A before and after pic with a minus green filter .

[Boaz]

Here are a couple before and after shots .
on low and then medium .

Two of the same lights both just terribly green I used a regular filter instead of a Zircon but the results would have been the same .
The lights are Thorefire VG-10 lights that lots of members bought at a fairly steep discount. Very nice low moonlight modes and nice throw . But awful green tint caused me to normally avoid picking them up .
Simple 4 minute mod .

You can say … This guy sells this stuff and this is just another infomercial …but the truth is even though I have filters on lots of lights I’m still blown away at how well it works . Every time I use it I’m impressed .
Happy to share some pics

[Lumaine_Moore]

@Boaz

You can say … This guy sells this stuff and this is just another infomercial

i dont think most people should think that way, the minus green filters are definitely a very simple solution to a very ‘ugly’ problem.

[ToyKeeper]

Minus-green filters are great. They can really improve a beam. I usually try to avoid lights which need a filter, but sometimes that just isn’t an option. So a filter can make the best of an unfortunate situation.

I found that even a pretty strong minus-green wasn’t enough to fix a SST-20 4000K light though. It took the green out, but it still couldn’t render blues well. And after using a filter, the thing got fewer lumens per Watt than even an old Nichia 219A LED.

But in less extreme cases, a filter can really make a light look quite a bit better, and the only real cost is a few minutes and a bit of brightness.

[Boaz]

You know people talk about losses and I think it’s just a way for people to judge something that they just can’t do without some number to support their thinking . Kind of like the whole brightness , brightest thing . “ I want the brightest dang light I can buy mentality”
That’s about a third grade girls rationality to buying a light .
Do you always run your light on high? Are you constantly in situations where you can’t just swap batteries?
I don’t run anything on high ever . High or turbo for me has to be less than 1% so loss in output matters not a bit to me . You can argue that I lose in total efficiency since I have to make up for the light output lost … But if I’m running lights at an average of 30% then the only hit I take is getting 36 hour runtime vs. a 43 hr runtime . …. Losses are meaningless because they are visually imperceptible and any runtime advantage when weighed against something like high color rendering or a much better tint are a no - brainer.
There is no loss other than the loss of a foul green tint .

Some tints are so bad you think there is no way they can be fixed . I didn’t expect these to come out as well as they did .

[ToyKeeper]

@Boaz

That’s about a third grade girls rationality

Hi, er, was this reply to me? Discourse tends to hide the “reply-to” thingy when the posts happen consecutively, so it can be hard to tell.

Anyway, just wondering if I said something wrong?

I use minus-green filters happily on several lights. For relatively mild green tints, a filter can often make the beam look nearly perfect. It’s a cheap, easy solution.

For more extreme cases though, I haven’t found filters to be a very effective solution. Like, I was using XP-L versions of the FW3A, plus a 219B custom version for better tint. People convinced me to try the SST-20 version though, insisting it looked fantastic and was way brighter than other high-CRI emitters.

So I got one. And the beam was really, really ugly. 95 CRI, on paper, but it felt similar to using a sodium vapor lamp.

Then I added minus-green to it to fix the horrible tint. It required more filtering than other lights though, to get the color anywhere near white. And even at its best, the color still looked strange; it sucked color out of the blue end of the spectrum. It was way better than before, but still not good.

After correcting the tint as much as possible, I noticed it looked really dim, and I had to run it a step or two higher than other lights to get the same brightness. So I measured it, and found that when I kept the power level the same, it was making roughly half as much light as other lights. I.e. half as much runtime.

I don’t use high or turbo much, but on this particular filtered light, turbo ran the risk of melting the filter because it absorbed so much of the output. I’ve had filters melt before. Here’s what happened last time I tried something similar:

That happened in just 3 seconds on turbo.

For this particular light, the minus-green filter helped, but it didn’t help enough… and it came at a cost of cutting runtime in half and making turbo unsafe. So that light has been gathering dust while I wait for the motivation to swap some LEDs.

Other lights though, I forget the filter is even there. It works great on my SP10 Pro, for example. After a few minutes to cut and apply a filter, the light is just … better.

[WolfManJack (Si Barone)]

@ToyKeeper … Thanks for sharing your real life experience, along with pictures; of the minus - green filter.
I have a few lights with mildly annoying green tint I am gonna try to clean up with this.
After reading your experience trying to correct the “horrible tint” I will not have to waste my time trying that. Thank you…

[Boaz]

No not at all … I could have said 4th grade boys as well . I just meant an immature way of looking at brightness . I know you well enough to know you run your lights pretty much like I do and are quick to throttle down outputs to what’s needed vs just blasting away .
I am fond of saying that “All these led lights are bright and I’m always turning lights down”.
My beef is with this overinflated fear of losing this thing we can’t see .
You just brought up loss and I’m anti- loss when there is a massive gain on the other side of the argument . It’s best illustrated in the high cri vs. loss of lumens debate .
Would you trade a trashy blue or funky green CW for a perfect tint mega high cri NW emitter and give up 8% brightness? …< the answer is always going to be YES . But instead tell people it’s going to cost them 30% of their lumens and the answer changes .
Toykeeper you’ve messed around with mode spacing enough to know that if I made a light with a 1 lumen moon / 20 L low/ 300L medium/and a 400 lumen high . Everyone would be screaming about the absolute inability to distinguish ANY difference between medium and high . A total inability to SEE a difference in a 25% loss of lumens .
This whole dic measuring mentality leads to an overall misperception of the truth . It causes manufacturers to lie . It causes a herd mentality that only wants to one up each other in creating the brightest , biggest and the baddest ass light out there. Modders who seek to eek yet another 65 lumens out of a 4000 lumen light .
It causes people to dismiss opportunities to own and buy great lights when someone like SBflashlights comes and offers up older custom made $30 flashlights for $3 and nobody buys them . To me that’s just proof that chasing higher lumens has destroyed peoples ability to to think rationally .

The zircon filters are 20 times tougher the regular lee filters . I’m positive you can’t melt one one of those unless you have a blowtorch.

Sorry my rant is about loss … before people try a filter they worry about lumen losses . Afterwards they’re filled with joy and gleefully giggling about the loss of nasty green tints .

[ToyKeeper]

@WolfManJack

mildly annoying green tint I am gonna try to clean up
… “horrible tint” I will not … waste my time

Yeah, filters are great for mild and even moderate cases. If a beam is bright green though, and you take out the green… there isn’t much left.

For example, I got a Vinh throw-modded D4 with dedomed XP-G2, way back when the D4 was new… and the tint was incredibly green due to the dedoming process. Below is a pic of it next to a 5000K 219C model.

Can’t fix a beam which is this far away from white:

(yes, it really does look that green IRL)

[roostre]

@ToyKeeper

Other lights though, I forget the filter is even there. It works great on my SP10 Pro, for example. After a few minutes to cut and apply a filter, the light is just … better.

I have over a dozen SP10 Pro lights stashed in various locations for unexpected events because they are able to function with NiMH and Alkaline batteries and was curious about:

1. Which filter product did you use on your SP10 Pro?

2. How do you get the filter to stay attached to the Lens?

Thanks.

[ToyKeeper]

@roostre

• Which filter product did you use on your SP10 Pro?
• How do you get the filter to stay attached to the Lens?

I used a Lee Minus Green of some sort. I don’t remember which strength, but probably quarter or eighth. Just shine the light through some filters to see what looks good, and then … use that.

To get it to stay, I removed the lens, cut the filter to the same size as the lens, and placed the filter between the reflector and lens.

@Boaz

I’m not seeing any color in the filter at all was it a minus green?

The melted filter in the pic was a neutral density filter used for photography. I was trying to cut output so I could measure the lumens in my light box without maxing out the sensor on my lux meter… but the filter couldn’t handle that much light.

The funny thing about it though… when I was shopping for neutral density filters, the store’s web site said they didn’t have any… and then suggested I should buy “50 Shades of Grey”!

[Boaz]

I have this question asked by about 15-20% of the people considering purchasing filters. And have had about 5 people ask after purchasing . Same with this whole loss question . Except no one after buying is concerned with lumen losses . The gain vs loss is so one sided .
I am working out a cut copy and paste answer to both of these objections … hence my overzealous anti lumen loss rants
Cutting is simple and to prove that to myself I almost always make bad first cuts when I cut just to simulate a person without much talent at cutting circles . Then I try it and then go trim and trim again .
You can probably get a filter to stick if you get just two opposite sides correctly cut preferably you’d want three or more but the filter will generally bow when too long and sort of snap into place when it’s cut correctly. It ends up seated between the lil slot between the o-ring and the glass . Like automotive window tint flat generally is happily stuck against flat glass . Out of probably 40 applications I’ve only used micro dabs of Elmer’s twice and haven’t done it in years and years . If the light comes apart then it’s super easy , if the bezel unscrews , breezy. If not it’s all good , totally doable .

Worst case scenario

Get your mom to help ya …

[Oli]

Yah, but. First let me say I’ve got a few lights with SST20 at 4000k and I don’t see any green in these things. As to reducing light output with these filters. If you’re not using high or turbo very often then it’s easy to understand why a certain percentage loss of lumens or more specifically throw would be my concern is not a problem for you. If I want to put a certain amount of light on an object that’s 5 m or 50 m away and I need turbo to do it and the filter is now reducing my throw by 30% that’s a problem. Is it only 10% ? That’s still a problem. Now I know there are different filters out there so you can’t put a percentage on it. Whether it’s a minus green of whatever percentage or a filter to change things from 6000k down to 4000k. To poo poo this as a non-issue, I’m not buying it.

[Mandrake50]

@Oli

reducing my throw by 30% that’s a problem. Is it only 10% ? That’s still a problem

But if you can’t see the difference ?? Is it really important? I think that is @Boaz point. I agree. Especially seeing that I often can’t see much difference in many lights going from something like 60% to 100%.

[Oli]

I think we need to differentiate between fairly tight beams and floody beams. A lot of my usage is not in total darkness. It can be outside looking into dark shadows or holes. Or in basements where there may be some light but not where I’m looking. There are times outside where I need everything turbo can give me just to see things 10 ft away. To lose 30% of throw in that case is not an option.

[Boaz]

The inverse square law says to perceive a doubling you need to quadruple your output .
That means visually a 1/8 minus green filter or a z2 zircon is a reduction of less than 4 % .
When it comes to runtimes it is indeed that full 15% … but if you are stuck on the larger number and won’t get off it then you have to realize a plain glass lens kills 6%.
Point is the numbers lie and so do the manufacturers.
I believe in truth in vending

[Boaz]

@Oli

To lose 30% of throw in that case is not an option

I’m not sure where you’re getting a 30% loss in throw from . Minus green sheets done affect beam shape at all.
If you use a diffusion film that will of course kill throw but that’s exactly what it’s created for . It turns throwers into softer floodier beams .
The losses on my diffusion film sheets are way more efficient than the 20 or so that Lee sells and about an 8th of the price .

[Oli]

I went back and read a bunch of older posts and did some research on Lee and other filter manufacturer sites. Even if we pick a specific one to discuss such as a minus green 1/8, because it’s reducing light throughout the spectrum at different percentages it’s impossible to put a number or percentage lost on any specific LED or light. Add in the differences that are “most likely”(?) there between say 6000k and 3000k and it becomes even harder to assign a percent loss of light. Again I suspect differences between a thrower versus a floody light. Maybe I’m wrong there. But it does look like that a minus 1/4 green is going to be almost 30% based on the charts I’ve looked at. It’s different percentages for different parts of the spectrum. Having said all of that, I do have some lights that I might use more often if I could get a little green out. Those are lights that I could live without turbo and 15% ??? losses. I’ll PM you in a few days so I can experiment myself.

[NeutralFan]

From my experience, a Lee Z2 filter made my Convoy T2 with a Samsung LH351D 3500K LED a flashlight that I really didn’t like to one that is actually quite nice. I didn’t notice a difference with output, but the improved tint was very obvious.

[Jeffgoldblum]

There’s some lights where you don’t care about some lumen loss. Like an HS40 headlamp with a 6500K SST40. I don’t care if its lost 10% or 30% to fix the tint. Heck lose 50% for all I care. At least it’s usable at night now. It’s case-by-case.

I’m down to try any kind of filter. Probably find a use case for all of them sooner or later.

[Jeffgoldblum]

What I’ve been trying to figure out with these filters that I can’t find on the website is how to combine minus green with a CT orange for a mired shift with lower DUV on a light with an initially high DUV.

Lee has good comparison tool on the non-zircon minus greens that tell you what DUV youll get but it it uses a light with 0duv as the baseline. What if I’m starting with a 6500k that’s +0.010duv? Whats needed to bring that to zero? Maybe an orange CT would be better, just make it 4000K. But what DUV would that 4000k end up as, because those are based on duv 0 too iirc. So I found another site here that suggests for every +0.004duv you’d add 1/8 minus green. So if I had a light with +0.010duv I’d need a half minus green to bring it to -0.002duv at 6500k? But the thicker zircon filters seem to make it cooler. So it’d be like 6700k now and blue? I guess that’s something. Still -duv. But not ideal. Ideally I’d like to bring it warmer and a lower DUV. Maybe combine two filters.

You could use a quarter CT orange to get from 6500k, 0.0duv to 4800k, -0.006duv. But if I’m starting from 0.010duv, I’d end up at what, 4800k 0.004duv? So I’d use a quarter green with the quarter C.T. orange and now my super green 6500K is at 4800k and -0.004 duv.

But the two filters have transmission of 82.4% and 79%. So I’d have lost 38.6%. Which id actually be fine with on this particular light.

But for more transmission I could go with an eighth CT orange and end up with 5550K and -0.0027duv from 0. So id still need to use a quarter minus green to get 5500k with -0.0007duv, or basically 0duv. Transmission now is 85.2% and 82.4%, so I’ve lost 32.4% output and I’m still basically at 0. So I’d add a half minus green, now I’m well into the negatives, ~0.008duv and 5550k, but I lose 30% from that minus green alone so now I’m at a 45% loss of output and that might be too much.

There’s a balance here that would work out though. They sell zircon equivalents of the C.T orange filters as well. Ones that are supposed to hold up better. I feel like there’s potential here. I mean, swap the emitter youre still losing output. I think theres a balance that could work for this high duv 6500k light in my case but it’d take some trial and error. Emitter swap would definitely be easier. But now I’m curious