I get that we can see differences in the bigger changes (e.g. colour temp) but as you keep pointing out with so many variables that can even change perception of colour temp why bother considering cri? Walking 10ft past another light source is going to render it useless for perfect perception. It just sounds like chasing ghosts to me.
Taking a step back, I do have to remind myself that other people care about it more than I do and if a ‘better’ choice is available people will choose it. The problem for me is ‘Better’ seems to be subject to machines and graphs that tell us the differences since everyone sees something different not to mention everyone has different preferences.
I can understand lucky’s point that if you know your own preferences then the graphs can help narrow the next choice.
Yes I agree. Butt TCR isn’t shooting for that level of scientifically supportable data. The sole “data” it’s providing is one person’s scalable subjective perception of how true an object’s color rendition becomes when illuminated. Watt I’m also in effect saying here is that the more a person ‘knows’ the object’s color(s) the more accurate TCR will tend to be.
All subjective butt loosely scalable. The person on the other end will have to decide whether to trust the TCR rating and likely will depend on the person’s reputation, etc.
CRI in combination with TCR are really two tools enhancing one another.
I didn’t mean that it should replace CRI even partially in the decision process. Someone for instance could trust your quick answer TCR because they know your reputation for being savvy especially when it comes to this area of expertise. Simple answer for simple answer-requesting folks as it were.
I look at a particular LED’s bin, efficiency, Vf, etc., and most importantly watt others are trend- saying about its real-world performance. If they say it makes colors accurately “pop” but shows a slightly green cast on lighter whitish backgrounds I’d probably pass.
The logic of that seems backwards to me. You pick color temp and tint based on preference, but how well that renders colors is shown with the raw numbers rather what looks “good”. OP seems to be discounting the actual data completely, especially since I’m not aware of a single emitter where dedoming/slicing improves the Ra by a significant amount. If anything it’s probably just a point in the column for lower duv looking “better” to the vast majority of people.
I could be leaning too far into the semantic, but “True Color Rendering” couldn’t be more of misnomer given that for example tint mixes lower color accuracy but look “better” to many people.
Just imagine judging lumen output on perceived brightness only. I wasn’t around for it but I think there have been some heated discussions of people having their own idea of what “a lumen” constitutes here on BLFand/ or the other forum.
With reviewers like Maukka showing angular tint shit and changes in duv/temp with drive current… I don’t think there’s much that the data misses TBH.
[quote=nottawhackjob]
That’s just an opinion on how likeable the tint is. Sunlight itself has a positive duv which is why there has been discussion of moving away from the BBL on ANSI charts.
A metric means nothing without a standard, and since there are so many variables for what someone “knows” about how colors should be rendered ist’s effectively meaningless. What someone thinks of as “sunlight” will be completely different for me in the winter vs a person living on the equator for example.
I don’t have any issue with someone saying “This light’s beam/tint is good/okay/terrible.” but assigning some arbitrary number value to that makes no sense. Making colors “pop” is what we have Rg for, and green tint on white walls in duv.
Nothing can replace watt your brain perceives. I don’t care how many data points and graphs ya have. However a trending subjective observational consensus can also be just as ‘accurate’ as the raw scientific data shows.
Pretty much everyone agrees CRI as an initial starting point is the best place to start - for some. And all I’m saying is I’ve kinda gotten tired of solely relying on it so why not try analyzing watt I see for myself because I know a particular object so well then why not TCR rate it?
PS. I can tell ya haven’t de-domed much. I can emphatically tell ya TCR can change substantially doing so. :laughing:
“A metric means nothing without a standard, and since there are so many variables for what someone “knows” about how colors should be rendered ist’s effectively meaningless.”
This is patently absurd. Very simply if I know exactly how a particular blue brush stroke looks on a painting then flash it and it now looks greenish the TCR on that flash is gonna be pretty low.
Remember too it’s not just the LED CRI at play here.
There’s the reflector’s/aspheric lens composition, the lens whether AR or not, the driver’s output/battery condition, etc.
All this will determine within a reasonable consensus whether or not that particular flash deserves a higher TCR than not. Not to mention each particular flash in the run WILL perform differently.
TCR does nothing more than make CRI raw data somewhat more approachable and comparable via real world results.
You don’t. All you see is reflected light, which is composed differently depending on the light source. Then your brain does something like an automatic white balance.
If i understand correctly raw numbers does not equal eye comfort. OP places a higher priority on visual comfort but BurningPlayd0h places a higher priority on raw numbers… and yet others claim high cri is most comfortable for them.
I wouldn’t have rolls of Zircon filters and pour over spectral tests (duv is one those measurements…) if I didn’t think eye comfort was important. Wrapping up all that change in one rating that has little to do with color rendition (which may not change at all with shifts in tint/temp) doesn’t make much sense.
This is why beamshots and measurements exist, so we can have more info than “It looks right now, it’s brighter now” etc.
I think a thread of visual illusions due to retinal persistence, etc. would actually be really useful info. Still amazes me how much my perception can shift on lights and those are a great demo of why it happens.
I certainly don’t think yer incompetent. On the contrary obviously. Yer a Pro. The problem I have with raw number analysis is that when variables are introduced into the equation after purchase then subjective analysis suddenly becomes an invalid adjunct.
TCR make no mistake is subjective. Butt that doesn’t mean it’s inherently inaccurate to the observer.
How does anyone know what a 1 vs 10 rating looks like? What actual difference is that even describing? Do you have preferences for warm, cool, or rosy light? How do you think that will translate to others based on their own preferences? What is the advantage over beamshot comparisons (which give a point of reference)?
Based on what you’ve said every 4000K or lower light should have a progressively lower TCR unless I’m misunderstanding you.
Ok. It’s just a loosely based subjective assessment of a particular singular flash’s TCR. Just like a movie rating, Amazon rating, Home Depot rating, Costco rating, WalMart rating, ad infinitum ratings, etc.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you when you’re interested in buying a new product ever go by how many stars it gets? Do ya inquire the top and bottom rating reviewers how exactly they came up with the rating? Does the reputation of the reviewer’s historical rating performance have any influence on your decision?
Watt yer saying is that TCR because it doesn’t rely on raw numbers on its own shouldn’t be valid.
Again, all I’ve been saying is that the two can be used together to better address variables and human eyesight intangibles. Since CRI raw numbers already exist one can take advantage of it - as they so choose.
If someone trusts Notta’s TCR and it corroborates with their understanding of CRI, where’s the real beef here?
When I buy a car I look at the official gas efficiency numbers rather than an individual person’s “True Milage Rating” based on what they felt about it. That doesn’t mean I don’t read overall review scores, or certain factors like how smooth the ride was, that kinda thing.
I guess I mostly take issue with “True” since (as has been shown here in beamshots where rosy tint can make a light look like it has much better red rendering) it’s hard to gauge that with the naked eye, and it’s definitely no more “true” than what professional measurements will tell you.
Again, if this is in comparison to sunlight how will warm white lights fare?
I haven’t read every word BUT. I’m guessing you’re not taking this painting outdoors in direct sunlight. So you are not really comparing anything to sunlight. Where did you come up with a 1 to 10 scale? Sounds like the metric system to me. I think you should have a 1 to 13 scale based on the original colonies. In order for the wack cult club to move forward you’re going to need more than yourself as a member. Nobody else has this picture hanging on the same colored wall to be able to check your numbers. The numbers must be repeatable by other parties. If you will agree that warm high CRI lights are best for most situations and change the scale and make me president of the wcc then I will join.
TCR sounds incredibly ridiculous when applying even just the slightest critical thought. The idea is that you will create a rating for everyone based on how YOU perceive color? Then some random photo you like is your baseline? Calling that “true” color rendering is beyond obtuse. It should just be called OCR…“OPINIONATED” color rendering.
You may have ugly ass fluorescent lights at home and your perceived baseline colors of your favorite photo could be off to begin with. Then what if you’ve never seen truly beautiful colors from a true high CRI light, your perception is useless to others who know and have seen far better than you ever have, we can’t be having that.
I don’t know if you were joking and messing around but this was pretty asinine and it was not even remotely entertaining. Maybe you did mix a few rocks and some powder with your weed cause this sounds like I just read the first shit-faced drunk essay on “The problem with CRI”.
Maybe we should just let people assign their own number of horsepower to their cars based on some horse they rode once too no?
IF…you were just messing around, then totally so am I. If not, then I said what I said.
There is a movement of people, no idea how big it is, who think that there is a) data/science/standards, all nice and sweet, nice hobby, please carry on with that, and then b) there is the * REAL WORLD * experience where you can find what really happens, there may or may not be a relation with a) but now we REALLY know what is going on.
This is however BS. Please note that we created data/science/standards because it is the best description of reality that we have, while usually the “real world experience” is a mess: highly subjective, variable per person, in time, per situation, and useless for basing decisions on.
CRI, and better TM30, are the best predictors for how good or pleasant lighting is experienced by the average person. These standards are well thought-out and well substantiated.
There will be individuals who have preferences that are well different from average, and they may create their very individual variable judgements of course for own use.
Often when I perceive a room to be a little too warm my wife will say, No, it is fine the way it is. I could make a lengthy list of the differences we perceive about a great many things we have encountered over the 40+ years we have known each other. This involves weights, distances, softness, odors, directions and just about everything encountered by one or more of our senses. This includes colors.
What we can agree on completely is if the thermometer indicates it is 70 degrees F, it is 70 F, no matter that she thinks it is a little too cool and I think it is just right. We know what 70 F is. That we perceive it to be too warm or too cool or just right comes down to personal likes or dislikes. And so on. We agree on the standard because we know what it is. Standards have an agreed upon scientific basis. Anything else is arbitrary and meaningless for comparison.
