Just use your BLF GT for half an hour a day and watch your muscle grow 
Btw, the numbers you got looks pretty accurate. Is this with the plastic sheet added at the meter or just stock from TA?
Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available
Nope, no glue or heat gun on that joint. Simple wiggle it back and forth while putting it out and it should loosen up. Then you can twist it to where ever you want.
Yeah, I agree the plastic is better for the readings, I am wanting to figure out how much adjustment the spheres need. The more data the better.
It is very difficult to get the turn on lumen number because number change quickly… but after all, we look for 30 seconds lumen…
So far so good. TA numbers are pretty close to skylumen…
I add one layer of grocery plastic bag. Make sure the light is stable.
I don’t know how malkoff measure their lumen… wildcat v6 is rated 1050. Maybe they are using 4 cr123 or protected 18650… we got 1400 lumen range using unprotected.
I just realize you got 11k lumens for the M43vn. That seems much too high. I thought even Skylumen couldn’t boost it any above stock because it’s already overdriven from the factory, which is rated at 8,000 lumens for the XPL-HI. My M43 w/ XP-L HI v2 measured 7,000 lumens at turn on using ceiling bounce, whereas my MT09R with TA driver and TA swapped 4000k 80CRI emitters measured 22.8k lumens at turn on using ceiling bounce.
I bought my m43vn in September, 2016. Skylumen rated 11000 lumen, and I have it on my note…
free photo hosting
Found the spec card…
Oh wow that’s very amazing considering the size of it.
11k lumens from an M43 should be possible. I have a 12x 319A 80CRI light that does around 13k lumens, I use it as a photo light.
Found the m43vn spec card… check post #3510. I got 11320 lumen with the Sony vtc6.
Which light is that? :laughing:
I currently use my 5000k 219c MF01 modded by Lexel (I think I measured about 10k lumens) for indoor photography by bouncing light off ceiling. Works very well and allows for fantastic looking pictures.
It is a modded Supfire M6. Yep, I use it the same way. Works great.
Everyone should know that the measurements you get with a plastic bag or whatever over the sensor is not going to be relevant to anybody else. Not all plastic bags have the same density and reduce the output by the same amount. It’s best if we all just use the bare sensor and record the higher number so that we can all compare our lights with each other. Later on we will figure out an exact number to use as a correction factor. Then we will know the correct lumens.
I’m looking at sending 3 of my stock constant current lights to a lab in Lincoln Park Michigan to get tested. But for now I’m pretty satisfied with what I got, actually I could not be happier!
So hurry up Jason or who ever, come up with something better, the other BLF members are waiting….
The procedure right now is to simply use the lumen tube as designed even though it’s reading a little high. Texas Ace is having some of his lights sent over to Europe to get tested by Maukka. When he gets those back he will figure out a proper correction factor. (For the time being we can use .65 to .70)
THEN he will experiment with materials to use over the sensor to find something that eliminates the need for math to get the lumens. Something cheap and consistent that he can buy a lot of like a box of 20 to 50 sheets of a certain paper which can easily be mailed out so we all have the same exact material. Not from different sources or even different batches. All from the same box.
I’m not completely sold on plastic bags because it may have different densities from one to the other (a Walmart bag in Indiana might be slightly different than a Walmart bag in Florida) plus it’s prone to ripping. Also, it might reduce too much light or not enough.
I think we need to find a thin material that doesn’t reduce too much light so we can use multiple layers to find the right amount of light reduction.
I’m leaning toward white waxed tissue paper. It is cheap for one thing. The sample I tried needed 3 layers to reduce the light down to the level of my JoshK sphere.
So if you want a correction factor to bring it in line with the JoshK sphere (based on mine and emarkd tests) I would multiply the stock readings by .65
.64 to .73 seems to be the general correction range. Who knows, maybe the JoshK sphere is reading a bit low and .69 is more accurate? We will have to wait and see.
The more I think about it, if TA can give us an accurate correction factor, we might be able to source our own local materials to reduce the readings down to that level. If he says the correction factor is .70 all we do is take a light that reads consistently and then experiment until we can drop it down the exact amount. So for instance take a light that measures consistently 1000 lumen and we just experiment with our own materials to get it to read 700 lumen. I think that would work.
How much do they ask for their service? Or do you know a friend of a friend? 
Yes, my brother works in the Automotive Lighting division of a big company, they have everything for testing, I’m hoping a case of beer or two or three?
Nice!! It is amazing what doors beer will open….
……especially with brothers. . 
…
I think this will give you your own specific correction factor and would not necessarily work for anybody else. You might end up with a more precisely calibrated lumen tube then the rest of us, though.
For those of us who are not able to get our hands on a tested light, we will just have to let TA get some lights tested and then he can measure those lights against the ten tubes that he has at his house. Some of those tubes are going to read a little higher or lower since his baseline adjustment was plus or minus 5. I think he can take an average of his tubes to give us a realistic correction factor that all his other customers can then use. Then we will all be back in that plus or minus 5 range.