I have a few dino point so it would be really cheap ~10USD
But does it even work?
Any user reports are welcome :-)
you planning to publish discharge graphs? or write reviews? :D
i am not looking for a luxmeter (only for the sake of adding 1 GIF to my 2 or 3 blf reviews -- most reviews dont have such a discharge graph gif) but it's interesting to know if the DD luxmeter is any good.
I did not find it pretty useful for doing reviews most of the time. It is excellent when you build/test a thrower. Or for genreal lumen estimates in a homemade integrating sphere of dome sort.
well dunno if that kind of luxmeter are reliable; anyway an idea is reviews where on the photo beam are write the lux on 3/4 zones like center, bright ring and flood bigger ring but a good well settled photocamera is less "pro" but better xD
if I buy that is just for the curiosity of make some test with daylight and on dark with different light at various distances, probably will play with it 2 just days ....was mine at 10$ xD
that it is only to test thrower lights. And get a idea about heat sag. And maybe a manual collection of light output should I ever do a "pro" review. But cheap it must be.
I still think is the coolest way to do it I ever saw!
anyway if others read that thread, that is the DD's lux-meter and like I wrote in another post that are the info
Don't be shy guys test if for me and buy from my referral$ link xD
joking I never posted a referral link and never I will
...I lie but to be true must be false xD
Thanks for the other link - there was some data (read: A lot) that DD does not display. But yeah - I'm gonna pull the trigger on this one soon - just need the last of my Dino points to come home (waiting for some reviews to get approved) :-)
BTW: That last bit of your post? Got me confused :-)
I wouldn't wait on any DD review points, I think they only post their own made-up reviews. I did some quick ones on there for points and never heard anything about it and they never showed up.
That is odd. I have gotten points (20) for every review I wrote on their site so far. Just waiting for the last ones...
Have you tried asking Customer service what happened?
sry m8 if don't post b4, I thought that also u posted/watched here, coincidence I posted the luxmeter link 19h ago, and you start a thread omitting the link.. I thought u was searching info from who bought it.
that is an older post, some1 haven't done the homework with the search button :P
I hate too the search button and prefer fresh news :)
u work fro DD like kraisler? also my reviews and photos has been trashed... :(
add: ...and for just 0,2$ i thought is not worth to complain, them chose that stupid politic, look DX he sell so much tnx to the credibility of the reviews
Maybe my reviews just weren't what they were looking for. 
Maybe I'll try again... 
try with something worthless like "Other Thoughts: This LED torch is the best one I have ever bought. It is easy to use and bring. I will buy another one later." is one of the "reviews" published by DD, at least speak of a flashlight
try with: "Great! I will buy again!" 20 easy points and work with all
Maybe I wrong coz putted cons in every review xD
Ok ok I get it. But i am sorry to say that if I dont get what I am looking for from the search on the first 2 pages and 2 to 3 different search words then I go ahead and assume no-one made a thread/added info for the subject. So there you have it.
i prefer to write ResellerRatings reviews. you get 5$.
each review is coupled with a particular past order (similar to amazon marketplace seller rating reviews) so in theory you could earn 5$ (giftcards) for every order you ever made on DD.
anyway, you get 1x 5$ gc for sure *per* account.
I have the Victor 1010A light meter.
I like the Max Hold function which helps reading the hottest spot in the beam every time. That may be part of the reason why some members here commented that my results seemed high.
ABsolute accuracy comes way below consistency.
I use a probably not all that accurate light meter - and an even less accurate solar panel for runtimes.
However, I do depend on their consistency. They do appear to give the same measurement repeatedly under the same conditions. Which is more important to me than the absolute values. Sixty545 probably has the most accurate figures you are going to get around here - he knows this stuff far better than I do and is good at it.
All I can say about my figures is that the differences are consistent. If I say one light gives 6x more light than another - I am certain that it does. One of them might give 25 or 40 lumens and the other 150 or 240. But the ratio I'd swear to. The absolute value, not so much. I don't have access to properly calibrated lab gear and certainly can't afford to buy my own. Or to keep it in calibration if I did. I'd give all "absolute" numbers of mine a +/- 20% at best. But if one is -17.5% from the absolute value I'd be pretty certain so are all the others.
Sampling theory which covers this stuff used to make my brain bleed. These days I don't even try to understand it, just to follow good practice and measure, measure, measure and measure again to get some idea of consistency.
In the days when I was a scientist, I got bitten very, very hard by a lack of consistency. The details are far too tedious to go into and would take a very long time to explain.
The gist of the story is: Someone appeared to be tankering extremely nasty waste from an industrial site and pumping it down a sewer in a residential area. This waste was loaded with toxic metals and cyanide. Had this been the case, prosecution for corporate homicide was possible. I spent three months analysing samples for cadmium (something you don't want to find in your water supply - even in waste water you don't want to find it - it really is rather nasty stuff). Given the probable source of the waste it was easier to measure cadmium concentrations than cyanide. In the longer term cadmium is nastier than cyanide anyway - cyanide gets flushed out, cadmium doesn't.
So I get the nicest results I've ever seen from wet chemistry. The error bars to a 95% confidence limit were about 0.01%. If I see errors of less than 1% in wet chemistry, I immediately refuse to believe them as someone is cooking the books. Which is what my boss said to me. So I handed him my lab notebooks and the raw results and let him crunch the numbers - he saw me doing the measurements and there was nothing wrong with my technique. He didn't believe the numbers either. So his boss got involved (This stuff was serious as someone was going to jail as a result of this work).
We started doing the legal stuff. It was clear from the content of the waste exactly which firm was responsible. I now have my boss, his boss and a lawyer (Who kept asking stupid questions) looking over my shoulder. Which is not a comfortable position for a student to be in. So the first step in invoking the Control of Pollution (1974) Act is to send a complete set of samples off for independent analysis.
We got their numbers back - they were using a much better method of analysis - my lab didn't have a spare half million (1981) dollars to buy the machine they used. Their numbers gave us error bounds 0f +/- 200%.
Oops! Nobody's going to jail on the basis of "guesses would have been more accurate".
Turned out that the very expensively recalibrated spectrophotometer I'd been using returned results that only depended on how long the (multiple expletives deleted (As in ten minutes of the worst obscenities you can think of)) had been switched on. The recalibration cost more than that lab paid me per year....
Consistency for the sort of stuff we're doing matters a lot more than accuracy - as long as you measure enough lights that other people have.