Nichia E17A/E21A Skilhunt H04RC Group Buy

216 posts / 0 new
Last post
clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia

Jerommel wrote:
hodor wrote:
Looks like I missed out on the early bird as well Sad

Can someone kindly catch me up on E17A vs E21A? e.g. is there much difference in beam profile / throw, runtimes etc.

Roughly:

The E21 has an XP-G / 219C size die, and the E17 has half the mm² surface area die of the E21, so E17 is comparable with XP-E die size.

The E21 can safely handle max. 2 Amperes and the E17 can safely handle max. 1 Ampere.

So a quad of E21 can handle 8 Amperes and a quad of E17 can handle 4 Amperes.

So i think a quad of E17 would be more than enough to handle the power of the H04.

A quad of E17 is also much smaller so it will be less floody (tighter beam) and probably have less ‘donut hole’ effect.

But the donut will be evened out by the optics anyway (i assume)

Probably the E21 quad will have better efficiency because they will have an easy job, below half of their maximum recommended current.

But they cost twice as much as the E17, but the LED boards for both are equally priced and not cheap, so for the total price of this modded Skilhunt, the difference is negligible.

Well said Jerommel, thank you Thumbs Up
For CW and WW, I suggest to use E21A unless you need throwy confined hotspot. Or if you need pure RGBAL color headlamp.

[Clemence]

Pavlo
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 12/13/2015 - 10:37
Posts: 631
Location: Canada

I decided to go with E17a. The slight drop in efficiency/output is more than compensated by the much higher intensity in the beam. I think it is easy to get a floody beam using a diffused wide optic, but its harder to get a throwy beam. I think the E17a quad board will give me a better range to chose between throwy and floody. The higher intensity in the beam means I will likely use the headlamp in a lower mode, another reason why I won’t worry about the efficiency difference.

If I had more money, I would probably get one of each Smile

hodor
hodor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 07/11/2018 - 03:58
Posts: 603
Location: UK

Awesome, exactly what I was looking for, thanks guys. I’ll look into them a bit more before committing.

hodor
hodor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 07/11/2018 - 03:58
Posts: 603
Location: UK

Quote from another thread:

clemence wrote:
… the tint shift from low mode to high is very pronounced in E21A (neutral to pinkish)…

Is that how they will behave in this H04 as well? (I’m not sure what power levels were being referenced and how that compares to this H04).

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 53 sec ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 758
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Do we have any sense on what the optical efficiency of these two quad die setups are? Is this something maukka can measure? I’m under the impression that the larger the LES, the more losses there are OTF in these TIRs. If this is true, does the gap between the 17 and 21 close?

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia

Hodor wrote:
Quote from another thread:

clemence wrote: … the tint shift from low mode to high is very pronounced in E21A (neutral to pinkish)…
Is that how they will behave in this H04 as well? (I’m not sure what power levels were being referenced and how that compares to this H04).


Yup, just like any normal LED. But 4P setup means 4 times less tint shift

JaredM wrote:
Do we have any sense on what the optical efficiency of these two quad die setups are? Is this something maukka can measure? I’m under the impression that the larger the LES, the more losses there are OTF in these TIRs. If this is true, does the gap between the 17 and 21 close?

Quadtrix E21A gap = 0,2mm. Total LES = 6,22mm
Quadtrix E17A gap = 0,1mm. Total LES = 4,95mm
I’m sure Maukka will do a thorough test about this

[Clemence]

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia

I received several questions about my Skilhunt H04RC modification. But today I received an interesting question:

Quote:
Only around 200 lumens with 4 x E21A 2700K appears quit useless to my eyes as far as I can get 195 lumens OTF with my Xenon Seraph SP-6 in 9volts configuration for 50 minutes without any kind of overheat and a perfect rendering.
Is it due to the host termal regulation limits (for the M200) ? Do there is any option to get at least 300 OTF lumens with a single 18650 and, of course, the E21A 2700K ? Maybe a larger body host like a Convoy S12 for example ?
Le 22/01/2020 à 12:47, ViRenCe a écrit :

——-
Honestly the Seraph SP-6 has very good dissipation, I know it because the first time I used it with the HO-4 incan module (which is not 9v but only 4v with 150lumens out of the bulb) for a long time (45minutes) I disassembled the head to be sure the module wasn’t burning as I didn’t feel the head really warm, but the module and the bulb were totally cold so the termal dissipation seems to work well on this light at least for incans modules. The head for 9v is even bigger and can handle brighter incan module like 320 or 380lumens from the bulb without any overheat issue.
That’s why I’m wondering of the efficiency of LEDs… which doesn’t seems to be a lot better than incan xenon when we speak about very high CRI.
What’s the Maukka’s test result ?
If there is no solution I would probably go for the incans for high output high CRI, but in this case would it be possible to get a M200 with 4 x E17A in Amber color ? What kind of output can we get with ?
Le 22/01/2020 à 13:36, ViRenCe a écrit :

——-
I understand, but if only one LED can do approximately the same, why putting 4 ?
Better lifespan ?
But anyway, I will wait for the final results as well.
Thanks you for your time.
Le 22/01/2020 à 14:06, ViRenCe a écrit :

  • Incandescent lights generates the heat outwards towards the emission direction, unlike LED, which generates most of the heat downwards. This is why you can make powerful incandescent lights body from plastic.
  • Skilhunt limit the max current (then output) to only 2,5A and then stepping down to 800mA in 2 minutes for very good reason: this is one of the most compact 18650 headlamp with powerful output, there’s just not enough surface area and mass (for temporary heatsinking) for continuous max mode. At 800mA (mode 7, next lower mode) the headlamp is already very warm after 10 minutes of continuous use. Restarting the max mode every time it stepped down makes it scorching hot in few minutes.
  • LED efficiency is inversely proportional to the current. The higher the current, the less efficient it becomes. By using 4 LED instead of one, we reduce the input and increase efficiency. Using 4 LED in 4P like on this H04RC also lowers required voltage – longer regulated runtime (about 30 minutes extra in case of H04RC). This headlamp uses constant current buck driver. A buck driver can only regulate preset current as long as there’s still enough voltage uphill. When the battery voltage gets lower than the voltage needed by the LED at preset current, the current also goes down – no more regulation. The output will now follow the battery voltage until there’s no meaningful voltage to drive the LED. Any CC buck driver requires certain minimum voltage to work, in H04RC there’s internal protection at ~2,8V to save the battery from over discharge.

I don’t know about those Xenon bulb but, my gut feeling tells me it’s still less efficient than most high CRI LED. As for the output, make sure it’s real measured out the front after all optical losses.

Condition Tj = 85°C
Bare LED
At 2,5A a single XML2 – U2 CRI 70:
LED output = 919,2 lm
LED voltage (4P) = 3,24 V
LED power = 8,089 watt
LED efficiency = 113,64 lm/watt

Condition Tj = 85°C
Bare LED
At 2,5A (625mA/LED) 4x E21A D320 CRI 70:
LED output = 1094,3 lm
LED voltage (4P) = 2,8575 V
LED power = 7,144 watt
LED efficiency = 153,12 lm/watt

Condition Tj = 85°C
Bare LED
At 2,5A (625mA/LED) 4x E21A D220 CRI 9080:
LED output = 744,5 lm
LED voltage (4P) = 2,8575 V
LED power = 7,144 watt
LED efficiency = 104,2 lm/watt

From the calculation above, you can see why I don’t trust advertised Skilhunt (and most manufacturers) number for 1200 lm output out from a single XML2. Even using XML2 with U4 bin (the brightest available), at 3A (with 2× 18350) you can only get 1197 lumens before those plastic lens transmission losses. And that at junction temp 25°C, which is very unrealistic. Your LED can still overheats in -16°C air environment

[Clemence]

thefreeman
Online
Last seen: 8 min 58 sec ago
Joined: 01/06/2020 - 09:56
Posts: 31
Location: Europe
clemence wrote:
I don’t know about those Xenon bulb but, my gut feeling telling it’s still less efficient than most high CRI LED. As for the output, make sure it’s real measured out the front after all optical losses.

I don’t know much about it either, but according to wikipedia it’s between 30 and 55 lm/W.

Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 59 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5576
Location: Ślōnsk

Looking at the charts I’m surprised the output loss is so severe. According to TA tests, E21A CRI9080 at 2.5A has the same output as XM-L2 U2 (912/910 lm). At 1A XM-L2 is 7% better.
Skilhunt uses U4 bin and you used D220 which is a little lower.
This would make me expect ~18% lower output at peak and ~23% lower at 1A. I’m not sure what’s the current at the steady state but it must be quite close to 1A.
At peak I see ~22% lower output which is can be accounted for by test variation.
But at the steady state the difference is ~43% and that’s definitely too high.

Any explanation?

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia

Agro wrote:
Looking at the charts I’m surprised the output loss is so severe. According to TA tests, E21A CRI9080 at 2.5A has the same output as XM-L2 U2 (912/910 lm). At 1A XM-L2 is 7% better.
Skilhunt uses U4 bin and you used D220 which is a little lower.
This would make me expect ~18% lower output at peak and ~23% lower at 1A. I’m not sure what’s the current at the steady state but it must be quite close to 1A.
At peak I see ~22% lower output which is can be accounted for by test variation.
But at the steady state the difference is ~43% and that’s definitely too high.

Any explanation?

IMO, TA measurement is too optimistic. Brightest E21A is D320 at R70 = 320lm at 700mA (Tj=25C). It’s comparable to XML2 U4, 320lm at 700mA (Tj=25C). Skilhunt use U4 bin for the CW version, mine is NW version. And I pretty sure it’s U2 bin. I measured H04RC using D220 E21A R9080 which means 220lm at 700mA (Tj=25C). Thus, 4× (4P) E21A D220 at 700mA produce only 245,4 lm – still much lower than a single XML2 U4.

I can’t explain the big difference in output either, my measurement device is not as sophisticated as Maukka’s. Let’s wait for his result.

[Clemence]

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 53 sec ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 758
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Thanks for the reply Clemence. I’m patiently awaiting maukkas results, and really hope he does efficiency measurements of the TIRs.

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia
JaredM wrote:
Thanks for the reply Clemence. I’m patiently awaiting maukkas results, and really hope he does efficiency measurements of the TIRs.

My “unofficial” test showed ~80% – 81% TIR lens efficiency for quadtrix E21A. Pretty normal for uncoated 16mm TIR optic. Quadtrix E17A should be somewhere around 84%

[Clemence]

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 47 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 3569
Location: US

Agro wrote:
Looking at the charts I’m surprised the output loss is so severe. According to TA tests, E21A CRI9080 at 2.5A has the same output as XM-L2 U2 (912/910 lm). At 1A XM-L2 is 7% better.
Skilhunt uses U4 bin and you used D220 which is a little lower.
This would make me expect ~18% lower output at peak and ~23% lower at 1A. I’m not sure what’s the current at the steady state but it must be quite close to 1A.
At peak I see ~22% lower output which is can be accounted for by test variation.
But at the steady state the difference is ~43% and that’s definitely too high.

Any explanation?

The E21A was tested by TA before he had his lumen calibration corrected with the Maukka lights so those numbers re inflated.

Tumbl3s
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 43 min ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 10:50
Posts: 19

All these numbers are kind of confusing to me. Are they right or wrong? Are we waiting on some more results to come through?

I kind of just want a high CRI headlamp that can output like 400-500 lumens indefinitely (not throttling down because of heat) and I can keep swapping batteries into as they run out. Is this what I’m after?

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 5 min ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 01:28
Posts: 617

Following

AEDe
AEDe's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 57 min ago
Joined: 12/01/2016 - 12:07
Posts: 571
Location: Moscow

clemence I think E21A may be is too big for this optics. Could you measure flux without host and optics ? or at least e21 vs e17 flux?

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16541
Location: Amsterdam

SKV89 wrote:
Agro wrote:
Looking at the charts I’m surprised the output loss is so severe. According to TA tests, E21A CRI9080 at 2.5A has the same output as XM-L2 U2 (912/910 lm). At 1A XM-L2 is 7% better.
Skilhunt uses U4 bin and you used D220 which is a little lower.
This would make me expect ~18% lower output at peak and ~23% lower at 1A. I’m not sure what’s the current at the steady state but it must be quite close to 1A.
At peak I see ~22% lower output which is can be accounted for by test variation.
But at the steady state the difference is ~43% and that’s definitely too high.

Any explanation?

The E21A was tested by TA before he had his lumen calibration corrected with the Maukka lights so those numbers re inflated.


I’m really glad that maukka started selling his calibration lights and that so many of us have them. Before that those were available, people with real numbers would hesitate publishing them because they were a lot lower than the rest (I have noticed easily a variation of 30-40% among calibrations of different people), and the temptation was there to match your calibration to what was generally accepted (many flashlight manufacturrers did that too). My led tests always gave low-ish output numbers compared to “the rest” (BLF members and flashlight manufacturers), until maukka’s calibrated test rig showed that they were actually 7-11% high (depending on spectrum, my imperfect sphere coating generates limited but measurable spectrum errors).
But even apart from calibration differences, that since maukka’s lights are for sale have decimated, the fact that most people (including TA) use cheap luxmeters with very imprecise optical filters, is still a souce of error that can cause a variation that for some tints can be as high as 20% (see my luxmeter tests).
clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia
AEDe wrote:
clemence I think E21A may be is too big for this optics. Could you measure flux without host and optics ? or at least e21 vs e17 flux?

Sure that’s what I’m gonna do.

[Clemence]

Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 59 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5576
Location: Ślōnsk
djozz wrote:
But even apart from calibration differences, that since maukka’s lights are for sale have decimated, the fact that most people (including TA) use cheap luxmeters with very imprecise optical filters, is still a souce of error that can cause a variation that for some tints can be as high as 20% (see my luxmeter tests).

Indeed, TA sphere pre-callibrated was a big step forward but the luxmeter is still holding it back.
Now that there’s Unit-T UT-383S this may be possible to significantly improve (but not solve) with reasonable cost increase…
Though one thing that worries me in this meter (aside from being untested) is its absence from Uni-Trend website.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16541
Location: Amsterdam
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
But even apart from calibration differences, that since maukka’s lights are for sale have decimated, the fact that most people (including TA) use cheap luxmeters with very imprecise optical filters, is still a souce of error that can cause a variation that for some tints can be as high as 20% (see my luxmeter tests).

Indeed, TA sphere pre-callibrated was a big step forward but the luxmeter is still holding it back.
Now that there’s Unit-T UT-383S this may be possible to significantly improve (but not solve) with reasonable cost increase…
Though one thing that worries me in this meter (aside from being untested) is its absence from Uni-Trend website.


I do not see how this luxmeter would change things, it is yet another cheap luxmeter that for sure will have optical filter errors. A good luxmeter filter that precisely corrects the sensor for the Vlambda curve is still very expensive (as in hundreds of dollars for the filter alone), and none of my tests sofar have proven otherwise. So there is no way around that, and errors of 10% upwards will remain. I have not tested this specific luxmeter but I have no illusions.
Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 59 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5576
Location: Ślōnsk
djozz wrote:
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
But even apart from calibration differences, that since maukka’s lights are for sale have decimated, the fact that most people (including TA) use cheap luxmeters with very imprecise optical filters, is still a souce of error that can cause a variation that for some tints can be as high as 20% (see my luxmeter tests).

Indeed, TA sphere pre-callibrated was a big step forward but the luxmeter is still holding it back.
Now that there’s Unit-T UT-383S this may be possible to significantly improve (but not solve) with reasonable cost increase…
Though one thing that worries me in this meter (aside from being untested) is its absence from Uni-Trend website.


I do not see how this luxmeter would change things, it is yet another cheap luxmeter that for sure will have optical filter errors. A good luxmeter filter that precisely corrects the sensor for the Vlambda curve is still very expensive (as in hundreds of dollars for the filter alone), and none of my tests sofar have proven otherwise. So there is no way around that, and errors of 10% upwards will remain. I have not tested this specific luxmeter but I have no illusions.

In your tests UT383 did way better than other cheap meters. If UT383S performs as well, it’s probably significantly better in the cool region HS1010A that TA uses.
djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16541
Location: Amsterdam
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
But even apart from calibration differences, that since maukka’s lights are for sale have decimated, the fact that most people (including TA) use cheap luxmeters with very imprecise optical filters, is still a souce of error that can cause a variation that for some tints can be as high as 20% (see my luxmeter tests).

Indeed, TA sphere pre-callibrated was a big step forward but the luxmeter is still holding it back.
Now that there’s Unit-T UT-383S this may be possible to significantly improve (but not solve) with reasonable cost increase…
Though one thing that worries me in this meter (aside from being untested) is its absence from Uni-Trend website.


I do not see how this luxmeter would change things, it is yet another cheap luxmeter that for sure will have optical filter errors. A good luxmeter filter that precisely corrects the sensor for the Vlambda curve is still very expensive (as in hundreds of dollars for the filter alone), and none of my tests sofar have proven otherwise. So there is no way around that, and errors of 10% upwards will remain. I have not tested this specific luxmeter but I have no illusions.

In your tests UT383 did way better than other cheap meters. If UT383S performs as well, it’s probably significantly better in the cool region HS1010A that TA uses.

If you look into the table I made of how the different meters measured a number of different flashlights, you will see that while it performs better than some others, the U383 depending on light source, measured from 5% too low to 15% too low so a 10% variation on top of the calibration error, which does not make it a great luxmeter, just better than the worst ones. That is quite a range of error to consider. There seems to be a performance in between, the one Extech meter that I tested differed only a few percent from the reference luxmeter, which also shows in the wavelength response.
clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia

Tumbl3s wrote:
All these numbers are kind of confusing to me. Are they right or wrong? Are we waiting on some more results to come through?

I kind of just want a high CRI headlamp that can output like 400-500 lumens indefinitely (not throttling down because of heat) and I can keep swapping batteries into as they run out. Is this what I’m after?

Unfortunately no, this is not for you. This H04RC steps down in 2 minutes to ~50% max output. Less than 400lm continuous with R9080. You better look for bigger light, not a headlamp.

[Clemence]

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia
AEDe wrote:
clemence I think E21A may be is too big for this optics. Could you measure flux without host and optics ? or at least e21 vs e17 flux?

Nichia Esttool simulation (proofed to be very accurate)

4x E21A sm355 D220 R9080 (Tj 85°C, 4P)

Mode 7 (800mA)
- 259,9 lm
- 2,665 V
- 122 lm/watt
- 2,132 watt

Mode 8 (2500mA)
- 744,5 lm
- 2,8575 V
- 104 lm/watt
- 7,144 watt
—————————————-

4x E17A sm355 B11 R9080 (Tj 85°C, 4P)

Mode 7 (800mA)
- 248,6 lm
- 2,7825 V
- 112 lm/watt
- 2,226 watt

Mode 8 (2500mA)
- 665,8 lm
- 3,01V
- 88 lm/watt
- 7,525 watt

With E17A, optical efficiency would be higher but both regulation and heat generation are worse.
[Clemence]

Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 59 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 5576
Location: Ślōnsk
djozz wrote:
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
Agro wrote:
djozz wrote:
But even apart from calibration differences, that since maukka’s lights are for sale have decimated, the fact that most people (including TA) use cheap luxmeters with very imprecise optical filters, is still a souce of error that can cause a variation that for some tints can be as high as 20% (see my luxmeter tests).

Indeed, TA sphere pre-callibrated was a big step forward but the luxmeter is still holding it back.
Now that there’s Unit-T UT-383S this may be possible to significantly improve (but not solve) with reasonable cost increase…
Though one thing that worries me in this meter (aside from being untested) is its absence from Uni-Trend website.


I do not see how this luxmeter would change things, it is yet another cheap luxmeter that for sure will have optical filter errors. A good luxmeter filter that precisely corrects the sensor for the Vlambda curve is still very expensive (as in hundreds of dollars for the filter alone), and none of my tests sofar have proven otherwise. So there is no way around that, and errors of 10% upwards will remain. I have not tested this specific luxmeter but I have no illusions.

In your tests UT383 did way better than other cheap meters. If UT383S performs as well, it’s probably significantly better in the cool region HS1010A that TA uses.

If you look into the table I made of how the different meters measured a number of different flashlights, you will see that while it performs better than some others, the U383 depending on light source, measured from 5% too low to 15% too low so a 10% variation on top of the calibration error, which does not make it a great luxmeter, just better than the worst ones. That is quite a range of error to consider. There seems to be a performance in between, the one Extech meter that I tested differed only a few percent from the reference luxmeter, which also shows in the wavelength response.

But TA calibrates with reference lights which should cancel this error.
And I think $370 for Extech is way too high for an average enthusiast. At least I keep it out of my scope.
Tumbl3s
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 43 min ago
Joined: 10/23/2019 - 10:50
Posts: 19

clemence wrote:
Tumbl3s wrote:
All these numbers are kind of confusing to me. Are they right or wrong? Are we waiting on some more results to come through?

I kind of just want a high CRI headlamp that can output like 400-500 lumens indefinitely (not throttling down because of heat) and I can keep swapping batteries into as they run out. Is this what I’m after?

Unfortunately no, this is not for you. This H04RC steps down in 2 minutes to ~50% max output. Less than 400lm continuous with R9080. You better look for bigger light, not a headlamp.

[Clemence]

It’s hard to find a high CRI headlamp.

My 400-500lms figure is pretty rough anyway. When the H04RC steps down to 50% max output, what is it’s rough output? Just under 400lm?

JaredM
JaredM's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 53 sec ago
Joined: 10/31/2011 - 13:33
Posts: 758
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Looks to be about 250 lumen

clemence
clemence's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 07/12/2015 - 02:58
Posts: 2414
Location: Bali - Indonesia

Vary depends on the LED CCT. For 3500K its 225lm. 6500K would be about 250lm

[Clemence]

Pavlo
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 12/13/2015 - 10:37
Posts: 631
Location: Canada

I think we need to keep in mind that this would not be just an standard 90 CRI headlamp. The LED’s provided for this Group Buy are 9080 LED’s, with a very high R9 colour rendering.

From my experience, your pupils will dilate to adjust to the light provided by a headlamp/flashlight. A small compromise in brightness can easily be adjusted for with your eyes and brain, but not so for colours. Having the super high 9080 LED’s bring out colours that you would otherwise not see as well with a lower CRI option, regardless of intensity or lumen output.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 16541
Location: Amsterdam

Agro wrote:
But TA calibrates with reference lights which should cancel this error.

No it does not, spectral errors are not solved by calibration, please read my luxmeter threads for an explanation.

Pages