Thoughts on high CRI

[iamlucky13]

I agree.

for me the most important factors when selecting an LED in a light tend to be:

1. Lumens and Intensity - whole purpose of the device is to create light. It's not useful if it doesn't create enough. For throwers, Intensity may matter even more than lumens.

2. Color temperature - I hate cool-white tints and much prefer neutral. The difference between good and bad color temperature is instantly evident the second the light is turned on.

3. Tint - I prefer rosy tints below the black body line and dislike the greenish tints above the line. However, this is more subtle than color temperature and the eyes will get used to bad tint pretty quickly except in cases where the tint is exceptionally bad.

4. CRI - much more subtle than any of the previous factors. Difference between high and low CRI is virtually unnoticeable unless I hold a low and high CRI light next to each other and compare beams.

Bottom line: CRI is nice to have, but the effect is so subtle it's not worth sacrificing any of the other factors to get. It's easily the least important factor when choosing an LED. I'll take a rosy-tinted 80 CRI light over a greenish tinted 93 CRI light any day.

I don't disagree, but really though, we shouldn't have to sacrifice 1-3 to get 4. I grant that there aren't many lights that meet most of our individual preferences, but there are LED's that can do it for most applications.

 

[eh4]

To me the high CRI works best with warmer color temp and lower light levels, subjectively it seems like I'm getting more information from the reflected light, and my pupils are staying more dilated as well.
To see clearly with a cooler and lower CRI led I'm using more lumens and not liking the view as much either.
For high intensity lighting I'd be happy with neutral to cool lighting with sufficient CRI.

Additionally, too bright, cool light seems easier on my eyes than too bright, warm light.

 

[Fireclaw18]

Is high and low CRI really that similar?

Or is 65-70 "low" CRI actually not that bad that 90 CRI icing on the cake

The examples you give aren't realistic to the choices I face when buying LED lights.

None of the commonly available quality LEDs are 30 CRI. Also I always go for neutral color temps over cool white temps when given a choice. Typically, the CREE LEDs in the 4000-4500K color temp range in my lights are around 80 CRI.

So the choice I face is usually an 80 CRI vs. a 90+ CRI high CRI. And to get the high CRI I almost always have to sacrifice a significant amount of lumens, intensity, tint, body options, user interface, etc. I've got a light that's high CRI with 5000K color temp and greenish tint. The beam looks absolutely horrible next to any of my 4500K rosy tinted lights with lower CRI.

When I first started exploring LED flashlights here and on BLF I saw all the hype over high-CRI and jumped on the bandwagon. High CRI was THE thing to have. I HAD to have it! But then after obtaining a sizeable collection I started to draw my own conclusions from experience rather than just following the hype. And I concluded that high-CRI simply isn't worth it most of the time. And it rarely makes a noticeable difference.

CRI, at least when it comes to realistic choices in LED lights, is VASTLY overrated, in my opinion.

I have at least a dozen high-CRI flashlights. I use none of them, because their beams are inferior to the best of my lower CRI lights. Not just in lumens and throw but also in tint and color temp. The only high CRI light that I own that I actually still use on a regular basis is my Zebralight H604c headlamp. High CRI makes sense in that light since I primarily use it for close up hobby painting of models and miniatures at my desk. For painting, I want to see all the colors in max detail, so the extra CRI helps. Also, since the high-CRI emitter in that light is a CREE XHP 50.2, I didn't have to sacrifice lumens to get it. And the color temp is nice.

 

[Fireclaw18]

I don't disagree, but really though, we shouldn't have to sacrifice 1-3 to get 4. I grant that there aren't many lights that meet most of our individual preferences, but there are LED's that can do it for most applications.

Unfortunately, we almost always have to make that choice.

If we were looking at a light that had same lumens and intensity, color temp, and tint... and the only difference between 2 versions of that light was CRI. Well then of course we would all choose the high-CRI option.

But that's not the choice we typically face when buying LEDs or an LED light. Almost always selecting high CRI means sacrificing something else that's probably more important.

 

[iamlucky13]

Unfortunately, we almost always have to make that choice.

If we were looking at a light that had same lumens and intensity, color temp, and tint... and the only difference between 2 versions of that light was CRI. Well then of course we would all choose the high-CRI option.

But that's not the choice we typically face when buying LEDs or an LED light. Almost always selecting high CRI means sacrificing something else that's probably more important.

I wouldn't go as far as seeking out identical output, etc before choosing high CRI. I'll happily take a 20% lumens decrease for a 20 point CRI increase, and that's in the approximate ballpark of what the tradeoff really is within a given emitter family (again, I grant that lights that offer the equivalent choice aren't often available). I'd probably even be willing to take a 30% or perhaps 40% reduction in lumens for those 20 points. In return, I will be able to see objects of some colors even better than with the brighter light.

Since in many cases the tint is also better (there may be an exception for some XP-L2 lights - eg: Zebralight "C" models versus "W" models), and most emitter families are available in a range of color temperatures, I further re-emphasize that we shouldn't have to sacrifice 1-3 to get 4.

What we do need, however, is for light manufacturers to start actually offering the choices that are available.

 

[Modernflame]

But that's not the choice we typically face when buying LEDs or an LED light. Almost always selecting high CRI means sacrificing something else that's probably more important.

Each consumer has to weigh these things. For me, it's usually total output that's less important. I say "usually" because I might reconsider if I were genuinely in need of a SAR light.

I'll happily take a 20% lumens decrease for a 20 point CRI increase...

Generally in agreement here.

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

Once I got my first high CRI LED flashlight, there was no going back. I won't even consider buying a "high-end" light if it's not high CRI.

 

[InvisibleFrodo]

I don't understand why multiple people have suggested that in order to get a high CRI light there has to be a sacrifice in tint, beam quality, and in at least one case, body options, user interface, and such...

I can't understand this. There is no reason why a high CRI light can't have similar tint, or come in the exact same body, have the exact same beam pattern, use the same user interface, the same driver, etc. I'm not sure what kind of high CRI lights these are because there are no specific lights named. However all of that is the opposite of my experience. Good quality lights with well chosen emitters don't exhibit the ugly tints that some have seemed to suggest that high CRI lights are "stuck with".

I will concede that high CRI will with almost absolute certainly come at the expense of lumens and most likely efficiency. That is a personal judgement call. I'll take light quality over light quantity any day.

 

[ven]

I agree with a few posts here, which are actually different in wants. Some are not over bothered, prefer a nice beam and high output over lower output HI CRI etc etc, others are happy for a lumen drop to have a higher CRI rating etc etc

I can see and understand why in both examples. Maybe after all this time, 219b maybe my overall fav or certainly up there. Some dont like the loss of lumens, others may not like the "tint". I have found over the years like mr frodo, i am happy to take a loss in lumens in many lights as i simply dont need 1000's of them. As i can get by easily on 200 or so lumens, its not as important for me personally. Where i do want high output/throw, then the xhp35 HI 5000k nails it. Very nice on the eye, nice "tint" and maybe 80 CRI(maybe less) but in this respect i dont care.

For EDC or close up tasks(not firing light 1000yrds down field for fun and WOW's), i do enjoy my 4000-5000k nichias. I also enjoy most neutral white flavours, xhp50, xhp HI and xm-l2 to name some.

Its certainly interesting seeing everyone's points, but even if i dont agree with each one 100% , i can certainly understand why they would feel that way and make decisions that way.
For me the temp and tint do come first, i do want hi cri given the choice for EDC type uses, but not at the expense of the others(as proved with xp-l2).

It does not suit all, but for a higher output, yet retaining hi cri and the tint/colour temp wants, triples and quads fixed me. I dont need max throw, just a decent balance and that was my answer .
Some triple and quad 219b/219c as examples, least bright would be the sportac at around 600+ lm(900 +LED lumen), others over 1000lm(quad/h17f)

Not everyone wants a p60 host, there are other options for smaller and still a triple

As with everything subjective, just my solution to some of the issues with lumens and hi cri.

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

People tend to exaggerate the loss of lumens in a high CRI emitter. Remember, you need a 4x increase in output for a perceived doubling in brightness, so the perceptible difference in brightness between a 300 lumen cool white emitter and a 200 lumen high CRI emitter will be negligible. However, the accurate color rendering of high CRI enhances depth perception and object recognition compared to cool white, so you can see better with high CRI even if there are technically fewer lumens out the front.

 

[FRITZHID]

People tend to exaggerate the loss of lumens in a high CRI emitter. Remember, you need a 4x increase in output for a perceived doubling in brightness, so the perceptible difference in brightness between a 300 lumen cool white emitter and a 200 lumen high CRI emitter will be negligible. However, the accurate color rendering of high CRI enhances depth perception and object recognition compared to cool white, so you can see better with high CRI even if there are technically fewer lumens out the front.

Absolutely. [emoji106]

 

[Fireclaw18]

I don't understand why multiple people have suggested that in order to get a high CRI light there has to be a sacrifice in tint, beam quality, and in at least one case, body options, user interface, and such...

I can't understand this. There is no reason why a high CRI light can't have similar tint, or come in the exact same body, have the exact same beam pattern, use the same user interface, the same driver, etc. I'm not sure what kind of high CRI lights these are because there are no specific lights named. However all of that is the opposite of my experience. Good quality lights with well chosen emitters don't exhibit the ugly tints that some have seemed to suggest that high CRI lights are "stuck with".

I will concede that high CRI will with almost absolute certainly come at the expense of lumens and most likely efficiency. That is a personal judgement call. I'll take light quality over light quantity any day.

It has to do with availability.

MOST manufacturers don't produce high-CRI lights. There isn't the demand for it. So if I want to get one of those manufacturer's lights its either buy the low-CRI version, or try to emitter swap to high-CRI if I can find a suitable high-CRI replacement.

And finding suitable high-CRI replacements isn't easy or cheap. And some lights are glued making emitter swaps difficult.

Also, very often the high-CRI emitters available aren't the same emitter as in the low-CRI version. If the high-CRI version is using an inferior emitter, then the reduction in output may be even more pronounced. Example: Zebralight SC64c at 900 lumens (and with ugly greenish tint) using an XPL2, vs. SC64w at 1400 lumens (with beautiful rosy tint) using an XHP35.

And the difference in output was even more pronounced with some of Zebralight's earlier lights: Compare the SC62d at 300 lumens vs. the SC62w at 900 lumens for example.

 

[markr6]

And the difference in output was even more pronounced with some of Zebralight's earlier lights: Compare the SC62d at 300 lumens vs. the SC62w at 900 lumens for example.

That's a good example of where I pass on the high CRI. That's a big difference, so the only thing that matters to me is, "does the SC62w have a good tint?" If yes, I'm happy. If no, then I'll try another. An SC62d and a SC62w with a good tint are both about equal to me. Clearly different CCT, but equal in terms of quality light.

 

[majid]

I won't consider any light under 90 CRI anymore, and I am obsessive enough about it that I bought a UPRtek spectrometer to verify it.

 

[ven]

With my sc62d, I very rarely use the H1 output. The H2 145lm is used pretty much solely as my do it all (like single mode) output. Lights like the HDS have helped me adapt easy to lower output(so to speak as 320lm is still ample and some for most of my applications ) lights. I grabbed a few lights for a few days break, HDS hi cri rotary 200lm, ZL sc600 HI and plus, cl25r . For compact high output ,the m43vn for extra fun!

Its certainly nice to have bigger outputs, certainly in work where I have to fight against artificial light. But in reality 100-300lm is more than sufficient . We all have different wants and needs, for some , sub lumens are a must(I don't care for these levels as find useless most of the time ). I would much prefer a few lumens to see if needed middle of the night. Then others who would never consider a light with less than 1000. No rights or wrongs, if I lived out in the sticks or my vision was not the best, or simply because I only wanted super bright lights, then i would be the same. I do have crazy bright, I always will, but I don't actually need them most of the time. Of course that's what modes are for, don't need the 1000lm, use low or medium! or ramping UI to perfect output.

In fact other than the many factors (LED/driver/colour temp/CRI/tint/UI/form factor/beam type/tail or side switch/forward/reverse clicky etc etc ) the mode levels and groups are important for me. For work uses, I always look for a level between 100-200lm for main use. This could be used for minutes or hours at a time. I want enough light, without heat and run time issues. Then I don't want too cool or too warm light, prefer flood to throw for work applications. But I also prefer a short cut or easy way to high for max light now and the..

Out for a night walk I like colours and ideally bright, camping I like warmer and more atmospheric lighting. I could get throw with a single light(be it a ZL or HDS etc) but as we are spoilt, certain lights are better for certain uses, heck why not have many for different times/uses. It's all fun, sure would be boring if we all liked the same and lights just came in one flavour!

 

[wolfgaze]

I won't consider any light under 90 CRI anymore, and I am obsessive enough about it that I bought a UPRtek spectrometer to verify it.

Nice...

 

[bykfixer]

Hard to tell in the photo because, well... my phone cam sucks but...
I can easily ID dark blue from black, olive from gray etc etc with my 2011 Inova X1.

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

It has to do with availability.

MOST manufacturers don't produce high-CRI lights. There isn't the demand for it. So if I want to get one of those manufacturer's lights its either buy the low-CRI version, or try to emitter swap to high-CRI if I can find a suitable high-CRI replacement.

And finding suitable high-CRI replacements isn't easy or cheap. And some lights are glued making emitter swaps difficult.

Also, very often the high-CRI emitters available aren't the same emitter as in the low-CRI version. If the high-CRI version is using an inferior emitter, then the reduction in output may be even more pronounced. Example: Zebralight SC64c at 900 lumens (and with ugly greenish tint) using an XPL2, vs. SC64w at 1400 lumens (with beautiful rosy tint) using an XHP35.

And the difference in output was even more pronounced with some of Zebralight's earlier lights: Compare the SC62d at 300 lumens vs. the SC62w at 900 lumens for example.

Lightbulb manufacturers are starting to get it. Many of them have started listing color temperature and CRI on the packaging.

 

[deezspergers]

The 219b is really something special. It really does reproduce colors in a peculiar way that is more like sunshine than anything else.

I have a light with a 5000k NW XPL and x4 5000k 219c and compared to the 219b they both had this almost exaggerated presentation of the red specrum because it can't properly represent the higher end of red's wavenlengths (going into orange).

The 219b is the most surreal and sublime LED out there.

 

[bykfixer]

Highway departments and power companies now spec 80 CRI for LED installations.

Many street-scapes still use incandecent though.

A project I oversaw in 2016.

I spec'd an LED array for a corner light.

4700 kelvin, 10,000 lumens, 87 CRI by Phillips.
It wasn't installed when the photo was taken and I moved to another project, but I understand people were pleased. The idea came from interstate use in Miami FL.

So, yeah I think CRI is over rated, but the customer gave me $5000 to buy a streetlight and install it, so I picked the most modern one they could afford.