:partying_face: :student:
because I could turn the single down by 43%, to match the Lux of the triple, thereby reducing battery consumption = battery lasts longer = more efficient
or inversely, I would have to ramp up the triple by 43%, to match the lux on target of the single, thereby consuming more batteries…
thats why triples eat batteries faster, they are floody, and what they gain in Lumens, they spread out at lower Lux.
or why not?
In terms of hotspot Lux, I predict the SP10 Pro will be more efficient than the FWAA. I have my Opple ready 
To clarify, I think you mean the single LED is more efficient at throwing lux at an object with the hotspot from any given output.
Normally we use the word efficiency to mean luminous power efficiency, as lumens per Watt (rather than lux per lumen).
Generally having the watts spread out over multiple LEDs is more efficient (like your triple). Also cooler white LEDs are more efficient too (part due to the human eye’s luminosity efficiency function).
In terms of Candela per Watt (or Candela let lumen), the single LED is more focused and therefore more efficient at directing the lux forward.
You could make the light even more efficient at this task by holding a 3” Fresnel lense in front of the light.
True, though floody lights are useful too, otherwise people would only ever carry around LEPs.
The 30,000 Acebeam X80-GT has its place, even if the Lumintop Thor Mini LEP can throw twice as far.
I am not worried about lux either, more checking temperature and binning. I have found that the readings seem to be really affected if there is other light bleeding in. Also, I have taken to taking readings at the first distance that the meter is not over powered by the light. So, I have a shoe box with a hole in it on top and at the end. I place the meter inline with the hole and then take a reading. This makes the output fairly stable and averages out well.
What impresses is the flickering captured by their camera but judged to be no risk by the Opple…
I also find the flicker calculation reassuring. The FWAA definitely flickers, its just very fast, so considered harmless.
the FWAA output is not smooth at all, it actually is switching up and down, a LOT:
.
FWAA also shows banding on my iPhone (I would have cosidered that bad constant Flicker, or bad PWM, before Opple told me not to worry)
The Tool AAA has none of those fluctuating output pulses… it is almost totally flat regulated, constant current output (no photo flicker, no PWM):
.
So far for detect flickering I used
the slow motions 240 fps of my camera phone around my house,
incandescent do it but in a different way,seem don’t bother me.
Or shine the light on a portable fan.
Think it’s time to upgrade these methods if the flickering measurements of the Opple are correct
I also used my camera, and it does see some kind of banding on my FWAA, and on my Jetbeam and Niteye magnetic rotaries. Im reassured by the added info provided by the Opple flicker risk assessment:
Jon, a couple of questions… I have been testing the lowest end of several lights for consistency. I have a pair of Hank’s lights, D4V2 and KR4, both have SST-20 4000k installed. The KR4 are FD2 and the D4V2 are maybe FA3. I have both set on 2/150 and took readings by covering the window with the head of the light. Both readings are very close, around 288 lux and the chromacity is very good on both lights, right at or just a tiny bit below the BBL and yest the look that good to they eye.
I use this calcualtor:
I converted the surface area of the sensor circle to feet squared:
0.002506944
Input my lux reading of 288.
Results are .067 lumens. This seems to low to me, what am I doing wrong? Any ideas?
> Results are .067 lumens. This seems to low to me, what am I doing wrong? Any ideas?
I dont have those lights nor LEDs, and no experience calculating lumens from Lux…
Im guessing the area and distance calculations are introducing errors.
fwiw, the lowest output on my FWAA is 0.1 lumens at 1/150 w sw35, so your calculation of 0.07 lumens at 2/150 does seem lower than expected.
My only suggestions would be to test level 1/150, move the light away from the sensor, and recalculate with the new distance… see if the lumen result is more realistic…
I'm having a great time testing every light in my house for CCT and CRI. This thing is great! It made me realize I need to upgrade a few of my light bulbs. Older CFL's are pretty bad with CRI.
You can’t convert lux to lumens by pointing the light at the sensor. Even if you place it very close, there will be too much loss to get an accurate calculation. You would need some kind of integrating device.
still really happy w my Opple, found a new application
I wanted to see the effect on CRI, of blending sw30 and sw45k… Im pleased… blended CRI seems to be the average (with significantly lower DUV at 3700K, than a single source sw35):
.
and another use for the Opple, compare the effect of AR coated glass placed on top of a sapphire lens, to see if there is a significant change in Tint…
The claim is that the purple AR coating will make the Tint Greener… it does, but I dont think the amount of change is significant… it raised DUV by 0.0004. I do not perceive that as a Visible Change. The LED is sw45K:
.
also tested a blue reflective lens… zero change in Tint DUV:
.
.
so, for people wondering if AR coating is a primary cause of green Tint, or wondering if removing AR coating will reduce green Tint … Nope… removing AR coating will not fix green Tint…
Let me counter this with some measurements from my spectrometer.
This is a D80v2 with 219b sw30 and the factory green AR coat glass.
Here is the same light on the same mode but with a Convoy C8 purple AR coat glass held in front of the light. The tint change is clearly visible to the eye.
The Opple is a neat and useful device, but it’s not a scientific instrument. It simply isn’t accurate enough to measure small tint changes like this. Just holding it at a different angle or distance from the light will make the measurement deviate significantly. It’s still great as long as you understand its limitations.
Yes. I think CCT measurements are ok for a good guessing of the LED version. Time signal is also very useful, but the CIE coordinates are not reliable and the Ra is nearly always quite optimistic, probably deliberately to always get a 100 score for incans.
What’s missing is a comparison of the luxmeter with a reference instrument. I am really interested how good it is.
I believe there are different AR coatings and some of them could have the same reflection color.
I have noticed this as well. All of my very high CRI lights measure 100 CRI with the Opple.
Through my own measurements I’ve found that all of the blue/purple AR coats that I’ve tested slightly increase duv and the green ones (seem to be rarer) tend to decrease duv. I haven’t tested any clear/colorless AR coating.
If you think about it, it makes sense. If the reflections appear green, that means more green light is bouncing off the surface and not being passed through the material, which will make the remaining light that does pass through have less intensity in the green wavelengths (lower duv).
+0.0020 is definitely much larger than what Im getting with the rose reflective AR lens on my RRT-01 (changed duv +0.0004) and blue reflecting V10R (0.0000 change in duv)
I agree the Opple is not a super sensitive instrument. otoh, it gives me a reference that my eyes and words alone, cannot communicate as effectively.
I see now why people say Simons AR lenses have a big impact on Tint… thanks for expanding my education.
Im not sure the Opple would fail to detect the difference in DUV created by the Convoy lens, as I do not have any Convoy lights
for the side by side tests that Im doing, I feel the Opple gives enough info to Compare, even if the absolute values may differ from other instruments… not sure
> All of my very high CRI lights measure 100 CRI with the Opple.
the CRI readings I get are not 100, it gives better detail, as you can see in this composite of 2 lights, separate, and blended:
.
So, since I hear that Simons lenses have +0.0020 DUV impact, can we say it is due to the quality of the glass, or do we know it is from the characteristics, thickness, composition, color, of the AR coating?
I dont think the blue reflection alone, is a reliable predictor of +0.0020 DUV increase…
has anyone tested a Convoy lens w AR removed?
has anyone confirmed that the Convoy AR is the culprit of the DUV increase, and not the glass itself?
I took readings again of the D80v2 with and without the Convoy AR coated glass, but this time with the Opple.
L: D80v2 219b sw30
R: D80v2 219b sw30 + Convoy AR coated glass
From this we can infer:
- The Opple does not provide accurate quantitative readings for duv (spectrometer measurements for duv were –0.00207 & –0.00004, respectively) This comes as no surprise as it isn’t really intended to provide this information.
- The Opple can provide reasonably accurate qualitative comparisons for duv given that it is the same emitter which is being compared against itself
Here is a comparison of measurements of my Acebeam E70 with GT-FC40 4500K from my spectrometer and from the Opple.
We can see that with the D80v2, the Opple’s CIE coordinates give us a duv that is higher than the spectrometer’s measurement, yet with the E70, it is significantly lower. This means that the qualitative duv comparisons between different emitters will not be accurate with the Opple.
You can also see an example here of the Opple giving a 100 CRI reading for a very high CRI LED.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the Opple is bad. I think it’s a great piece of kit, especially for a 30USD price tag. I intend to keep and use mine despite the fact that I have a spectrometer. But it isn’t going to give you readings that are as accurate as what you’ll get from an actual spectrometer. The Opple probably just has a cheap CMOS sensor in it. A spectrometer works in a fundamentally different way to achieve its measurements. So, while your duv calculations can be useful for comparisons, you should take the numbers with a grain of salt.