then with another light in the opening (sphere, not PVC) and get the following increases:

With Home Depot 3AAA XB-D light: 2.57%

With 2D Mag LED: 8.2%

With Courui: 12.57%

I don’t know what affect the fact that I’m holding the Ti way off-center plays in though.

-Garry

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 38 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 10655
Location: Amsterdam

garrybunk wrote:
djozz wrote:

For improving accuracy for this type of sphere, you can either . . . or you can measure the specific sphere reflectivity for each to be measured light source before doing the actual light measurement (using a constant output light source elsewhere in the sphere) and then adjust the multiplier accordingly.

In my sphere #4 with build-in reflectivity measuring light source, I do not adjust the multiplier, but I have build in a simple device that for each flashlight optically adjusts the reflectivity of the sphere to a constant value.

Is there a link showing how you’ve done this? And/or can you go into some detail on it? Could I do something like create a hole where I tightly fit a Convoy S2/S2+ being certain to always insert to where the light’s bezel is flush with the inside surface, and run the light at a low to medium level on a AMC7135 regulated driver? I guess that requires getting a very good lumen measurement on that S2/S2+ light to begin with. Then my next question is, is that “hassle” worth it? Are we talking narrowing down our overall accuracy from say 10% to 5%? Or is it more like 30% to 5%?

Is there a source where BLF users are posting lumen measurements for guys like me to reference and compare to? Or are they just scattered through posts everywhere?

-Garry

The exact output of the reflectivity measuring light does not need to be measured, it just has to be very constant, and you can use your sphere to test that. Narrowing accuracy from 15% to 8% (I totally made up these numbers, a calculated wild guess you may call it, it higly depends on which other known and unknown variations are build in the measuring method) sounds reasonable for this measure, if a wide variety of flashlight sizes and textures are measured.

It looks like you use a standard chinese luxmeter, if I’m correct it measures down to 1 lux. Then the 6mA 5mm led lightsource for measuring reflectivity that I used in sphere#3 has not enough output to measure reflectivity in a significant number of digits. So for your sphere you better use a brighter light source. Yes, for a fairly constant output you could go for an S2+, on a 1×7135 chip driver. I think a simple AK-47 driver with two chips removed should do the job. Best is to use a high voltage led, like the newer batches XP-G2, so that the 7135 does not have burn off too much voltage and avoid temperature effects (these cheap 7135 clones suffer from temperature variation, but I can not find a source for original ADDtek 7135 chips). To avoid having to make a baffle inside the sphere between measuring light and detector, you can mount the flashlight not flush with the inner surface of the sphere but a bit recessed, with the sides of the hole made black (just like your measuring entrance hole). When inserting this light from the outside it needs a ‘hard stop’ (same for the detector, but you managed that by mounting it flat against the polystyrene so it can not go anywhere) because the measured light will be extremely sensitive to how deep in the hole the flashlight is inserted. Perhaps you can make a collar around the flashlight head for that that and hope that it does not deform the polystyrene when it is pushed against it. The position of this reflectivity measuring light I think would best be right next to the detector near the entrance hole.

I do not know a single BLF source for measured outputs. I know selfbuilt over at CPF incudes output numbers in his reviews (made with his corrected milk carton device 8-) ), and so does UPz in his reviews, who btw made a very thorough write-down of how his sphere is made and tested (although in spanish).

Pages