True Color Rendition (TCR)..........

LED Flashlights – General Info
38

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?

39

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.

40

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. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

41

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 :slight_smile:

42

At which point it all seems a little too scientific for portable instant light.

43

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.

44

“The Art of Science is often more difficult to execute than the Science of Art.”

Notta, 7/13/21.

45

Then just pick what has an interface and form factor you like, and/or look at beamshots and choose what you like! :smiley:

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.

46

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.

47

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.

48

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.

49

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 :beer:

50

The liberal marketing department is fired and I’m out.

51

Oh so you were over creative I take it? :laughing:

52

Didn’t take it as argumentative, no sweat! I’m sure my vision will catch up with my elders’ soon enough lol. Already at the point of increasing text size on all my devices :weary:

53

Do you know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is? If not, look it up. It’s fun.

And so it actually is tied to an individual. Each user has its own TCR. Ok, but[sic] this value already exists. You often read it in reviews, sometimes along with the raw numbers, in terms of “warm”, “greenish”, “angry blue”, “nice color rendering” and so on. I like to read how everyone feels about a light, but take it with a grain of salt.

54

Nice John Locke reference!

55

In Post #56 you state……

“Nope. I have preferences just like anyone else, but I don’t think assigning numbers to them and discounting any of the quantifiable factors when possible is the best choice.”

Show us where I’ve specifically discounted any of the quantifiable factors when possible is the best choice?

Does not the person who is aware of a TCR rating have the perogative to compare it to CRI or other like standards? At that point shouldn’t they decide whether to give the appropriate weighting of CRI over TCR? Why should I be required to educate them on CRI to help them determine the validity or invalidity of a TCR rating?

Again, CRI isn’t meant to be supplanted by TCR. Not partially, not entirely.

Unless I’m misreading, you make it sound as if that’s factually supported by my direct words. If I gave that impression somewhere just discount it as an inadvertent oversight.

Just clearing stuff up again for the record.

56

Yes. Was it that? Yes, I was trying to be persuasive by over-kill but not abnormally so. :laughing: :open_mouth: (And I was also being a bit rhetorical and perhaps even slightly sarcastic).

Now……

“And so it actually is tied to an individual. Each user has its own TCR. Ok, but[sic] this value already exists.”

Yes individuals are inherently subjective hence TCR is inherently subjective.

The problem with “this value” is that it’s too loosey-goosey in terms of a mere word or combination of words like “angry blue”. And I believe correct me if I’m wrong, you’re mainly referring to tints here; not comparisons to specific color renditions one knows on a familiar object while in sunlight vs the accuracy of those same colors as they see them from a flash at night.

Of course defining watt “sunlight” is and watt “night” is can get ridiculous. So let’s just say for example, “Decent Sunlight is around 12:00 noon, cloudless, and Decent Darkness is around 9pm, smallish moon. We all mostly know watt those two terms mean when it comes to flashes and prolly most would automatically do it for the most part that way anyway.

So a number rating of subjective comparative observations becomes TCR. If I give a particular flash a TCR rating of 8 that would mean that a familiar object per the above parameters color-renditions quite well at night. I have flashes that I wouldn’t give a 3 to becuz they fail at showing reds, yellows, and blues no where near their renditions in decent sunlight. Coincidentally if these 3 primary colors fail to rendition well at night, then the secondary and subsequent tertiary colors likely won’t either.

Read in my signature the simplified definition of TCR. Notice the word, ‘sunlight’. That right there is a TCR parameter that helps narrow down this loosey-gooseyness.

Now lay off the Jagermeister. It’s getting late for me, I’m tired, and you’re talking like a German. :laughing: :open_mouth: :+1: :beer:

57

I give the dedomed Ti3 a TCR rating of 2.5. I give the Mini2 a TCR rating of 9!

If we average our data sets, we get a mean TCR of 5.5 for the Ti3, and 7 for the Mini2. We now know that the Mini2 is clearly the better light!