Lay off the German version of LSD. Watt is that, Jagermeister? :laughing: 
Yer over-analyzing.
Jägermeister might have an effect on how reflected light is perceived, too. If it shines through the bottle, it’s green.
After consuming too much of it, colors are less important than brightness. You’d want a moon-mode then.
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.
This is my rant
At which point it all seems a little too scientific for portable instant light.
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.
“The Art of Science is often more difficult to execute than the Science of Art.”
Notta, 7/13/21.
Then just pick what has an interface and form factor you like, and/or look at beamshots and choose what you like! 
I’ll keep using the well-established standards for judging the how pleasant and good at rendering colors any given light/emitter is because that has worked very well for literally every lighting professional so far (as they were developed by them), and it is necessary for my use cases.
Yer applying static logic to dynamic objects.
Since EVERY flash is different (dynamic) then you need to adjust CRI (static) everytime to compensate for those variables to be truly scientifically accurate for that particular flash.
That’s watt TCR attempts to accomplish at a subjective level.
In a word, no. The surrounding circumstances and how that changes a person’s perception of the light changes, the temp/tint/color rendition of a given light at a given output do not change.
BurningPlaydoh sez……
“In a word, no. The surrounding circumstances and how that changes a person’s perception of the light changes, the temp/tint/color rendition of a given light at a given output do not change.”
Can you scientifically describe an emotion at any given point in time?
If ya can’t does that mean the emotion is irrelevant or doesn’t exist?
I’ll expand this more……
Since every flash is different and CRI therefore cannot by default always accurately describe that particular flash’s performance in real-time then watt is left?
Subjectivity is left unless you happen to have the exact same equipment that determined CRI’s standards with you when giving TCR. And since I’ve made it very clear numerous times in this thread that in no way does TCR supplant CRI but rather only augments it.
Then in Post #37 you say….
“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.”
Is it really an illusion if that’s watt you truly see?
Then in Post#45, Djozz sez……
“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.”
So are you saying that emotions (inherently subjective) are useless for basing decisions on?
If so, then you must not be human.
Then to expand it further……
As you say “variable per person”. Butt watt you also should’ve said in order to be scientifically honest is, “variable per flashlight”. Since each flashlight varies, again, subjectivity must come into play.
Subjectivity is adjusted by consensus. The more that evaluate the more believable subjectivity becomes. Or perhaps better said, averages is a wonderful useful concept.
PS. I can see where “True” is giving some of you heartburn.
It isn’t “True” in the scientific sense. It IS “True” however in the subjective sense.
Yeh, I know I’m being argumentative. Sorry. I think I’m just a bit bitter because I don’t see as well as others so don’t understand what all the fuss is about
The liberal marketing department is fired and I’m out.