Why do you buy lights without High-CRI emitters?

Best I can do on short notice:

Pic lit by Maratac AA Cu Rev 5, Nichia (deets unknown, would love to know). I mis-spoke earlier when I said the Nichia in the Reylight Mini was about perfect for me; it has the better beam profile, but the Maratac has better tint (temps are both neutral, but again, deets unknown). The Maratac temp and tint seems really close to the BLF Q8’s to me (XPL HD V6 3D,) but obvs with higher cri.

Because I suspect that the CRI makes very little visible difference. I have tried to replicate the obvious differences in the photographs of hands under different CRI ratings, and in real life, the only thing that makes a noticeable difference is temp, even tint is only significant when white wall hunting. I realise thesr things are subjective, and that cameras bring different factors to the party,but this thread in particular has convinced me that it is not just me, it would take a lot to convince me now that CRI above 70 is worth pursuing.

Perhaps the single most blatant demonstration is my bedroom. The walls are a light cream colour, and the ceiling plain white. None of my high CRI non-neutral lights can illustrate that they are different colours, they look the same.

ALL of my neutral lights clearly show both colours distinctly.

What is the use of high CRI if it cannot show the difference in two colours side by side?

As a point of clarification, I’ve had some fun with pics here, but would agree that my pics at least are pointless in demonstrating anything other than to have a visual. You either see a difference that matters to you in real life or you don’t, no worries either way.

Seriously fellows, for some reason I am subscribed to this thread so I guess it's time to kick ass.

Do you believe CRI makes little or no difference for you? Seriously?

Aim a cheap whatever colour laser (a score of 0 CRI, I believe) at something and see if you can tell me it allows you to discern colours beyond the vicinity of the emitter frequency well. Busted, doesn't it?

We humans are adapted to the main available light sources in our evolutionary timeline: the sun and fires. These sources are spot on the black body locus with perfectly uniform spectral power distributions. Light sources which deviate from this are going to be noticed, the more the harder.

Now I must promptly say that despite leds are completely synthetic light sources, we've come far enough already but still there's way to go.

Of course I can respect what you believe and each one of you can have her/his own reasons, but when I aim a good high-CRI torch at a chosen target with a good range of vivid colours and next I do the same with a dull emitter equipped equivalent torch the difference can be quite noticeable. All my close friends are “converting” to this high-CRI religion and honestly, with little effort from my side.

Cheers my dears :-)

Original post date: Mon, 04/30/2018 - 06:26. Edited for typo fixup.

With regards to those of you who like to post pictures and namely those of you who aim to discern valuable rendering differences among them, be aware:

  • Photos are captured with a sensor/device pair a lot more limited than even the dullest healthy human sight.
  • The above captured information is then lossy compressed.
  • Later, you see the picture through another device with its own software and screen rendering limitations.

In my opinion, if all of the above still renders something worthwhile go praise the Lord because it's a freakin' miracle LoL.

Cheers ^:)

Indeed. The images here are mostly useless for CRI purposes. Digital cameras sense three specific frequencies, and computer monitors emit three specific frequencies. They can’t record or display the full spectrum, nor can they show a meaningful difference between three narrow-band lights and a full-spectrum light. Common image files only store three color channels, so there’s no place to put the extra color information even if it was available.

So this is pretty much all about how things look in person.

In person though, I’d take a 70CRI XP-L HI 3D (~4800K and slightly pink) over a 100CRI emitter at <4000K or >5500K. Because perfect CRI can’t fix a skewed color temperature.

OTOH, decent color temperature can’t make super-low CRI look good. Like, a narrow-band green LED may have the same peak frequency as a neutral white emitter, but it’ll make everything look terrible. Fortunately, nobody proposed that. It’s kind of irrelevant because zero or negative-CRI light sources aren’t really being considered.

As long as the CRI is high enough to classify a light source as “white”, like 70+, further CRI improvement is a relatively small factor in the result.

Good guess, but no.
The real story is, um, a doctor asked me to pee in a cup.

You can sell your urine TK. Most people are yellowish to amber. This is rare! :laughing:
I guess your blood is purple too, isn’t it?

Also, in opinion CRI alone sucks. R9 to R12 values (saturated red, yellow, green and blue if I'm not mistaken) matter a lot. There are high CRI emitters with low and/or unbalanced R9 to R12 values, and it seems people rants about tint for these. And for good reasons.

Cheers :-)

It is not accurate but it’s the most widely used until today. Many standards have been introduced into the market. Check this link:
Go straight to 54:16 for the demo. Again what you see is not what actually it was, no digital media can currently capture what human eyes can.

- Clemence

Efficiency! I didn’t choose Emissar with nichia because it gets hot too fast.

My english vocabulary is too poor to explain it accurately but you need to understand that CRI is only an idea of how rich a spectrum is for some sample colors. CRI rating is made by measuring spectrum of reflectance (of a few sample colors).
A higher CRI means a richer spectrum. It doesn’t meant that all CRI 90 spectrums are equal and will show differences in colors the same.
Without considering your cones in your eyes, you see colors because object are reflecting a part of a spectrum. If there is low red shades in your LED’s spectrum, red, brown objects and all objects with few or rich red shades won’t reflect those red shades that are not in this particular LED’s spectrum.
The higher the CRI the richer the shades. A nichia CRI=90 with R9=50 has (or will show) less shades of red colors than a CRI=90 with R9=80.

White wall hunting even with different whites is really not a good way to judge CRI.

I remember this CPF’s thread which convinced me to “invest” in an HDS flashlight that was one of the rare HI-CRI flashlights several years ago.

HI-CRI vs LOW-CRI

Temp, tint and CRI, each one has a real and different influence on how colors are reflected and perceived.
Temp is obvious and can be judged with any color because it is just a white balance.
Tint is rather obvious too.
CRI is more subtile and need a wide range of natural colors and artificial colors to measure its benefits.

i have one, it’s nice, but i don;t need accurate colors all the time.

what i don;t want is something that costs $125, or is 6” long, or has a UTI ( User Torture Interface ) - just for the sake of light color - other things are more important.

when i want accurate color, i have an Astrolux S1.

( which cost $20, and even has MFUIOA ( My Favorite User Interface Of All ).

but I still don’t carry it every day because it’s got TBD ( Too Big Disorder ) ) .

wle

NYSVMLNWATA (Now You Sounds Very Much Like Nitecore With All Those Abbreviations) :laughing: :laughing:

- Clemence

Some of my lights are throwers. Using a high-cri LED reallly limits the maximum luminance that is possible and thus the throw.

that makes sense, here is how another person justifies buying low CRI

has a fairly noticeable cool to greenish shift if you’re literally analyzing the beam on a white wall but I got it for the lumens

Chicken Ala CRI, can quickly inform the difference between low CRI an High CRI.

The ChickLight :slight_smile:

Top Chick is 6000k XP-G2 72CRI, like the HDS 250, bottom chick is 4000k N219b 92CRI, like the HDS 200 High CRI

one of my favorite CRI tests is the Hand Palm

not to be confused with the Coco Palm (green is not a High CRI challenge color). I roll my eyes when someone posts a High CRI comparison targeting green plants. Its the RED spectrum that High CRI excells at.

Here is the light spectrum from a Cree XP-G2 (note it has plenty of green)

Here is a Nichia 219a (note how much more RED)

Here you can see the difference between High CRI with Low R9 and High R9

next look at the CW XPG3 on bottom right. It certainly works fine to show the hand and the jewel, certainly High CRI is not needed to identify the shape of objects. So if someone wants Low CRI, I can understand. It is certainly brighter. Its a tradeoff, do you want more realistic reds, or just need a brighter beam to reach out farther?

Where did all the red go? The bottom two images use XP-G3 that lack R9, even though one is High CRI. If you want to see a Rosy Palm, High CRI with High R9 makes for a better Flesh Light.

When it comes to getting up close and personal, High CRI Rules the Roost!

Stay tuned for our next episode, Debunking the Myth that Low CRI NW shows colors as well as High CRI NW… here is a preview (NW is just yellower)

Spectral view of an LED with nice color rendering: (measured by maukka)

Spectral view of “white” on a computer monitor, showing how much of that information actually makes it across the internet:

Photos on a monitor are not high CRI, even if the scene they represent was.

But with that much red response, photos might actually look better on a monitor than with a high CRI light!

Im also learning about the importance of R9.
Zebralight has been getting a lot of reports for Green Tint in their Cree LED High CRI offerings. Also true for the Olight S1 Mini High CRI w XP-G3, and in my experience also true of lights w N219c. When it comes to R9, Nichia 219b have much higher levels.

What the camera sees, and what the monitor shows, is not identical to what our eyes see, but photos can still add a lot of useful info, that words alone do not. People often confuse white balance with tint, a typical example is when someone claims their NW led shows colors better.

here is a NW low CRI led R9 content, compared to an N219b R9 content

I combined image clips from these posts by maukka

That Astrolux IS a High CRI light, with an R9 of 67. The NW Ti S Mini has an R9 of –22. They do look different from each other, “in real life” and also on a monitor.

I think the point is that it’s relative.
You should technically be able to tell the difference, just imagine the spectral response above multiplying the response of the monitor, compared to a low-CRI response multiplying the response of the monitor.
The resulting output from the monitor will be different, although how much is debatable.