Oh man, i bought 2 weeks ago 5mm, 3mm and Nichia hi power. All in deep red (they don't have 670nm...)
Shipping in EU is 5€. Don't know how much is outside of EU though
The shop in Aliexpress,says that those lights they have,are of the second batch.
Can you post link again please. The only one i can find doesn’t have sst20dr
That is impossible as Sofirn did only produce C01R in one batch so far. There is no second batch yet, especially none with SST20-DR. The shop is not even Sofirn themselves, so they must be clearly mistaken.
I had a similar experience too, what I did find quite profound after, was that when I opened my eyes, the light which looked deep red at the start looked almost orange in color and everything else in the room looked Green! LOL
Interesting, I think your red cones were saturated so you got reduced response from them for some time while the other cones were unaffected, so everything looked less red.
You are right.Mea culpa. :person_facepalming:
I read new arrival,and I thought that it was the one with sst.It is written clearly in the specs.
My personal impression after using intense amounts of deep red (660nm) light in my living room:
It took my eyes about two days to get used to „normal“ red light (620-630nm) again. Every flashlight‘s beam with normal red (Amutorch New VG10, Wurkkos WK30) looked like orange in my perception. It’s like some kind of an adaptation of the human eye to new lighting conditions. I have also used a colorful flashlight that can cycle normal red - green - blue. After watching at green and blue light and cycling back to normal red, the color looked like real red for a brief moment again before my perception changed back to orange color in that period.
My first far red flashlight arrived this week. It is an inexpensive P60 triple with XP-E2 730nm far red leds from Kaidomain. 730nm far red light makes my 660nm deep red flashlights look orange. It is much dimmer than my 660nm deep red flashlights, but usable.
Before I tried 730nm, I thought:
620nm - orange-like red
660nm - true red
730nm - much dimmer true red
Now I think:
620nm - orange
660nm - orange-like red
730nm - true red
I want to get an Emisar D4V2 with 7.5A CC driver, noFET, and some far red leds. I still love my Noctigon KR1vn with SBT-90 RED, but I think it should be called SBT-90 ORANGE.
It is fun to play with far red light. I would like to know more about safety of using it. Even after looking at an object lit fairly brightly with far red light for a couple of seconds, I did not see any afterimage after I turned off the light. My room was pitch black, and I know for sure that my night vision was 100% the same just after I performed this experiment.
I just bought 10X 730nm 3W emitters on 16mm boards, cost me £5.16, that`s like 50p each!
I`m sure I can mod something to accomodate them! 
@Katherine Alicia, good find on the 730s. Your comment about seeing red and green colors caused me to repeat my test and take notice.
i just realized that the color i “see with eyelids closed” using the C01R is not red, but is white.
i can detect where the beam is by the intensity and sensation of a “white” light.
If i close my eyes tightly, then the sensation goes to dark patterns and curves, such as red and black checker spiral. When the test is over, i see as normal with no artifacts or false colors.
Also i compared my 660nm beam color to the test screen at 670nm test and it appears a good match.
Sadly, everyday computer screens are unable to show you what 670nm red light actually looks like. It is because of the primary colors that a computer screen can display. It cannot display a deeper red color than the red primary color.
Color space standards used for computer screens and video are not the same, but those used for video can be used to explain the issue:
(1) HD video - Rec. 709 (612nm red primary)
(2) Digital Cinema - DCI-P3 (615nm red primary)
(3) UHD video - Rec. 2020 (630nm red primary)
Many computer screens and TVs have a decent coverage of #1, some also #2, but #3 is not that common. #2 and #3 are often called wide color gamut. Even if a computer screen supports wide color gamut, it is unlikely that its red primary color is any deeper than the red primary colors mentioned above.
This website has a lot more information about color spaces, I found it quite interesting:
https://clarkvision.com/articles/color-spaces/
respectfully disagree, on my iMac Retina Display, the test screen is too orange
here is 620 and 660 side by side, you can see the test screen looks like 620nm
that is not to say 620nm does not have benefits too 
I’m interested in this far red light. Can you please post the beamshots of P60 far red vs. 660nm deep red?
i agree that is a much better comparison test, thanks for posting the image
thank you for the education
atm Im looking for the actual Red Spectrum highest nm output of my 2015 iMac Retina Display
help wanted
thank you too for the link, and food for thought
I always appreciate your posts.
The photo of the two red beams is from Andy Zhu, check out his photo site:
I have utmost confidence in the colors of the image. Apparently my computer has exceptional Red Rendering… who knew?
I was surprised that I do really well on color tests, on this screen. Despite cataracts, macular degen that makes my left eye useless, and bifocals that I refuse to upgrade to Mr. Magoo… I just use large fonts
Now Im learning that my iMac is High CRI too! lol
which makes me wonder, what nm are our displays capable of?
about red light
I have been using a 620nm on sore muscles. It helps. Helps with headache too. seems to make scabs dry out and flake off faster. It dried pimples out too.
about green light…
it feels much “cooler”
also relieves pain and speeds healing
one of the mechanisms of Red action is to feed light to energize mitochondria, not just in the retina… holding the red light against my chest, charges the blood moving through the heart
moving the light or moving my head and holding the light in one place, promotes neuron ganglia organization and signaling to the brain, so definitely a good idea also…
I just got a C01R
Im really happy with it
on lowest mode I get 0.5 lumens on my meter
not sure if your light is a LOT different, or you have a calculation error
in this pic, the C01R is on medium, which measures 10 lumens on my meter.
pic is a link to the C01R thread
for reference on left is the low mode (3 lumens), of the C01S and on right, the low mode of the C01R
Beamshots will probably be less revealing than you might hope. The apparent color will depend not only on your monitor’s ability to produce reds beyond 620nm (which is likely minimal), but also on the sensitivity of the camera to capture the image, and even the color profile of the image file. I know some photographers who do really color critical work like digitizing art work are frustrated by this. As I understand it, the sRGB color profile used most commonly only extends to 612nm.
Meanwhile, here is an OLED display spectrum from an iPhoneX, showing it’s red peak is at about 625nm. From other searching, it looks like the red peak is right around the same wavelength for conventional LED back-lit LCD screens, and for fluorescent backlit LCD’s.
You might be able to tell a little bit from the trick Jon_Slider has highlighted in a comparison, where 620nm light that is overexposed tends to stimulate the camera’s green channel a bit, and therefore appears orange, while 660nm light that is overexposed tends to stimulate the blue channel a little bit, appearing purple.
the next two are both 660nm:
I dont have Red light in order to see things, I use it to illuminate different parts of my body, eyes, ears, sinus, heart, neck, sore muscles, injuries, sore joints.
initial calculations indicate a 27 lumen output is roughtly equivalent to 40 mW/cm2
the second mode on the Sofirn C01R is 10 lumens on my meter. It is plenty strong, imo
more reading about different spectrums
“Low level light therapy (LLLT) is a growing field in photomedicine: 5,700 citations in PubMed at the date of writing.
Light intensities used in LLLT are moderate and non-destructive (maximum a few kW/m2)
…
There is observational evidence that R-NIR photons and presumably other wavelengths (in model experiments we worked with 670 nm—a wavelength for which bulk water is practically transparent) interact with the bound water, i.e., nanoscopic interfacial water layers (IWL) attached to surfaces, especially to hydrophilic ones.
…
Miyamoto et al. used moderate levels of 514.5 nm laser light
…
the effect of 810 nm laser light (40 mW/cm2, 22.6 J/cm2) applied at frequencies of 10 and 100 Hz as well as in the continuous wave (CW) mode on the healing of dermal wounds in animals. As in other studies, it was found that the therapeutic effect of the pulsed mode was significantly superior to that of the CW mode (1). Importantly, wound contraction was clearly more pronounced at 10 Hz than at 100 Hz. ”
note the reference above, to using PWM at very slow speeds, creating better results.
I think we can accomplish similar benefits of pulsed exposure, by moving the light frequently.
So the infamous strobe mode is actually useful for something after all. It’s not clear how long (i.e. the duty cycle) are the 10Hz pulses, if they are very short the strobe may not be a good analogue.
Note that 22.6J / 0.04W = 551.5s exposure, a bit over 9 minutes. I think the 40mW is an average, in pulse mode the pulses would need higher intensity.
Edit: this paper from 2011: Comparison of Therapeutic Effects between Pulsed and Continuous Wave 810-nm Wavelength Laser Irradiation for Traumatic Brain Injury in Mice used a 50% duty cycle. Of course the conclusions may not carry to other tissues.