Cool White vs Neutral white

[Moonshadow]

Take both lights outside, and check out dirt, rocks, trees, flowers, and wildlife. The warm tint will most likely look MUCH better, give better depth perception, and better contrast. The pictures available in various posts on the subject give some idea of this, but seeing it for real the difference is HUGE.

Ive compared 2 pretty much identical lights, eagletac P10A2's, one cool, one warm, in an outdoor test.
The cool tended to make everything a bit gray, harder to distinguish details. Also, colors tended to be way off. Red flowers were purple, yellow flowers were very pale. There was very little difference between the colors of rock, dirt, twigs, and dead leaves. Everything was a bit washed out looking.
The warm tint was much better at color. Red flowers were red, yellow flowers were yellow. Much better contrast between rocks, twigs, dirt, and dead leaves.

Sorry, but that's not my experience at all.

In order to inject some balance, I use primarily cool WC tinted lights (Q5 Nitecores) outside, and find that colours are rendered just fine thank you.

I have completely normal colour vision and simply do not see this 'washed out' effect.

For me, the cool tints are a crisp, pure white (whereas the warm ones look yellow) and they show outdoor objects such as vegetation, leaves, rocks, flowers and so on perfectly well: good contrast and accurate colour - as they appear in daylight. As a test of artificially coloured objects, I've just shone two different cool tinted lights at our two cars (one red, one metallic blue) and - guess what? - yup, they too, appear exactly the same colour as they do in daylight.

The so-called 'warmer' tints do appeal to some people, but I suspect that what they actually do is to exaggerate the warmer tones like reds and yellows. Very aesthetic, maybe, but I'd rather have my colours accurately rendered.

Now I know how individual and subjective colour perception can be, so if that's not your experience, fine. But I'd rather have a crisp clear pure white light than the yellow or orange ones in the picture above.

 

[hoongern]

I think I mentioned somewhere - again a lot of it comes from what lights you grew up with. For me, growing up with fluorescent lighting, I am used to seeing all objects in that tint, and so anything but cool white looks weird - and I can't figure out what colors it is because my color reference point is with cool white.

For someone who grew up with incans, on the other hand, warm would be what they're used to.

Of course, a cool white high CRI would be what I want =)

So - imo it mainly comes down to preference and what you grew up with. I would recommend warms to those who are used to incans, and cools to those who are used to fluorescent... or to try both anyway.

 

[Black Rose]

I really like cool white LEDs, but I am goint to test the neutral white waters.

I have some parts on order to build a couple of neutral white (Cree XR-E Q3-5C) P60 drop-ins for some of my lights and try out neutral white LEDs for myself.
While the various beamshots give you an idea, the only way to know is to try it yourself.

Now I just need to wait a week or so for all the goodies to arrive and then I can start building...

 

[DHart]

One great way to view the subject attractiveness of a flashlight's LED is to illuminate a well printed photograph of people (portrait)... you can use magazine ads for this purpose. You will see very quicky how scenes are rendered this way.

And just for some wide ranging comparisons of tint... here's a chart I made using some of my own lights...

 

[jtr1962]

In order to inject some balance, I use primarily cool WC tinted lights (Q5 Nitecores) outside, and find that colours are rendered just fine thank you.

I have completely normal colour vision and simply do not see this 'washed out' effect.

For me, the cool tints are a crisp, pure white (whereas the warm ones look yellow) and they show outdoor objects such as vegetation, leaves, rocks, flowers and so on perfectly well: good contrast and accurate colour - as they appear in daylight. As a test of artificially coloured objects, I've just shone two different cool tinted lights at our two cars (one red, one metallic blue) and - guess what? - yup, they too, appear exactly the same colour as they do in daylight.

The so-called 'warmer' tints do appeal to some people, but I suspect that what they actually do is to exaggerate the warmer tones like reds and yellows. Very aesthetic, maybe, but I'd rather have my colours accurately rendered.

Now I know how individual and subjective colour perception can be, so if that's not your experience, fine. But I'd rather have a crisp clear pure white light than the yellow or orange ones in the picture above.

Pretty much my experience as well. I find that deep reds are slightly subdued under today's cool white LEDs relative to how they appear under sunlight, but other than that to me they render colors pretty well. But in a scene heavy with warm colors, you might want a light source which exaggerates those colors for greater constrast. Sure, the colors may not be accurate as defined as appearing the way they do under sunlight, but you'll be able to see better nevertheless.

Also, it bears mentioning that "cool white" and "high CRI" are NOT physically mutually exclusive. A casual reader of this thread might get the impression otherwise. There don't happen to be any cool white, high-CRI LEDs being made now that I'm aware of, but that is likely due to the need to formulate a suitable phosphor, not because it can't physically be done. So yes, based on the LEDs currently made, you need warm or neutral white if you want high-CRI, but that won't be the case forever.

 

[Tekno_Cowboy]

Also, it bears mentioning that "cool white" and "high CRI" are NOT physically mutually exclusive. A casual reader of this thread might get the impression otherwise. There don't happen to be any cool white, high-CRI LEDs being made now that I'm aware of, but that is likely due to the need to formulate a suitable phosphor, not because it can't physically be done. So yes, based on the LEDs currently made, you need warm or neutral white if you want high-CRI, but that won't be the case forever.

This is a point I wish more people would remember before posting on the subject.

 

[R@ndom]

Time for Eva Green or Megan Fox to clear this up

 

[Outdoors Fanatic]

Time for Eva Green or Megan Fox to clear this up

Great post!!

 

[Black Rose]

Time for Eva Green or Megan Fox to clear this up

I thought you were referring to the tree...then I scrolled down :devil:

 

[Illum]

Tint is not the same thing as CRI, so saying that warm white = high CRI is totally incorrect. The LED with the highest CRI on the market only reaches 83 on the color rendering index, incandescent are a full 100 CRI. A "warm" LED is just another low CRI emitter with a lower color temperature. Kelvins degrees is not the same as CRI.

very well, then how your you explain the dramatic increase in color rendition due to warmer tints?

 

[Tekno_Cowboy]

very well, then how your you explain the dramatic increase in color rendition due to warmer tints?

Even without the increase in CRI, a warm led can seem like it renders color better due to which colors it renders well. To make matters even more complicated, between your eyes and your brain, a large amount of compensation can take place. The amount of compensation varies from person to person, so it's awfully difficult to create a standard for it.

While CRI is a good base measure, it doesn't account for how people perceive light. IIRC, to achieve the full 100 CRI, there must be included wavelengths of light that human eyes can't even see. I've read that there's a better system in the works, but who knows when/if it will ever be put into use. :shrug:

 

[EngrPaul]

Even with compensation, your eyes still work better under the right lighting conditions.

In bright light, cool light works fine, and it's similar to daylight. But in low lighting, neutral tints are better on the eyes.

I can only stand to read for a few minutes using cool white LED light. But if I use warm LED light, I can read for an hour or more without sore eyes or a headache.

This is why the majority of lighting for residential use is warm/soft white. It's what works best with the human eye when the pupil is dialated at moderate lighting levels.

 

[Illum]

Even without the increase in CRI, a warm led can seem like it renders color better due to which colors it renders well. To make matters even more complicated, between your eyes and your brain, a large amount of compensation can take place. The amount of compensation varies from person to person, so it's awfully difficult to create a standard for it.

While CRI is a good base measure, it doesn't account for how people perceive light. IIRC, to achieve the full 100 CRI, there must be included wavelengths of light that human eyes can't even see. I've read that there's a better system in the works, but who knows when/if it will ever be put into use. :shrug:

hmm, I certainly agree with this

 

[xenonk]

Here's a comparison of three tints in an equal host.

Very nice pictures! Especially the one looking down the barrels. The reflection off the reflector really shows off the differences in phosphor application between emitters.

very well, then how your you explain the dramatic increase in color rendition due to warmer tints?

There's a little gain in CRI from the additional phosphorescent conversion, though it's not the driving factor.

The output spectrum is shifted towards generally more "useful" colours even though it remains unevenly distributed. Chiefly important are the reds and browns, which are very common in every day objects (especially outdoors). Green output remains good on warmer emitters and your eyes are especially sensitive to that wavelength anyway. Blue drops off a bit, but since the LED naturally has a gigantic spike of that wavelength this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[jtr1962]

Even with compensation, your eyes still work better under the right lighting conditions.

In bright light, cool light works fine, and it's similar to daylight. But in low lighting, neutral tints are better on the eyes.

I can only stand to read for a few minutes using cool white LED light. But if I use warm LED light, I can read for an hour or more without sore eyes or a headache.

This is why the majority of lighting for residential use is warm/soft white. It's what works best with the human eye when the pupil is dialated at moderate lighting levels.

Everything is pretty much true here except the last part. At typical residential lighting levels in the 100 to 500 lux area 3500K to 4100K is the sweet spot for most people according to the Kruithof curve. This is more or less where most neutral LED tints fall.

 

[jtr1962]

very well, then how your you explain the dramatic increase in color rendition due to warmer tints?

To add to what a few others said, a warmer tinted LED basically increases contrast if you're viewing a scene heavy in warm colors. And contrast is actually what our vision is based on to a large extent. That doesn't necessarily mean it has better color rendering overall, or that the colors are more accurate. It just means you can distinguish between subtle shades of warmer colors more easily than with a cooler LED. In a scene heavy with neutrals or cooler colors, the warm LED would actually be worse. What it all boils down to is to use the right tool for the job. If you're viewing a typical cityscape, a cool LED works best. If you're looking at nature, a warm or neutral one would. If you're looking at something in between, it probably boils down to your preferences.

Now if only someone would make high-CRI cool LEDs.....

 

[fareast]

Everything is pretty much true here except the last part. At typical residential lighting levels in the 100 to 500 lux area 3500K to 4100K is the sweet spot for most people according to the Kruithof curve. This is more or less where most neutral LED tints fall.

That Kruithof curve is very interesting to read about. :thumbsup:

 

[Swedpat]

CRI difference?

Last week I received my two purple Maglites, a 2D and a 3D. These are not really the same colour, because Maglite has at least two different shades of purple, and I got one of each. When looking at them under cool LED-light they appear as very identical. But under incandescent light like the home light bulbs and MagCharger the difference is significant. Look at these two photos and you will see it clearly.
Also I later compared with my EagleTac M2XC4 neutral white, and the difference was significant compared to P7 LED, but not that significant as with MagCharger.
I understand this remarkable difference is an example of the difference of CRI?

Edit: at request I also took a picture with EagleTac M2XC4 neutral white as light source. This actually made me surprised. The difference of the photo is much less than what I actually experience with my eyes. According to the photo it's closer to the cool white LED, but according to my LIVE view it's closer to the incan...
Anyway; incandescent light is superior when it comes to true colour rendition!

Upper picture: Maglite 3D/Malkoff P7
Middle picture: EagleTac M2XC4 neutral white
Lower picture: Maglite MagCharger



Regards, Patric

 

[zipplet]

Re: CRI difference?

Very interesting/informative pictures swedpat! Please post a pic under a neutral LED too
Somewhere I have a pic of cool vs neutral LED with my Raw NS/Raw AL and the difference is also quite noticeable like this, I will try to find it.

 

[Outdoors Fanatic]

Re: CRI difference?

Last week I received my two purple Maglites, a 2D and a 3D. These are not really the same colour, because Maglite has at least two different shades of purple, and I got one of each. When looking at them under cool LED-light they appear as very identical. But under incandescent light like the home light bulbs and MagCharger the difference is significant. Look at these two photos and you will see it clearly.
Also I later compared with my EagleTac M2XC4 neutral white, and the difference was significant compared to P7 LED, but not that significant as with MagCharger.
I understand this remarkable difference is an example of the difference of CRI?

Upper picture: Maglite 3D/Malkoff P7
Lower picture: Maglite MagCharger




Regards, Patric

Its impossible to perceive real colors under LEDs illumination, they both look ghostly blue. Now just look at those Mags under the incandescent perfect color rendering light.. WOW!

Great post!