Phaserburn
Flashlight Enthusiast
Definitely.
Personal Area (Lantern)
- Thread starter rtginc
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
RI Chevy
Flashlight Enthusiast
I like the photos too!
Things I like about this light:
1. it takes an 18650
2. is relatively small
3. is regulated
4. has multiple outputs
5. has a warm tint.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with lanterns is glare. The brighter the light source, the greater the glare for that particular lantern.
Some designs produce more glare than others:
1. there are the multiple emitter style that project their central beam onto a conically shaped diffuser (hitting it in multiple spots) and the lantern's outer globe is semi-translucent. examples of this style are the favourlight clones, Siege, UST 30 and 60 day lanterns.
(people report these lights to have, little to no, or at least an acceptable amount of glare)
2. there are the single emitter lanterns that project their beam onto a reflective cone; there are two subsets:
2a the beam and its reflection (from the cone) are enclosed in a columnar diffuser (example is the Ozark Trail 300)
These have been reported to have a bit of glare at higher outputs, but are acceptable at lower outputs
2b. the beam and its reflection are not encased in a diffuser.
These typically are not high output and even at lower outputs, they have been reported to have a bit of glare.
I imagine that at high output the glare would be totally unacceptable.
3. there are lanterns that have multiple emitters directed horizontally, through a diffuser.
This style is typically lower lumens with poor quality leds. Emitting blue tint, lots of glare, and not too much light.
4. there are relative new comers with higher lumens, that have received reports of little, or at least, an acceptable amount of glare. They have multiple emitters mounted so that they project vertically within a semi-translucent diffuser. (examples are the fenix CL20, and the coleman 1000 CPX-6)
5. Then there are the energizer lights/lanterns with "Light Fusion technology"
They offer quite possibly the least amount of glare relative to their output.
----------------------------------------------------------
Given the above, the design of this lantern will produce the MOST amount of glare, except at very low lumens. At very low lumens, the electronics are not so important because the LED load on the batteries is so low that, even in unregulated lights, they run for extended periods of time with little change in output.
Honestly, I do not understand the interest in this light. As I mentioned above there are aspects that I really do like, but the moderate to high lumen output GLARE is a killer for me.
I THINK that if this is to be a high lumen output lantern that the LEDs will have to be oriented differently. UNLESS, the glare can be reduced, maybe by bending the light (like with fiber optics) and using "Light Fusion technology" methods of diffusing the light. Yes I know that this is the second time that I mentioned this, but the first time the suggestion was ignored, or at least not commented on. Given the orientation of the LEDs, I THINK using the methods of the "light fusion tech" is the best way to diffuse the lights and still be able to maintain a relatively small size.
1. it takes an 18650
2. is relatively small
3. is regulated
4. has multiple outputs
5. has a warm tint.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with lanterns is glare. The brighter the light source, the greater the glare for that particular lantern.
Some designs produce more glare than others:
1. there are the multiple emitter style that project their central beam onto a conically shaped diffuser (hitting it in multiple spots) and the lantern's outer globe is semi-translucent. examples of this style are the favourlight clones, Siege, UST 30 and 60 day lanterns.
(people report these lights to have, little to no, or at least an acceptable amount of glare)
2. there are the single emitter lanterns that project their beam onto a reflective cone; there are two subsets:
2a the beam and its reflection (from the cone) are enclosed in a columnar diffuser (example is the Ozark Trail 300)
These have been reported to have a bit of glare at higher outputs, but are acceptable at lower outputs
2b. the beam and its reflection are not encased in a diffuser.
These typically are not high output and even at lower outputs, they have been reported to have a bit of glare.
I imagine that at high output the glare would be totally unacceptable.
3. there are lanterns that have multiple emitters directed horizontally, through a diffuser.
This style is typically lower lumens with poor quality leds. Emitting blue tint, lots of glare, and not too much light.
4. there are relative new comers with higher lumens, that have received reports of little, or at least, an acceptable amount of glare. They have multiple emitters mounted so that they project vertically within a semi-translucent diffuser. (examples are the fenix CL20, and the coleman 1000 CPX-6)
5. Then there are the energizer lights/lanterns with "Light Fusion technology"
They offer quite possibly the least amount of glare relative to their output.
----------------------------------------------------------
Given the above, the design of this lantern will produce the MOST amount of glare, except at very low lumens. At very low lumens, the electronics are not so important because the LED load on the batteries is so low that, even in unregulated lights, they run for extended periods of time with little change in output.
Honestly, I do not understand the interest in this light. As I mentioned above there are aspects that I really do like, but the moderate to high lumen output GLARE is a killer for me.
I THINK that if this is to be a high lumen output lantern that the LEDs will have to be oriented differently. UNLESS, the glare can be reduced, maybe by bending the light (like with fiber optics) and using "Light Fusion technology" methods of diffusing the light. Yes I know that this is the second time that I mentioned this, but the first time the suggestion was ignored, or at least not commented on. Given the orientation of the LEDs, I THINK using the methods of the "light fusion tech" is the best way to diffuse the lights and still be able to maintain a relatively small size.
Last edited:
rtginc
Newly Enlightened
Hi Poppy,
Thanks for your detailed breakdown. I appreciate the input! Here are my responses:
It looks like we're firing on almost all cylinders here. The only one we're missing (and it's a big one), is the multiple brightness levels, and automatic shut off! I'd also argue that we are the smallest, but I'll leave that up to the consumers to decide.
This is a universal problem, and one that I find the most amusing. We are in agreement -you cannot have a super bright light without experiencing glare.
We have performed comparisons on quite a few of these lanterns. For lanterns advertising 300 lumens, one would think that they should actually deliver. The LED might, but if you were to actually measure the luminous flux from each device, I think you might be surprised at what you find. Of course, if they weren't actually outputting their advertised lumens, it would be easy to reduce glare.
Here are our videos:
The Siege: http://youtu.be/pZMzqrszPEM
Rayovac SE3DLN: http://youtu.be/82AeK8Ni10c
Here are some more favourlight and similar devices:
CREE 40426 / Favourlight LTC-1613AA-W: http://youtu.be/G17pFV5VNNw
Kelty Lumatech: http://youtu.be/1sx5dJDVuxY
This is the category we fit into. I would argue that this is also the same category that gas powered lanterns using a mantle fit into as well. However, I would also argue that glare at high output is acceptable, especially if you need the light (such as in the picture I posted above -imagine changing a tire, roadside at night).
The only lanterns I can think of in this particular style are the Coleman Micropacker and maybe the XtremeBright LED Camping Lantern:
http://youtu.be/yqQto-3tuzo
They are exactly as you say, however I would assert that the light output is mostly due to the quality of the LED, and less to do with the diffuser / reflector configuration. In my opinion, less material in series with the light source = greater light output.
We haven't examined these lanterns yet, but they operate on similar philosophies to existing products. The CL20 is reminiscent of the Ivation Mini LED lantern (which I might argue is a better design, only larger).
The Coleman CPX-6 1000 lumen lantern makes a bold claim. Anything outputting 1000 lumens is definitely going to be unpleasant to look at, yet the light source is clearly exposed, encased in a diffuser. There is something fishy about that.
The Light Fusion Technology has to be one of the most amazing pieces of marketing I have witnessed thus far. The concept is extremely simple: shine a light into a piece of plastic. The light bounces around inside the plastic, and is ultimately projected out. I believe we have seen this trick performed countless times through fiber optic light toys.
Again, we have not examined this lantern directly, but I cannot imagine that it's output is significant by any means. However, I will make sure we purchase one of these for a comparison video.
Yes, at it's highest level of brightness, this lantern produces a significant amount of light. And yes, I would say that it does produce a significant amount of glare, as would any light source that is actually producing the advertised number of lumens!
The catch is this: we have 15 logarithmic settings.
Here is a PDF that contains the settings, with the calculated lumen outputs and runtimes: http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0400/4533/files/60072.pdf?943
And, in my ever so biased opinion, regulated light output -even at very low levels of light, is extremely effective.
The main point that I would like to make is this: we wanted to make a lantern that is well suited for multiple scenarios. If the light is too bright, decrease the brightness. If the light is to dim, increase the brightness. You aren't locked in or restricted to a single brightness level by any means.
I apologize for not acknowledging you earlier, but I hope this addresses your initial post.
And here's the catch: we're going to fabricate the diffuser that I linked above. It already performs in the exact same way as the energizer "Light Fusion Technology" lanterns work. Our "lens" is approximately 1/16 of an inch in thickness. The light will enter the lens, bounce around, and exit. The only difference is that our LED's are exposed.
My opinions and statements are obviously biased, but I hope to express some truth along the lines.
Thanks for your detailed breakdown. I appreciate the input! Here are my responses:
It looks like we're firing on almost all cylinders here. The only one we're missing (and it's a big one), is the multiple brightness levels, and automatic shut off! I'd also argue that we are the smallest, but I'll leave that up to the consumers to decide.
This is a universal problem, and one that I find the most amusing. We are in agreement -you cannot have a super bright light without experiencing glare.
We have performed comparisons on quite a few of these lanterns. For lanterns advertising 300 lumens, one would think that they should actually deliver. The LED might, but if you were to actually measure the luminous flux from each device, I think you might be surprised at what you find. Of course, if they weren't actually outputting their advertised lumens, it would be easy to reduce glare.
Here are our videos:
The Siege: http://youtu.be/pZMzqrszPEM
Rayovac SE3DLN: http://youtu.be/82AeK8Ni10c
Here are some more favourlight and similar devices:
CREE 40426 / Favourlight LTC-1613AA-W: http://youtu.be/G17pFV5VNNw
Kelty Lumatech: http://youtu.be/1sx5dJDVuxY
This is the category we fit into. I would argue that this is also the same category that gas powered lanterns using a mantle fit into as well. However, I would also argue that glare at high output is acceptable, especially if you need the light (such as in the picture I posted above -imagine changing a tire, roadside at night).
The only lanterns I can think of in this particular style are the Coleman Micropacker and maybe the XtremeBright LED Camping Lantern:
http://youtu.be/yqQto-3tuzo
They are exactly as you say, however I would assert that the light output is mostly due to the quality of the LED, and less to do with the diffuser / reflector configuration. In my opinion, less material in series with the light source = greater light output.
We haven't examined these lanterns yet, but they operate on similar philosophies to existing products. The CL20 is reminiscent of the Ivation Mini LED lantern (which I might argue is a better design, only larger).
The Coleman CPX-6 1000 lumen lantern makes a bold claim. Anything outputting 1000 lumens is definitely going to be unpleasant to look at, yet the light source is clearly exposed, encased in a diffuser. There is something fishy about that.
The Light Fusion Technology has to be one of the most amazing pieces of marketing I have witnessed thus far. The concept is extremely simple: shine a light into a piece of plastic. The light bounces around inside the plastic, and is ultimately projected out. I believe we have seen this trick performed countless times through fiber optic light toys.
Again, we have not examined this lantern directly, but I cannot imagine that it's output is significant by any means. However, I will make sure we purchase one of these for a comparison video.
Yes, at it's highest level of brightness, this lantern produces a significant amount of light. And yes, I would say that it does produce a significant amount of glare, as would any light source that is actually producing the advertised number of lumens!
The catch is this: we have 15 logarithmic settings.
Here is a PDF that contains the settings, with the calculated lumen outputs and runtimes: http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0400/4533/files/60072.pdf?943
And, in my ever so biased opinion, regulated light output -even at very low levels of light, is extremely effective.
The main point that I would like to make is this: we wanted to make a lantern that is well suited for multiple scenarios. If the light is too bright, decrease the brightness. If the light is to dim, increase the brightness. You aren't locked in or restricted to a single brightness level by any means.
I apologize for not acknowledging you earlier, but I hope this addresses your initial post.
And here's the catch: we're going to fabricate the diffuser that I linked above. It already performs in the exact same way as the energizer "Light Fusion Technology" lanterns work. Our "lens" is approximately 1/16 of an inch in thickness. The light will enter the lens, bounce around, and exit. The only difference is that our LED's are exposed.
My opinions and statements are obviously biased, but I hope to express some truth along the lines.
LEDAdd1ct
Flashlight Enthusiast
I just wanted to state how much I appreciate you stopping by to answer questions here.
It can be very difficult to get the "straight dope" about a product directly from the horse's mouth,
and it is very cool to have you participate in this forum.
Please post pics with the diffuser once you get it in production.
It can be very difficult to get the "straight dope" about a product directly from the horse's mouth,
and it is very cool to have you participate in this forum.
Please post pics with the diffuser once you get it in production.
I agree with LEDAdd1ct :thumbsup:
The point that I am trying to make, and I guess I didn't do it sufficiently well, is that LEDs pointing straight out of the side of the lantern will produce more glare than any other configuration. The diffuser that you currently have on the lantern, is NOT the same as what is used on the "Light Fusion Tech" lanterns.
HERE is a discussion of that diffuser by others.
The best that I can describe it, is that the LED is pointed directly INTO the EDGE of acrylic, and it is diffused throughout the acrylic. The light is then released by way of little prisms etched into the acrylic for a smooth dispersal of the light. I imagine that if the acrylic was shaped to follow the curve of the body of the lantern, that the light would pretty much follow the curve (as it does with fiber optics).
Gotta run.
I recently bought a Energizer 150 lumen Pop-Up lantern with "Light Fusion Technology" at Target for $15
I'll write a review of it, and maybe get set up so that I can include pictures, sometime in the near future.
At any rate, I took it apart to see what it looked like on the inside. IMO the way that they refract the light for the LEDs is brilliant! Honestly, I don't know if this is an already tried, and true, long time used method for side lit LED screens or not, but It struck ME as brilliant. LOL... but, what do I know
It has three surface mounted LEDs, that are in a horizontal line, aimed straight towards the front.
The LEDs are mounted just below the dark grey casing of the lantern so that they are not directly visible.
This makes all of the light that comes from it a diffused, or reflected light, (unless you look down into the lantern from above). This greatly reduces the glare that is produced when one, looks directly at the LED.
In front of the LEDs is a semi-cylindrical acrylic cylinder that runs the width of the lantern, this collects the light, spreads it out, and directs it to the pop-up light panel.
The bottom of the light panel, is cut at an angle, (perhaps 45 degrees, I didn't measure it) so that it collects the light from the semi-cylindrical acrylic cylinder.
The light is then spread out, throughout the pop-up panel.
I am looking forward to having some time to play with this lantern, but from the very little I used it, I like it and the way that it spreads its light out.
I also picked up an acrylic swan shaped night light, and shined a flashlight into the edge of it. It appeared that the light did follow the bends in the acrylic.
I mention all this, thinking that perhaps the PAL could be better designed, with the LEDs located, no longer centered, but rather nearer one end or the other, and obscured by the PVC, (so as to eliminate the direct glare) and a 360 degree diffuser can encircle the entire lantern.
Yes this design change will make the lantern larger in diameter, but will make it a "pocket rocket" of a lantern.
I'll write a review of it, and maybe get set up so that I can include pictures, sometime in the near future.
At any rate, I took it apart to see what it looked like on the inside. IMO the way that they refract the light for the LEDs is brilliant! Honestly, I don't know if this is an already tried, and true, long time used method for side lit LED screens or not, but It struck ME as brilliant. LOL... but, what do I know
It has three surface mounted LEDs, that are in a horizontal line, aimed straight towards the front.
The LEDs are mounted just below the dark grey casing of the lantern so that they are not directly visible.
This makes all of the light that comes from it a diffused, or reflected light, (unless you look down into the lantern from above). This greatly reduces the glare that is produced when one, looks directly at the LED.
In front of the LEDs is a semi-cylindrical acrylic cylinder that runs the width of the lantern, this collects the light, spreads it out, and directs it to the pop-up light panel.
The bottom of the light panel, is cut at an angle, (perhaps 45 degrees, I didn't measure it) so that it collects the light from the semi-cylindrical acrylic cylinder.
The light is then spread out, throughout the pop-up panel.
I am looking forward to having some time to play with this lantern, but from the very little I used it, I like it and the way that it spreads its light out.
I also picked up an acrylic swan shaped night light, and shined a flashlight into the edge of it. It appeared that the light did follow the bends in the acrylic.
I mention all this, thinking that perhaps the PAL could be better designed, with the LEDs located, no longer centered, but rather nearer one end or the other, and obscured by the PVC, (so as to eliminate the direct glare) and a 360 degree diffuser can encircle the entire lantern.
Yes this design change will make the lantern larger in diameter, but will make it a "pocket rocket" of a lantern.
Joys_R_us
Newly Enlightened
I am waiting for the Fenix lantern CL25R to pop up in January. It seems to be a better designed direct competitor...
Phaserburn
Flashlight Enthusiast
Anyone have an update?
Phaserburn
Flashlight Enthusiast
I'm hoping this light didn't stop diffuser development.
Phaserburn,
You have many more lanterns than I, so I am wondering... do you have any, or have you seen any, lanterns that project their light, straight out the sides (even through a diffuser), that you like?
Why so much interest in this light?
IMO, it needs a redesign.
Phaserburn
Flashlight Enthusiast
Poppy, this lantern seemed to have a lot going for it in terms of quality components, UI/circuitry, tint, ruggedness and durability, and small size/form factor. That, and it uses a single 18650, which I like.
Any straight projectors through the side? None I can think of. They either project vertically through a diffusion screen (Energizers) or tube, or vertically through a cone/reflector with frosting.
The new Fenix lantern may step into this role for me, however, as it might be close enough. I'm hoping the Fenix is a warm enough tint.
Any straight projectors through the side? None I can think of. They either project vertically through a diffusion screen (Energizers) or tube, or vertically through a cone/reflector with frosting.
The new Fenix lantern may step into this role for me, however, as it might be close enough. I'm hoping the Fenix is a warm enough tint.
LEDAdd1ct
Flashlight Enthusiast
rtginc, are you out there?
Phaserburn
Flashlight Enthusiast
helloooooo! :sigh:
DenBarrettSAR
Enlightened
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 260
Interesting light. Would be a nice one to add to my 100 + LED lanterns collection.
RI Chevy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Maybe an email through his company might be better? He has been MIA.
Phaserburn
Flashlight Enthusiast
I'm guessing the diffuser never came to fruition. Pity.
RI Chevy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Its been 15 months and counting since he has made a response. I am surprised at the lack of communication from the company.
I'd go with an Email directly through the company website and see if they are still in business. I don't imagine that too many were sold at the price.
I'd go with an Email directly through the company website and see if they are still in business. I don't imagine that too many were sold at the price.
parametrek
Enlightened
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 578
The milky plastic diffuser appears to be a standard feature now.
Anyway, I came across this light completely by accident. Did a bunch of research and was extremely pleased by everything I saw. It is obvious that a huge amount of thought went into this design. You guys are now listed in my database and I hope you'll have more products soon
One request - could someone who has one of these lanterns measure the candela it produces? I have not been able to find that piece of information anywhere.
Anyway, I came across this light completely by accident. Did a bunch of research and was extremely pleased by everything I saw. It is obvious that a huge amount of thought went into this design. You guys are now listed in my database and I hope you'll have more products soon
One request - could someone who has one of these lanterns measure the candela it produces? I have not been able to find that piece of information anywhere.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Thrunite rocks !!! Whats your favorite brand ?!?
- Latest: CarpentryHero
-
-
-
-