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.
Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available
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.
I am happy with mine… if you want better result, here is an option…
Get another lux meter, and calibrate light ( tested by integrating sphere).
Whatever lumen / lux number = correction factor
Then you will multiply that by lux number.
Right now I am gathering data and waiting to get some “standard lights” to get more data.
Once I have the lights and enough data to feel that the readings are within reason, I will announce an “official” correction factor. People can use this correction factor or possibly make their own correction material.
Although Ideally I would like to find an inexpensive option that will get everyone to the right level that I can mail out. Everyone installs it and then they all read the same.
I am going to cut out some acrylic next time I am near the laser cutter and start testing options.
For now, readings with the spheres as they are would be great so I can get more data to base the correction factor on.
I must say I’m dissapointed in the discrepancies, especially considering the selling point being a calibrated tube with “no math needed”. The main advantage of this was because it was sold as a calibrated tube, which I assumed meant to lights of known values.
I’m waiting to see where the effort goes in rectifying this but getting a bunch of numbers from a variety of testers and lights with stated outputs of unknown accuracy, then averaging the numbers does not instill confidence.
I commend everyone in this thread for helping and trying to get this resolved but it should be said that the product sold was not the product delivered.
Texas Ace excels in all he does and a minor burp will not tarnish all the great work he has done for BLF members. Those wanting a lumen tube would have paid close to what he did for the materials alone. The small price he charges for his work and attention to detail in no way detracts from the value of his products.
That being said, I am sure he will fix what needs fixing and everyone will be pleased with the results (as usual).
$100 for a device to measure lumens that is close to an actual integrating sphere that costs thousands of dollars is a bargain, even with the extra TLC that will be needed.
Measuring something as ephemeral as light is like trying to measure a cup of water in steam form with a garbage bag. Congrats to him for coming up with a compact and inexpensive solution.
+1