Are there any long throw high CRI lights at all?

djozz · 2019-05-27T09:49:25.000Z

The reduced green-ness probably only counts for the 95CRI SST-20 leds.

It would be useful to have the comparisons with the same current but you will have to do of course with what data is available.

Agro · 2019-05-27T12:39:40.000Z

OK, I’m out of data. In my previous post you can see the estimated surface luminosity of SST-20, both domed and dedomed, based on comparison with known emitters.
I could do also a direct comparison with XP-L HD but I lack sufrace luminosity data for it. I could estimate that…but it would be cumbersome and imprecise.

So…there’s a lot of noise in the data. I don’t know what is the reason. The best result is 38% higher than the worst…and neither is a lone outlier.

The average surface luminosity seems to be about 0.1 cd/mm²/lm, 10% better than XP-L HI.
Dedoming ups that by about 50% but causes quite big output drop.

Note that the results are very rough, with this kind of differences we’d need many more data points to draw accurate conclusions.

Barkuti · 2019-05-27T17:31:33.000Z

djozz:

Barkuti:

The way efficiency is defined is, in my honest opinion, wrong DERP. …

Your honest opinion assumes that humans are a spectrometer, and you are completely ignoring biology. If we use a flashlight, the usefulness is completely dependent on which wavelengths we see and which we do not see. … The luminosity function is not presumed, it is measured, and it varies only in details among the human population. …

Biology studies how humans work in a very materialistic and inaccurate way. Like medical disciplines, they don't even know a @#$% of what the mind is. Is this any different from what I'm saying here? But they can at least measure properly, don't they? No demeaning talk, all right. Let me, for example, quote the following from the Lumen (unit) wiki article:

Lumen (unit) @ Wikipedia:

…

A source radiating a power of one watt of light in the color for which the eye is most efficient…

Sorry but the eye is not more or less efficient, it just transmit signals. The efficiency thing is mentally defined and those parameters can or could be accessed and changed via the subconscious or even the unconscious mind. So much for science.

The luminosity function was measured (when?). We evolve and change as our mind patterns or beliefs do. It should be updated then, doesn't it? But horror! If we do that, then we can no longer compare old versus new lumens and such. Yes, it could happen with a conversion algorithm. Suffice to say I do no longer care much with regards to lumen output, it is a “rigged” thing. Actual full spectrum measurement data is a lot better, it is objective. Guess what? Do I dislike the efficiency thing as defined? YES. People needs to understand that, the way luminous efficiency is defined low colour accuracy/low CRI emitters will always look or be more efficient against accurate colour rendering/high CRI ones. And I will go even further: What is one of the reasons behind the led emitter green-ness scourge and high DUV? Lumen efficiency, of course.

Conclusion: the industry is mainly creating efficient emitters which look “white enough”. This is the price you are paying for this efficiency thing to impress the @#$% and the numbers to look big… and crap.
For those of you who like efficiency, aim for some crap CRI leds and enjoy.
In the meantime, change your minds great advice is.

Signed,

A efficiency lover.

Cheers :-)

P.S.: serve me a round of incandescence, please. ;-)

Dalamar · 2019-05-27T17:59:54.000Z

Barkuti:

Sorry but the eye is not more or less efficient, it just transmit signals. The efficiency thing is mentally defined and those parameters can or could be accessed and changed via the subconscious or even the unconscious mind. So much for science.

The luminosity function was measured (when?). We evolve and change as our mind patterns or beliefs do. It should be updated then, doesn’t it? But horror! If we do that, then we can no longer compare old versus new lumens and such. Yes, it could happen with a conversion algorithm. Suffice to say I do no longer care much with regards to lumen output, it is a “rigged” thing. Actual full spectrum measurement data is a lot better, it is objective. Guess what? Do I dislike the efficiency thing as defined? YES. People needs to understand that, the way luminous efficiency is defined low colour accuracy/low CRI emitters will always look or be more efficient against accurate colour rendering/high CRI ones. And I will go even further: What is one of the reasons behind the led emitter green-ness scourge and high DUV? Lumen efficiency, of course.

Conclusion: the industry is mainly creating efficient emitters which look “white enough”. This is the price you are paying for this efficiency thing to impress the @#$% and the numbers to look big… and crap.
For those of you who like efficiency, aim for some crap CRI leds and enjoy.
In the meantime, change your minds great advice is.

Signed,

A efficiency lover.

Cheers

P.S.: serve me a round of incandescence, please.

This false assumption of efficiency must be why the makers all omit red, afaik it’s the least sensitive color to the eyes.
Rubbish…

djozz · 2019-05-27T18:47:13.000Z

@Barkuti

You better not become a biologist!

A pretty widespread mistake that you also show is that subjects are more important if you can measure them more accurately. Or the other way around: anything that you can not measure accurately is not worth measuring at all.

In reality such relation does not exist: many things that can be measured very accurately are utterly unimportant, while many more things let themselves measure very poorly but are extremely important.

In the last case, dismissing existing information on the basis of a superficial presumption of subjectivity or inaccuracy (which is what you do) is a capital error. Data must always be used keeping the amount of accuracy in mind, but simply ignoring it is a total waste of effort and valuable data.

Many biologal problems are eminently difficult to investigate, there’s not many yes or no answers, and many answers show a relative low accuracy compared to say many physics problems. This has nothing to do with biologists (you seem to value them lower than other scientists) but with the difficult subject that biology is. Yet the answers that biologists give do contain an immense amount of important information, to the amount that currently more than 60% of all scientific research is of biological nature, for good reason.

djozz · 2019-05-27T18:49:56.000Z

Barkuti:

The luminosity function was measured (when?). We evolve and change as our mind patterns or beliefs do. It should be updated then, doesn’t it?

The luminosity function was first measured about a hundred years ago, with some minor corrections in the seventies. You may want to read into what timescale evolution takes place.

xevious · 2019-05-28T00:27:52.000Z

The efficiency debate is an interesting one, because it seems like there’s so many different components involved that are also subject to variation by context. Thus, it’s hard to pin down precisely.

Lumens are how much light is given off
Lux is how bright your surface will be
Candela measures the visible intensity from the light source.

Then the perception of the human eye for the light being produced.

“Interestingly - when a user compares two identical flashlight using identical reflectors - one with Cool White LED, and one with Neutral White - our BRAIN says the yellowish NEUTRAL is MUCH dimmer than the bluish COOL… but look again, most users can actually see a lot better and clearer with the NEUTRAL light.”

As for efficiency… “COOL LED are still leading in lumens output over NEUTRAL LED, but not by much anymore.
With today’s high output LED - NEUTRAL tint can now be as close as 6-7% of the lumens output of similar Cool White LED, and human eyes typically can’t see less than 30% difference in lumens output.”

So ultimately, better to have a more neutral or slightly warmer tint… which will be easier on the eyes.

dotBLF · 2019-05-28T01:12:57.000Z

I have a D1 and a D1S Emisar with the 3000K SST-20 Emitter from Hank directly, and they are great!!!

Highly recommend, and truly budget!

Barkuti · 2019-05-28T03:31:31.000Z

djozz, you would be surprised at how many things you say in #24 that I do not agree with (and you say I do) and vice versa.

There is an insane amount of stuff which physical senses or instrumentation does not perceive, and yet it is of utmost importance.

With regard to science, maybe I've been badly influenced by a biologist friend (LoL!) which reeks scientism. When someone tells me they cannot believe something if they do not “see” it, I know there's something very wrong with them because the way things come to exist is the other way around, and so they are at the mercy of whatever authority they submit to instead of their own.

And with regards to #25, thanks. But let me say “evolution” is now taking place at an ultra fast pace in many aspects, namely for those venturing into mind reprogramming, either by themselves and/or with assistance like it is my case. Healing matters.

Back on topic, did anyone tried chemical dedoming on SST-20s? White spirit or turpentine?

:-)

Agro · 2019-05-28T05:15:33.000Z

There were trials with hot toluen. They failed.

Agro · 2020-02-06T10:42:59.000Z

Recently I found some Chinese COBs meant for endoscopes, stage lights, projectors. They typically are styled after large Luminus LEDs but can have high CRI. This is a new area to me, so I’ll just give a few examples …

100W 7.68 mm² LED that’s advertised to beat SBT90.2 luminosity despite high CRI. Though the hole in the middle is an issue, if it matches the specs, it should be good.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000339811390.html

Single die 60W 9mm², no strict CRI ratings

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32333740921.html

Small LED with a built-in precollimator, if it throws it would make a superb zoomie LED:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000233478407.html

Barkuti · 2020-02-06T13:33:44.000Z

Agro:

…

Small LED with a built-in precollimator, if it throws it would make a superb zoomie LED:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000233478407.html

Guess that straight fits inside any ∅20 mm MCPCB flashlight. The base thickness is 2.0 mm versus 1.6 mm, not much of a concern since many zoomies over-focus anyway.

A test of that led would come in handy.

P.S.: The advertised chip brand is Osram.

The_Driver1 · 2020-02-06T15:14:43.000Z

The Luminus CBT-90 v1 and CBT-140 are available with "WDS" tint (5700K, R9080). The former SBT-70 was also available with this tint.

Agro · 2020-02-07T06:47:31.000Z

Barkuti:
Precollimator will shorten focal length by more than this 0.4 mm.

The_Driver:
Thanks, good to know.

The_Driver1 · 2020-02-07T11:04:37.000Z

Also, all Xenon short-arc lights like the Maxabeam and the Megaray are high-cri and throw extremely far. The specturm of these bulbs closely matches that of the sun. I wouldn't call these lights budget though . The Maxabeam is the farthest throwing, portable light that is commercially available.

Photonica · 2020-02-07T14:52:36.000Z

Interestingly, the Phatlight has a separate connector for what looks like a temperature sensor. Wouldn’t want to toast an $88 part!

zak.wilson · 2020-02-07T16:38:30.000Z

Since it hasn’t been mentioned in this thread yet, a 95 CRI SST-20 is a factory option on the Noctigon K1.

Watermanchris · 2020-02-08T01:15:26.000Z

What is the highest output LED with good R9 values?

Agro · 2020-02-08T05:16:34.000Z

Do multi-die LEDs count?
If yes - some large COB will give you many thousand lm.

The_Driver1 · 2020-02-10T16:14:39.000Z

Watermanchris:

What is the highest output LED with good R9 values?

Well, you asked for it: this!

It's basically a cooking plate that happens to light up.

The brightest power LED with good R9 values is the Cree XHP70.2 with 90CRI. If you don't care about efficiency the Luminius CBT-140 WDH is also an option.