js
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have no idea, but perhaps someone else might chime in.
Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering
- Thread starter js
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
I have no idea, but perhaps someone else might chime in.
Couldn't one put a very carefully designed filter in front of a cree to cut out the blue spike? I am thinking somethink like a photography filter in front of the led (Skylight). I know this would significantly cut output but with Q5 lights running on one CR123 producing around 180 lumen, some could easily be sacraficed. Just because, this SunDrop is a $500 light after all...
Sgt. LED
Flashaholic
mudman cj
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have both the 3000K and 4000K versions of the Seoul LEDs, and I took some pics comparing the 4000k against the 083. I didn't bother with the 3000K version because it was so yellow. Here is a link to my thread with the pics.
Subjectively IMHO, the 083 gives a more accurate rendering of objects the way they appear in sunlight. The Seoul LED emphasizes yellows, oranges, and reds more than the 083 and also more than sunlight. The 083 also seems a bit better at rendering certain shades of green and brown, where 'better' means more like sunlight.
The best way I can succinctly describe the Seoul LED is that it looks more like incandescent than any other LED I have ever seen. And you guessed it, the 083 looks more like sunlight.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
Yes, you can do this. Check out the High CRI thread in McGizmo's forum (first link in my first post) for a discussion of why you might prefer to use the 083. But, I mean, go for it! CPFers could then experiment first hand with the differences and come to some kind of consensus on it. The thing that I would say might be a problem is that if there is a severe lack of a certain frequency of light, a filter can't do anything about that, and that might be the case here with the low reds. But check out the High CRI thread for more discussion on this. I can't honestly remember where that was left in the course of the discussion. That was what I took out it, but I won't vouch for the accuracy of my memory on this particular point.
Illum
Flashaholic
I find it sort of odd that something like this has not been used before, in addition to the fact that there isn't one bit of hinting on Nichias website concerning this "Nichia 083" high CRI LED. 
BabyDoc
Flashlight Enthusiast
I find it sort of odd that something like this has not been used before, in addition to the fact that there isn't one bit of hinting on Nichias website concerning this "Nichia 083" high CRI LED.
As Don explained it to me, the Nichia 083 high CRI LED had been used previously in residential lighting applications, but never before in flashlights. Because of its low output, relative to the popular Crees, most manufacturss hadn't considered using this LED in a flashlight. Except for a small niche of users who require high color resolution, more lumens is what sells flashlights, not higher CRI with fewer lumens. That's why Don told me he had reservations about marketing this light and why he made it available in only such a small limited edition run, to see what kind of response there would be. He was rather surprised that the first SunDrop wave sold out so quickly but not how thrilled people were with this light.
We knew it was that good and different, that seeing was believing.
Unfortunately, with the down-turn in the economy and the report of a few defective light engines, the second wave hasn't moved out the door as quickly, even though it offers 3 different light levels, rather than just the one level of the first wave SunDrops. Nevertheless, the holidays are approaching and I am optimistic that Don will have soon have many more happy SunDrop customers.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
Woods Walker,
I'm pretty sure that nothing exactly like what you want to do has been done before (although I could be wrong), but I can definitely tell you that I would be interested, along with a good many others. Capturing the superior out-door color rendering and throw and discrimination of incan (or Sundrop) light isn't so much about superior camera skills as about lots of trial and error and good intuition. If you want it badly enough, you will succeed for sure, even if you have only basic camera skills. I say GO FOR IT!
I don't think the 083 is a retail product at all.I find it sort of odd that something like this has not been used before, in addition to the fact that there isn't one bit of hinting on Nichias website concerning this "Nichia 083" high CRI LED.
At work, I meet with some representatives of (commercial) lighting manufacturers. There are some lights, like home lighting or commercial lighting, that you can buy (pretty expensive, though) with Nichia 083 led's in them.
The one company I most recently met with is teaming up with this Italian company who does some amazing things! They had this strip light that can be recessed into concrete with these small RGB leds that looked smaller than a cree and put out about half the light of a cree in red, green, or blue. I didn't get to see it output white (all colors on), but I was curious to see how bright it would have been.
There's this great company, Renaissance that makes a downlight that outputs practically any color you want it to. They aim about 30 or so red, green, and blue Cree's up at a white dome, the color mixes together, and outputs the exact color you want it to. Warm white, cool white, green, orange... It can fade from red to green. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. They have to use more red led's than green or blue, because "the led's are weak at the red." lol
I think the lighting industry is starting to, and will continue to push some nice light emitters our way.
js, I have a question for you. I got a poorman's sundrop from mudman. Is it just me, or... say different colored words or backgrounds lit by the nichia led or by another led. Do you think it is more difficult to focus your eyes with a lower CRI led?
Is it just me, or... say different colored words or backgrounds lit by the nichia led or by another led. Do you think it is more difficult to focus your eyes with a lower CRI led?TedTheLed
Flashlight Enthusiast
...at long last !!....where oh where can I get those 'residential lighting' 083 fixtures !!! ???
500? sheesh. I could really use one for gauging the coffee beans while they're roasting, though..
in the meantime there is a similar product on it way to my door at this very moment from Fenix that makes simlilar claims for color whiteness:
the 4sevens 30 led remote control (!) dimmable 180 lumen light bar 50 bucks:
https://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=79&products_id=345
a rather breathless review extolling the white light:
https://www.4sevens.com/product_reviews_info.php?products_id=345&reviews_id=196
SaturnNyne
Enlightened
Ah JS, trying to do for the SunDrop what you did for the A2? Very nice writeup!
Finances dictate that this one will not be drawing me in though.
But I do love color rendition, so I'm watching where this technology goes.
Finances dictate that this one will not be drawing me in though.
But I do love color rendition, so I'm watching where this technology goes.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
divine,
Well, as I am getting to be about 40 now, I have a little trouble focusing on text, period, no matter what the light source, but I haven't noticed the effect you're talking about. On the other hand, I haven't looked for it either! I'll see what I can see this evening some time.
SaturnNyne,
Thanks! But, actually, as awesome as the Sundrop is, the LunaSol 20 is the light that has taken the place of the SureFire A2 for me, and I will be posting a similar type of thread on it as I once posted on the A2. I hope to come close to finishing this weekend, and to put the final touches on over the coming week. But we'll see.
Well, as I am getting to be about 40 now, I have a little trouble focusing on text, period, no matter what the light source, but I haven't noticed the effect you're talking about. On the other hand, I haven't looked for it either! I'll see what I can see this evening some time.
SaturnNyne,
Thanks! But, actually, as awesome as the Sundrop is, the LunaSol 20 is the light that has taken the place of the SureFire A2 for me, and I will be posting a similar type of thread on it as I once posted on the A2. I hope to come close to finishing this weekend, and to put the final touches on over the coming week. But we'll see.
mudman cj
Flashlight Enthusiast
About a week ago I believe I read somewhere in the forums here that this undercabinet light uses 5 Nichia 083 LEDs. It only costs $59.
My 2 are normal led tint and not like the Nichia 083. Unless there is a new version out it will be like an unfocused Cree/Seoul. Still a great product btw
Sverre
Hi guys,
I would like to add a few comments and observations.
Nichia doesn't have distributors like most of the other LED manufacturers. I don't know why they choose not get to market through typical distribution channels but that is the case.
The 083 is a 6 die package and it is available in different bins as well as different configurations. The High CRI 083 uses a couple phosphors as I understand it and it is a different part from the more common and popular 083 LED. The High CRI LED has an obvious afterglow in the phosphor after being shut down. It doesn't last long but is clearly visible. Because of the 6 dice, the LED is not ideal for collimation. When collimated, there is obvious tint variation from spot to fill which is also less than ideal.
My limited experience with the Seoul high CRI LED's has been less than I would have hoped for but it is limited. In my experience, the Seoul when collimated has an obvious variation in tint from spot to spill but then to some extent, this is true of most of the P4's. My main disappointment with the high CRI Seouls has been in their color temperature which has been way to much on the warm side for my preference (Most of the bins of the Nichia 083 High CRI also have lower color temps and are obviously "warm" in tint). I had hoped that the Seoul High CRI LED would be a solution for a collimated beam of light offering a relatively neutral white (cool white is out of the question unfortunately, IMHO) beam allowing for better color rendition. According to my spectrometer of unknown accuracy, the CRI was below 90 on the samples I tested and the beam tint was clearly and obviously warm if not out right yellow. I won't state that the Seoul high CRI LED's can't or don't serve a purpose but I couldn't get excited about working with them in their present state. I supposedly have some high color temp, High CRI Seoul samples on order or request but it has been a couple months now.
I feel very fortunate in the reel of 083's I got from Nichia because they have a color temp approaching neutral white and certainly cooler than the typical warm or other high CRI LED's I have sampled. It was commented above that the cooler tint is more pleasing to the eye for some. I know I much prefer the high color temps and this may be because of my old and yellowed eyes. :shrug:
As I understand it, CRI is based on a tungsten black body radiator and 100 is the number asigned to such a source, by definition. However the CRI is not independent of color temperature and it is measured relative to a specific color temp. I.E. a particular light source may have a measured CRIa of 96 @ 4300k. If you compare an illuminated scene with this source to one say from a source that has a CRIa of 96 @ 6000k, you will see obvious differences in color, at least initially, I believe. Initially, I believe you will perceive the difference in tint due to the difference in color temperature. However once your eyes and brain adapt, I don't know that there will be significant differences in how the colors are perceived, relative to each other. :shrug:
Evaluating LED's with standards based on incandescent sources has some merit to be certain but it seems to me that the limitations and misconceptions can be significant and misleading.
If we seek artificial light sources that can mimic natural light sources then I believe we should find ways of quantifying these natural sources and use them as the standard; not incandescent. If we seek to render colors accurately as they would be seen under incandescent illumination then using the CRI system is the way to go. If we seek to render colors accurately as they would be seen in daylight then a better system could be devised I believe. As I understand it, the lighting industry is addressing these issues.
To artificially simulate natural light, we need a full spectrum source that is similar in its spectrum to natural light. The RGB and other multi color sources can give us billions of colors and certainly give us a perceived "white" light but they are not full spectrum typically and there will be errors in rendering colors across the spectrum, as a result.
As I have messed with the different light sources and made feeble attempts at understanding them, I have become aware of a few things. For one, our visual perception is quite sophisticated and the process of image acquisition and interpretation is not so simple that measured numbers given to us from data collection devices can tell the whole story or even come close to quantifying, qualifying or predicting what we will see and how well we will see it. Perception is in the eyes of the beholder.
Another consideration for some of us in terms of color rendition is that of using a camera to record an illuminated image as opposed to our eyes and brain. Today's digital cameras and image software have become quite amazing and are capable of corrections and manipulations film photography could never dream of. As long as a light source has some energy present across the full spectrum, the image software can filter the image and balance the colors relative to a different, target spectrum. If you have an illumination source that is close in the spectrum you want represented in the final image then obviously you don't need to mess with corrections (but you do have the option).
In many situations, good color rendition is a bonus but not a requirement. I think we need to realize the difference between good color rendition and correct color recognition as well.
For both the eye/brain and the camera, I suspect that there are absolute as well as relative thresholds that need to be met in order for us to get the correct picture. I think of these thresholds as minimum and maximum levels of light at the different spectral points. These thresholds are relative to each other in the sense of their relative intensities. In other words, the spectral graph needs to be above zero across the visible range and any spikes need to be within some boundary line.
Ideally our artificial light source will mimic the source we seek to emulate; be it noon sun or 4k incandescent. In practicality, our source can deviate from the ideal but at what point does it become to far from the mark to provide adequate information?
To end this ramble, I agree with js that there are now some LED's that can rival the color rendition of incandescent. Cool. Unfortunately, I don't consider incandescent cool literally or figuratively and I look forward to LED sources surpassing incandescent sources and getting closer to rivaling the sun and moon in their ability to illuminate and render color.
I would like to add a few comments and observations.
Nichia doesn't have distributors like most of the other LED manufacturers. I don't know why they choose not get to market through typical distribution channels but that is the case.
The 083 is a 6 die package and it is available in different bins as well as different configurations. The High CRI 083 uses a couple phosphors as I understand it and it is a different part from the more common and popular 083 LED. The High CRI LED has an obvious afterglow in the phosphor after being shut down. It doesn't last long but is clearly visible. Because of the 6 dice, the LED is not ideal for collimation. When collimated, there is obvious tint variation from spot to fill which is also less than ideal.
My limited experience with the Seoul high CRI LED's has been less than I would have hoped for but it is limited. In my experience, the Seoul when collimated has an obvious variation in tint from spot to spill but then to some extent, this is true of most of the P4's. My main disappointment with the high CRI Seouls has been in their color temperature which has been way to much on the warm side for my preference (Most of the bins of the Nichia 083 High CRI also have lower color temps and are obviously "warm" in tint). I had hoped that the Seoul High CRI LED would be a solution for a collimated beam of light offering a relatively neutral white (cool white is out of the question unfortunately, IMHO) beam allowing for better color rendition. According to my spectrometer of unknown accuracy, the CRI was below 90 on the samples I tested and the beam tint was clearly and obviously warm if not out right yellow. I won't state that the Seoul high CRI LED's can't or don't serve a purpose but I couldn't get excited about working with them in their present state. I supposedly have some high color temp, High CRI Seoul samples on order or request but it has been a couple months now.
I feel very fortunate in the reel of 083's I got from Nichia because they have a color temp approaching neutral white and certainly cooler than the typical warm or other high CRI LED's I have sampled. It was commented above that the cooler tint is more pleasing to the eye for some. I know I much prefer the high color temps and this may be because of my old and yellowed eyes. :shrug:
As I understand it, CRI is based on a tungsten black body radiator and 100 is the number asigned to such a source, by definition. However the CRI is not independent of color temperature and it is measured relative to a specific color temp. I.E. a particular light source may have a measured CRIa of 96 @ 4300k. If you compare an illuminated scene with this source to one say from a source that has a CRIa of 96 @ 6000k, you will see obvious differences in color, at least initially, I believe. Initially, I believe you will perceive the difference in tint due to the difference in color temperature. However once your eyes and brain adapt, I don't know that there will be significant differences in how the colors are perceived, relative to each other. :shrug:
Evaluating LED's with standards based on incandescent sources has some merit to be certain but it seems to me that the limitations and misconceptions can be significant and misleading.
If we seek artificial light sources that can mimic natural light sources then I believe we should find ways of quantifying these natural sources and use them as the standard; not incandescent. If we seek to render colors accurately as they would be seen under incandescent illumination then using the CRI system is the way to go. If we seek to render colors accurately as they would be seen in daylight then a better system could be devised I believe. As I understand it, the lighting industry is addressing these issues.
To artificially simulate natural light, we need a full spectrum source that is similar in its spectrum to natural light. The RGB and other multi color sources can give us billions of colors and certainly give us a perceived "white" light but they are not full spectrum typically and there will be errors in rendering colors across the spectrum, as a result.
As I have messed with the different light sources and made feeble attempts at understanding them, I have become aware of a few things. For one, our visual perception is quite sophisticated and the process of image acquisition and interpretation is not so simple that measured numbers given to us from data collection devices can tell the whole story or even come close to quantifying, qualifying or predicting what we will see and how well we will see it. Perception is in the eyes of the beholder.
Another consideration for some of us in terms of color rendition is that of using a camera to record an illuminated image as opposed to our eyes and brain. Today's digital cameras and image software have become quite amazing and are capable of corrections and manipulations film photography could never dream of. As long as a light source has some energy present across the full spectrum, the image software can filter the image and balance the colors relative to a different, target spectrum. If you have an illumination source that is close in the spectrum you want represented in the final image then obviously you don't need to mess with corrections (but you do have the option).
In many situations, good color rendition is a bonus but not a requirement. I think we need to realize the difference between good color rendition and correct color recognition as well.
For both the eye/brain and the camera, I suspect that there are absolute as well as relative thresholds that need to be met in order for us to get the correct picture. I think of these thresholds as minimum and maximum levels of light at the different spectral points. These thresholds are relative to each other in the sense of their relative intensities. In other words, the spectral graph needs to be above zero across the visible range and any spikes need to be within some boundary line.
Ideally our artificial light source will mimic the source we seek to emulate; be it noon sun or 4k incandescent. In practicality, our source can deviate from the ideal but at what point does it become to far from the mark to provide adequate information?
To end this ramble, I agree with js that there are now some LED's that can rival the color rendition of incandescent. Cool. Unfortunately, I don't consider incandescent cool literally or figuratively and I look forward to LED sources surpassing incandescent sources and getting closer to rivaling the sun and moon in their ability to illuminate and render color.
Federal LG
Flashlight Enthusiast
Jesus!! Megan Fox in that magazine cover RULES!!
Well... I really like Fenix TK20´s Q2 LED. It have a superb color rendition, if compared with my others LED lights.
Specially in the RED color.
Well... I really like Fenix TK20´s Q2 LED. It have a superb color rendition, if compared with my others LED lights.
Specially in the RED color.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
Excellent post, Don. And for the record, it is true that I have never minded the yellowy tinge of incandescent light, and that I have indeed always felt that incans were pretty cool (figuratively speaking)--but then again, I'm a hotwire guy. LOL!
However, nonetheless, even before this whole amazing, revealing, humbling journey that started with the High CRI thread in the McGizmo forum, I always realized the the incandescent filament was not the reference standard for light. I just maintained that it was as good as it got when you couldn't use natural light. Even so, I was operating under the delusion that color rendering and perception was a lot more objective that it really is. What my recent experiences with the Gretag MacBeth ColorChecker chart, my Pentax K10D DSLR camera, and photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, and with different sources of light such as Cree and Seoul emitters, Nichia High CRI 083, and high CCT incandescent light sources --what all of these experiences have taught me is that I really didn't know what the !*&&# I was talking about before. And the upside to that is that I now know that I don't know. LOL! It's been astonishing to see how colors morph and change right under my eyes, and back again, and how the side-by-side or quick-change comparison is so different (and more extreme) than the long-term use-it-and-see-what-its-like type of comparison. As Don says, you get used to a certain source and your brain makes adjustments, and it all seems "normal" and you think of it as right and good. I've lived with incandescent flashlights in my life for so long that I never knew how much that had biased my mental perception. I still maintain that incans have superior color rendition and excel in poor weather outdoor use, but I am now much more conscious of their failings, even in the realm of color rendering. Natural light is the reference, is the "best" (if there is such a thing). You can digitally correct things, in very sophisticated and impressive ways, but it has been my (limited) experience that pictures taken using only natural light will always be superior. And, of course, you can mess with them digitally as well!
My wife is a graphic artist and has a much better eye for color than I do, and proper color management, display, and reproduction has been a recent project for me for our computer setup. Mac OS X has its own color management system known as "Color Synch" and you can provide icc color profiles for your printer, scanner, and other devices (they usually come with them, or are already in the OS), and you can color calibrate your monitor if you have the right software and a little stick-on probe to measure the color you actually get in order to compare it against what the computer actually requested. And, taking a digitally stored image with quantified colors, creates an objective reality: something which can be maintained consistently across the whole process until even the final output. But sourcing it, by taking a picture with a digital camera, or by scanning it, involves light, a specific certain light source(s), with a specific device to capture the image, pixel by pixel, and ends up reducing a complex and multi-faceted reality down to one layer, one "interpretation", if you will. That painting, or tapestry, or backpack, or shirt--what does it "really" look like? What are it's "true" colors? There is no single answer, no right or true appearance. It looks different under different light, and even different to different eyes.
So where does that leave CRI and color rendition? I think it's a lot like music reproduction, actually. Certain speakers, certain headphones, certain mics, are objectively bad in that they leave out or severely distort part of the spectrum. We can all agree that a red LED is just not good at rendering colors! Same goes for a green or a blue, or a yellow-green. There are certain colors you simply can't differentiate under red light, and most colors appear to be something totally different under a red LED than under a source with a fuller spectrum of frequencies. And certainly, we can all agree that a modern Seoul emitter is a "truer" light source than the first white 5 mm LED's. So, "bad" is pretty easy to determine.
But, "BEST" is much, much more problematic and controversial. Go to any audio forum and ask what are the "best" headphones or speakers or microphones, and you are going to find a lot of disagreement, because there is no such thing as a single best set of headphones or speakers. And scientific measuring devices won't help you out either! You can't just quantify the frequency response curve's deviation from a perfect flat-response and find the "best" speaker or headphone. The resulting scores would tell you nothing, except for which speakers or headphones were just plain bad. And not even that, in some cases, if the mic or speaker were for a special-use situation.
However, "good" is going to be a lot less controversial, especially if you provide specific information for your intended uses! You'll hear a lot of the same speakers or headphones or lights or whatever mentioned again and again. People will have their personal preferences, of course, but most will say something like "yeah, the such-and-such is pretty good, but I prefer this other whatever".
I think that's where we are with CRI and color rendering. CRI is useless, except to identify what just out and out is going to suck. It has the illusion of being objective and "scientific" because it is a quantitative measure of a light source, but that is indeed only an illusion. There is no better judge of color rendering than the two eyes in your own head. Because, after all, they are what matters to you.
I can only tell you that between the Cree in my Mule and the 083 Nichia in the Sundrop, there is no contest. When it comes to color rendering, the Sundrop is unquestionably better. And it is, in my opinion, better than an incandescent in most situations. But it's not quite as good as sunlight on a clear day, in my experience (or to my preference). But it's definitely GOOD at rendering colors. And it's the first LED light I have experienced where I could say this.
Now, many people have gotten bent out of shape when I have complained about LED light in the past. They have objected that LED light already was great, more than good enough, etc. But "good enough" for who? And for what? If color really is important to you--and this may put you in a minority--then a conventional white LED just plain isn't good enough. Objectively, clearly, NOT GOOD ENOUGH. A bunch of Crees on a bar would just not due in an art gallery. A bunch of High CRI Nichia 083's, on the other hand, would indeed be good enough! Some might still prefer tungsten halogen incans, but it would be just that: preference. The 083 would not leave any colors out, would not under-represent any colors, and would have a balance and smoothness plenty good enough for relative harmony to reign between the colors. For a long time, people have talked about an incandescent light source at 6,500 K instead of 3,500 K. If we could only find a filament material that was solid at 6,500 degrees K and electrically conductive, then we could have a real sunlight source (along with all of it's dangerous UV that the atmosphere filters out in the case of the sun). And this 6,500K CCT incan would run at about 130 lumens/watt efficiency, even without any sort of IR reflective coating or insulation to the envelope. But, of course, the challenges involved in containing such a hot filament in a transparent envelope are formidable. And I doubt we would ever find such a material, in any case, although anythings possible, I suppose.
But, no need! The 083 is fairly close to being just such a light source already. It's spectrum isn't maybe as smooth as the sun's, but it's a pretty good approximation of it. Closer than any other source I've seen or heard about. And I've had plenty of experience with the Solux (and similar) modules with the special reflectors that allow reds to pass through, raising the CCT of the light from the filament. They certainly lack the yellowiness of incans, but they aren't as good as the Sundrop. Taking away some of the predominant part of the spectral curve isn't going to add anything to the part of the curve where it is low (or zero).
Everyone I know of who has experienced the Sundrop will tell you the same thing: it provides the highest quality light (for color rendering) of any LED light they have used. It's good. It's very good. And it portends great things to come.
However, nonetheless, even before this whole amazing, revealing, humbling journey that started with the High CRI thread in the McGizmo forum, I always realized the the incandescent filament was not the reference standard for light. I just maintained that it was as good as it got when you couldn't use natural light. Even so, I was operating under the delusion that color rendering and perception was a lot more objective that it really is. What my recent experiences with the Gretag MacBeth ColorChecker chart, my Pentax K10D DSLR camera, and photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, and with different sources of light such as Cree and Seoul emitters, Nichia High CRI 083, and high CCT incandescent light sources --what all of these experiences have taught me is that I really didn't know what the !*&&# I was talking about before. And the upside to that is that I now know that I don't know. LOL! It's been astonishing to see how colors morph and change right under my eyes, and back again, and how the side-by-side or quick-change comparison is so different (and more extreme) than the long-term use-it-and-see-what-its-like type of comparison. As Don says, you get used to a certain source and your brain makes adjustments, and it all seems "normal" and you think of it as right and good. I've lived with incandescent flashlights in my life for so long that I never knew how much that had biased my mental perception. I still maintain that incans have superior color rendition and excel in poor weather outdoor use, but I am now much more conscious of their failings, even in the realm of color rendering. Natural light is the reference, is the "best" (if there is such a thing). You can digitally correct things, in very sophisticated and impressive ways, but it has been my (limited) experience that pictures taken using only natural light will always be superior. And, of course, you can mess with them digitally as well!
My wife is a graphic artist and has a much better eye for color than I do, and proper color management, display, and reproduction has been a recent project for me for our computer setup. Mac OS X has its own color management system known as "Color Synch" and you can provide icc color profiles for your printer, scanner, and other devices (they usually come with them, or are already in the OS), and you can color calibrate your monitor if you have the right software and a little stick-on probe to measure the color you actually get in order to compare it against what the computer actually requested. And, taking a digitally stored image with quantified colors, creates an objective reality: something which can be maintained consistently across the whole process until even the final output. But sourcing it, by taking a picture with a digital camera, or by scanning it, involves light, a specific certain light source(s), with a specific device to capture the image, pixel by pixel, and ends up reducing a complex and multi-faceted reality down to one layer, one "interpretation", if you will. That painting, or tapestry, or backpack, or shirt--what does it "really" look like? What are it's "true" colors? There is no single answer, no right or true appearance. It looks different under different light, and even different to different eyes.
So where does that leave CRI and color rendition? I think it's a lot like music reproduction, actually. Certain speakers, certain headphones, certain mics, are objectively bad in that they leave out or severely distort part of the spectrum. We can all agree that a red LED is just not good at rendering colors! Same goes for a green or a blue, or a yellow-green. There are certain colors you simply can't differentiate under red light, and most colors appear to be something totally different under a red LED than under a source with a fuller spectrum of frequencies. And certainly, we can all agree that a modern Seoul emitter is a "truer" light source than the first white 5 mm LED's. So, "bad" is pretty easy to determine.
But, "BEST" is much, much more problematic and controversial. Go to any audio forum and ask what are the "best" headphones or speakers or microphones, and you are going to find a lot of disagreement, because there is no such thing as a single best set of headphones or speakers. And scientific measuring devices won't help you out either! You can't just quantify the frequency response curve's deviation from a perfect flat-response and find the "best" speaker or headphone. The resulting scores would tell you nothing, except for which speakers or headphones were just plain bad. And not even that, in some cases, if the mic or speaker were for a special-use situation.
However, "good" is going to be a lot less controversial, especially if you provide specific information for your intended uses! You'll hear a lot of the same speakers or headphones or lights or whatever mentioned again and again. People will have their personal preferences, of course, but most will say something like "yeah, the such-and-such is pretty good, but I prefer this other whatever".
I think that's where we are with CRI and color rendering. CRI is useless, except to identify what just out and out is going to suck. It has the illusion of being objective and "scientific" because it is a quantitative measure of a light source, but that is indeed only an illusion. There is no better judge of color rendering than the two eyes in your own head. Because, after all, they are what matters to you.
I can only tell you that between the Cree in my Mule and the 083 Nichia in the Sundrop, there is no contest. When it comes to color rendering, the Sundrop is unquestionably better. And it is, in my opinion, better than an incandescent in most situations. But it's not quite as good as sunlight on a clear day, in my experience (or to my preference). But it's definitely GOOD at rendering colors. And it's the first LED light I have experienced where I could say this.
Now, many people have gotten bent out of shape when I have complained about LED light in the past. They have objected that LED light already was great, more than good enough, etc. But "good enough" for who? And for what? If color really is important to you--and this may put you in a minority--then a conventional white LED just plain isn't good enough. Objectively, clearly, NOT GOOD ENOUGH. A bunch of Crees on a bar would just not due in an art gallery. A bunch of High CRI Nichia 083's, on the other hand, would indeed be good enough! Some might still prefer tungsten halogen incans, but it would be just that: preference. The 083 would not leave any colors out, would not under-represent any colors, and would have a balance and smoothness plenty good enough for relative harmony to reign between the colors. For a long time, people have talked about an incandescent light source at 6,500 K instead of 3,500 K. If we could only find a filament material that was solid at 6,500 degrees K and electrically conductive, then we could have a real sunlight source (along with all of it's dangerous UV that the atmosphere filters out in the case of the sun). And this 6,500K CCT incan would run at about 130 lumens/watt efficiency, even without any sort of IR reflective coating or insulation to the envelope. But, of course, the challenges involved in containing such a hot filament in a transparent envelope are formidable. And I doubt we would ever find such a material, in any case, although anythings possible, I suppose.
But, no need! The 083 is fairly close to being just such a light source already. It's spectrum isn't maybe as smooth as the sun's, but it's a pretty good approximation of it. Closer than any other source I've seen or heard about. And I've had plenty of experience with the Solux (and similar) modules with the special reflectors that allow reds to pass through, raising the CCT of the light from the filament. They certainly lack the yellowiness of incans, but they aren't as good as the Sundrop. Taking away some of the predominant part of the spectral curve isn't going to add anything to the part of the curve where it is low (or zero).
Everyone I know of who has experienced the Sundrop will tell you the same thing: it provides the highest quality light (for color rendering) of any LED light they have used. It's good. It's very good. And it portends great things to come.
Last edited:
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
Mmmmm. Indeed. I don't normally buy GQ magazine, but that one had *cough* some really good articles in it.
