UF-1504, 1503, 1505 - multiple LED's tested for throw (just what you have been waiting for!!!)

As much as we may wish to measure our lights perfectly, it is not going to happen, the variation between lights and between people will not get closer than a few percent, perhaps even 10. The attempt here is to get the measurements a bit less all over the place, and that is feasable.

I think MEM is cooking something good :)

This is around 2MCD?

We need the man who can brake all records...

Holy crap MEM. That’s a fire setting laser!!!

That’s exactly right, everyone wants to get all perfect and other nonsense, not possible with the quality of meters, and time most of us have. I’ll be happy to get everyone corrected to within 5% of each other for the people who have consistent, but inaccurate meters. Doing a CW, NW, and WW version and having them measured and passed around eliminates the error causes by variations in lenses, and LED’s, and should bring us closer to the 5% mark than 10% I would hope.

Perfect is for theory, we work in reality.

I like to believe I work in reality. If I could be paid for working in dreams, I would have been a made-man long ago. :slight_smile:

Not trying to batter your idea(s) down. I was merely expressing the idea that maybe the planning/structure of this method could possibly be improved, such as using those with the same meter types first, etc. Or at least make requirements: measure at a specific distance of 10 meters, and post some certain data from those calibrating (before/after calibration measurement-ranges and differences with tints that are well under or over the expected ranges I.E. Hi-CRI 3000K & a lower CRI ~7000K or even one or two different tint CFL bulbs passed around as a secondary way to compare variance). Yes it would be a good idea if a meter type was made a standard, at least for a group of testers. That way if you owned meter type “X”, those meters are part of the group once calibrated. I would purchase whatever meter you guys choose to calibrate on just to be a part of a testing standard that is BLF-native. :slight_smile:

I guess what I’m hearing that sounds slightly off, is that you are saying to pass around these different tints, with the new calibration occurring on different meters, with other data showing how a “good calibrated meter” is varying vast percentages higher than 10% from a reference meter between light sources. Then, finally saying that people will be calibrated to within hopefully 5-10% of one another.

The 5-10% expectation would have to come from somewhere. See what I mean? There would need to be calibration sources that first document TINT effects on the primary meter type vs its lux output readings. To create calibration sources that are known in their differences when tested on meter “X”, you must first start with known calibration sources. That points right back to a professional spectroradiometer to document the calibrating sources to take back to your meters and pass around.

What may be unrealistic to some is the notion any will pay $8500 for a spectroradiometer to test budget lights. I understand that. What might be a little more realistic, would be finding a source to one of these meters, and then simply paying that owner to document the calibration sources. This should be quite feasible and easy to do. There are most likely labs/owners of the equipment that would be willing to do it and provide the test data for a little $ I would imagine.

The 5-10% accuracy compared to the real value is ambitious, and may indeed not be realistic.

That said, the inaccuracy of luxmeters are caused by many variables of which some do not apply to the way we measure. Example: angle response variations are not much of an issue with throw measurements because all light will be as good as perpendicular to the sensor. So the total accuracy of a luxmeter will be bit better than the specified value (if an accuracy is at least given, my two chinese meters did not come with accuracy numbers at all).

The same meter types will at least have the same spectral response (I would hope), but in case of chinese meters will certainly not have the same calibration. (I had a Ceto CT1330B luxmeter that read 30% too low!!)

Two years ago, a TLF-member had the opportunity to output-test a series of flashlights at the integrating sphere-facility of the Ledlenser company. But other than that I have not heard of a succesful access to a light-lab.

I had a look around in the Netherlands for official calibrations of light sources, and found a small company that does just that (lichtconsult.nl), but even though they are extremely nice and helpful people (they were very enthousiastic about my amateur attempts at light measurements), having a light source measured is still 325 euro's for the first source, a bit less for subsequent measurements.

I just want us to be comparable to each other. That’s why I suggested calibrating to djozz’s Mobilux A.

Interesting you djozz had a CT1330B, that read that much to low.

Because i know KKW are using that & strongly suspect it is reading to low, compared to n10sivern’s meter at least.

I’ve got no idea if mine reads low or his reads high. Our differences on modified lights that are theoretically identical is what got me interested in finding out more.

If mine really does read low then it’s possible my 400+kcd lights would be a lot different than what I’m telling people they measure, when compared to the other modified lights here it means it’s harder to sell them if I’m at a 20% disadvantage on output because of my meter being a lot more conservative.

Today i built my next 1504 pill, with a fully (no driver ;)) DD, with the dedomed XM-L2 U4 1C from MTN :slight_smile:

And YEAH :smiley: that was a proper upgrade from the dedomed XP-L V6 1A in my first pill. Even when i knew (thanks to n10sivern’s testing) it was going to be stronger, i was visually surprised how much more intensive it looked & how much further it throwed, enough for many giggles in the chilly spring night :bigsmile: It looked almost like 1/3 or 1/4 longer at least. And noticeable sharper in output, i mean the beam really looked more solid & present in the night sky.

And the XM-L2 U4 looked & felt much more efficient also, by lasting longer & not dropping so fast in output & it didn’t get so warm as the XP-L. Of course all of this says the same thing, more light (flux) efficiency for less wattage :wink: but in around 1A more efficient or more plus lots, if we go by n10sivern’s testing an estimated 20% extra output is a great deal, when you are running it with such a limited powersupply as a single 18650.
I wish i had more brass pills, so i could skip the led - wire & connection & driver connector board ground connection, for a little more boost.

Is there anyone who want to trade/sell a brass pill :wink: :smiley:

Next step is to charge up some battery’s to 4.25v to see what max output looks like :smiley:

And then i need to wait for an IOS order, with a XP-G2 S4 2B, to replace the XP-L V6 1A in my brass pill.

If i keep building throwier lights than this, i am going to have to invest in some binoculars, because this is fast approaching the limit of my unaided ability to see the furthest point of light on objects, in a slightly light polluted environment.

I did some testing tonight to see if i could match your numbers. made 2 different lights w FET driver and dedomed xml2 led’s from MTN Elecronics and did a tailcap spring bypass with wick.

I get the following using dual hs1010’s (i got a second one cause i was never seeming to get the same numbers as posted here but the both read exactly the same) at 6’ 30s after turning on
XM-L2 U4 1C 363kcd
XM-L2 U3 1A 300kcd

Tried changing lenses, making it direct drive and bypassing the switch. None of these mods made any appreciable difference to the result.
cheers

What battery did you use Bribo? And when you say you never got the same numbers as posted here, does that mean your number are usually low or all over the place?

N10sivern, KKW, djozz & whoever else are reading this and are measuring with light meters, where do you count the distance from? the led, the top of the lens, the end of the bezel, the bottom of the lens…….or? And do you count from the surface the light meter are on, or from the top of the diffuser or the bottom of the diffuser on the light meter.

Or does that not make any difference at all?

efest IMR 4200 26650 gives the highest numbers but i also tried with a 18650 sony vtc5 and a 26650 evv 4200’s from rmm and got similar #’s. I set the meter to measure maximum reading and slowly traverse the entire hot spot starting from the wires. I also measured and converted from 20 feet as well and got similar numbers. Definitely not sure what if anything I am doing wrong with this light. I get identical throw readings to the manufactures stated values on my M43 and Javalot lights, just cant seem to get these asperics to go as high as others. i think im just going to have to move to the 2 cell light and and modify it to take a 5A driver.

I go from lens to white sensor face, but I cheat. I measured the distance from the front of the speakers by my TV to the curtains on the other side of the room. I lay the light on top of the speaker and just line the lens up with the front. I line the meter up with the front of the curtains. A couple inches at the almost 20’ I’m measuring at means almost nothing so I don’t sweat it being any more perfect than that.

Yeah that is a very good point, over longer distances those inches amounts to almost nothing.

After testing some different 1504s, I have an understanding of their factory lenses fairly well. They lose about 15% of potential output. The problem I see with the 1504’s design, mainly is that the lens diameter is uncommon when trying to replace it with a better lens. Uniquefire isn’t going to use an expensive lens, but we could be lucky if it were a different size. I would consider “common” to be something like: 15, 25, 25.4, 30, 35, 40, 50, 50.8, 75mm, etc. In this case, and due to quality of the starting lens (or lack thereof), it may be possible to obtain higher output by use of two lenses or one slightly smaller.

The way I look at it is like this. The 1504 body is just slightly wider than the lens used—bezel walls stay inside lens diameter mostly. When I hold up a pair of calipers set at 77mm roughly, and I place them against the bezel imagining a 75mm lens, I see that it would barely change the overall shape and size of the 1504/1405. Heck, the 1405 would look better with larger bezel. A 75mm lens in this light would have not only been better, would have opened gates to a quick 1mcd light. There are lenses at that size which would ensure 700,000cd without RA.

As far as different lenses go that are not from the UF “150X” factory lights, I am on lens #3 for the 1504. I attached pictures below of it, and showing why it isn’t so great. Not just on visible cast marks, but the kcd is just low with it. Losing 40% of light because of the lens surfaces and profile. It is a 67mm lens. Still, there is one last lens I am waiting on that has a better, polished quality, that I think will beat the factory lens, but not by extremes.

A final option I thought about would be this, make a bezel that holds a 75mm lens for the 1504. :quest:

What do you guys think? Plastic black-ABS bezel holding a 75mm lens on the 1504/1405? :evil:

I think the problem will be maintaining the focal length for a bigger lens. I am interested in what you can come up with.

Why not... And especially if it will be plug and play.

I was hoping that there is some hope for main lenses in combination with mini RA...

Going up in size to 75mm or maybe even up to 100+, if we or you can find a good lens with the correct focal length sound like a good plan :slight_smile: And one i have been thinking about to possible using lens hoods/adapters to be able to fit, but a custom 3D printed new bezel sounds interesting.

These big lights are hardly a EDC anyway so going bigger i don’t really see as a problem.

To be honest i find i very much prefer the “lens” type die spot, to the reflector type spot with much spill in the beam that light up everything around, & interferes with night vision adaptation & making the spot beam feel less impressive.

I still hope a small little drop in RA could be produced for the 1504 though.

+1

When you turn on reflector LED light, your night vision is killed by spill light that is reflecting from nearby objects & environment. Your pupil of the eye narrows and you see less. The brighter the environment is, the narrower is the pupil of the eye, so there’s a reduction in light that hits the fundus. Aspherical type of beam has sharp borders, so there is better contrast between illuminated area and dark area. The enhanced contrast lets you to perceive objects/persons/things better.

Mine 300kcd reflector light does not seems to out throw mine 270 kcd NMV2 aspheric (eye perception, of course reflector wins on lux meter). I see further in a night with aspheric.