Why the obsession with a totally smoothround beam?

I've read a lot of posts where a certain product (any product) is given a totally trash review if it has some rings, artifacts etc in the beam. What is it with the obsession with a totally smooth beam?

I've found that even the ringy Mag reflector produces a good beam in real world use. (Tight spot with a good flood beam) I'm not slagging those who shine lights at a white wall for subjective testing, but i don't even notice a lot of rings and artifacts in white wall testing. Maybe i'm just not conditioned to look for a non-reflectorized beam from a reflector/optic. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

This is discounting the fact that a smoother beam is inherently less bright than a ringy beam (orange peel vs smooth reflector surface)

I evaluate flashlights/beams based on brightness and spread, not on the number of rings i can count. For example, my Dorcy has a number of artifacts, but it is a very useful light because of the excellent brightness and spread.

So what is it with the obsession with rings? Holes i can empathize with, but rings and artifacts matter very little in the "real world".

Tip for those looking for a smooth flood beam: Try just taking out the reflector/optic. Better than sand-blasting, bead-blasting, sanding and what not a reflector.

We don't use reflectors with incandescents at home, where a flood beam is naturally desired. However, when using a hand-held source, especially one with a tight spot, rings and artifacts are of little consequence. Much lesser than what most people think.

Just my two cents.

when hiking, beams with artifacts actually can be pretty bothersome.. especially around the campsite, or anywhere else with smooth surfaces you might scan with a light..

"rings" in the beam actually turn into *wrap-around holes* when used beyond a certain distance..

"artifacts" in the beam aren't really that bothersome if there's just a few.. but @ a certain distance they start to open up into bigger patches of blackness..

a consistently smooth beam guarantees you wont overlook any detail, or strain your eyes by scanning to different parts of your flashlight's beam, or cause you to wave your flashlight's beam around to scan so much.

Maglites, in general, really aren't THAT bad when it comes to rings and artifacts since they have a great focusing mechanism.. but when you're walking around your campsite, compared a Maglite to another light with a consistently smooth beam, and you'll probly put the Maglite away..

When picking up a mag, I find myself immediately trying to dial in as smooth a beam as possible. Mags are still plenty useful, but I do find the beam quality irritating.

When clearing a building at night I need to quickly identify whatever is in the beam, and not be distracted by the rings, or miss something that might fall into an artifact.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

[ QUOTE ]
Mark_Larson said:
I've found that even the ringy Mag reflector produces a good beam in real world use.

So what is it with the obsession with rings? Holes i can empathize with, but rings and artifacts matter very little in the "real world".


[/ QUOTE ]

I respectfully disagree. While I'm not exactly an old-timer or an expert at this obsessive little hobby, it does seem to me that the smooth beam from a faceted or textured reflector makes for easier seeing than a splotchy beam, independent of the total brightness. Sure, I can see the same things with a splotchy, ringy beam, but I feel my eyes tire quickly. A smooth beam, on the other hand, is a pleasure to use.

But there can be no denying that enthusiasts of any stripe often obsess about minutia beyond all logic and reason. Personally, while I understand the criticism of the ringy, splotchy beams that perfectly smooth reflectors make, I think there are a lot of "dime-store" class lights with faceted reflectors that are, while not SureFire smooth, plenty good enough, and further improvements won't much change the light's real-world utility.

The fact that quite a few el-cheapo lights have faceted reflectors may be part of the reason some of us get so upset about a bad beam. Obviously, making decent beam is neither expensive or difficult, so it's frustrating that some manufacuturers stubbornly persist in their old habits.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

Lagged2Death summed it up well. For me,too, it's contrast. A large contrast between rings, artifacts, and central spot, obscures objects and detail. The smooth transition of a good LED provides an easy to view scene. The smooth transition of my Scorpion's bright spot with the surrounding spill combines throw and useful near field visibility.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

Fact of the matter is that if you use an imperfect beam, your eyes and your mind have to compensate for the holes in the visual image. In extended use, it can get tiring (as others have stated).

I prefer perfect beams, even if it means a slight loss in total brightness. I have enough Pelicans and Mags to "know" the imperfect beam, and I hate it. Give me my Surefires and Arcs any day.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

There are folks around who agree with you, Mark, about beam smoothness. My thinking on this has been evolving a little. Once you see a Surefire smooth beam, it's really hard to go back. But as a practical matter, I'm coming around to thinking that some level of artifacts are okay if I'm looking to optimize other things (like, say, throw).

I personally find that the worst Maglites I've seen are just plain too ringy and artifacty to be worth consideration. I'll take some level of less-optimal smoothness at times, but at some point it becomes distracting at normal tasks.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

Hello Mark,

Other's have presented good points that I agree with.

Let me add another consideration. When you spend a lot (say more than $30) on a light, you expect to get something for the extra money. While using the light, it is difficult to admire the finish of the light (but you can feel it) because you are focused on the beam.

If you show someone this wonderful expensive flashlight you have and turn it on, any artifacts and rings will immediately be pointed out in a derogatory manner. On the other hand, if the beam is even and smooth, OOOH's and AWE's are heard. They still chuckle at the price, but appreciate the quality of the beam.

Tom

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

When i really USE a flashlight, it is almost always as a task light at distances from inches to a few feet.

I favor a smooth round beam over a tight, long throwing light.

I feel so strongly about it, that all my M*gs have Writeright. Also all but one light I had with a very tight beam are up for sale or already gone!

The beam from a P60 lamp module is a wonderful thing! The beams from MOST textured reflectors ain't bad either!

I have very little use for a smooth reflector!

Obsessive? Yep!

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

A smooth beam is nice but being able to focus is also good too. Most smooth beam can't be focused.

In my personal use, last week, I had to work on a computer's harware (opening the box to put stuffs in it). My Scorpion is default on tight focus and that was way too bright pointing 2 feet into a computer. That is when the focusable feature came very handy. Even though it has rings on wide focus mode, it was very usefull for close-up work.

So, debate between a smooth beam or a focusable beam could be a new discussion by itself.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

I agree with most of what you're saying Mark. I've found that in most different hobbies I've picked up over the years whether audio, hiking/camping, automobile, or knife/flashlight related, there is a very vocal fringe that is extremely obsessive, but most real world users don't care nearly as much about it (beam perfection in this case).

Sure if you're using a powerful light like most 2 or 3 123 incan lights (or a rechargeable like a Tigerlight) for several hours a night and shining it inside a building on smooth surfaces, an imperfect beam could get annoying. Most people however, aren't using lights like that.

A beam has got to be pretty bad for me to not use the light though, much worse than your average Mag. I've used quite a few different lights for work at different jobs, for recreation, and for emergency uses. If I'm focusing on the task at hand (instead of the light), just about anything of Mag quality or better will do.

All that being said, I'd still prefer a flashlight with a "perfect" beam if all other things were equal. I still love my Surefires.

-Keith

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

I find this issue to be too important to be "discussed" in few words. I'll try...

If you use a knife, you want its blade well sharpened. If you play a piano, you want it well tuned. I can continue ad libitum... the examples extends to any professional use of any tool or instrument.

It is, in my opinion, nothing of obsessive nature. A perfect, round and even beam is the result of perfect engineering for demanding users, who can distinguish the density of illumination of the target by the naked eye.

So far, and until light manufacturers will not introduce dedicated optics, the stochastic type of reflector together with a lamp assembly manufactured with tight tolerances, is simply the best choice for professional illumination. The same considerations applies to LEDs.

The most acute sense of the five human senses is the sight. It is the most refinable, but also the most easy to trick: the pre-knowledge of the best lighting condition distinguish the professional from the casual user.

This is why the round and even beam of SF and Arc lights go strong among pros. If anybody is happy with rings and artifacts, he may not have an eye exercized to evaluate any furter.

Anthony

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

While I'm not obsessed with a "perfect" beam, who wouldn't prefer one?
Anybody have problem with their eyes that distorts their vision?
Is your vision better with prescription glasses?
I can tell the difference between a quality scope, or pair of binoculars in use because of light and color transmission, as well as clarity of image.
A flashlight beam is no different. What I'm looking at, the conditions, and the distance, may determine just how much difference the beam quality makes, but the whole point is to be able to clearly see something I couldn't before, just like with a scope or binoculars.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

[ QUOTE ]
CalgaryGuy said:
A smooth beam is nice but being able to focus is also good too. Most smooth beam can't be focused.

In my personal use, last week, I had to work on a computer's harware (opening the box to put stuffs in it). My Scorpion is default on tight focus and that was way too bright pointing 2 feet into a computer. That is when the focusable feature came very handy. Even though it has rings on wide focus mode, it was very usefull for close-up work.


[/ QUOTE ]

Seems to me that you're not actually talking about focusing the beam--you're talking about changing the brightness. With the new Arc4 and upcoming Arc5, you'll be able to have both a smooth beam and variable brightness.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

To me the argument is somewhat like the difference between many audiophiles and people who love music. Most people who love music may own hundreds or thousands of CD's/LP's and enjoy listening to the music on whatever equipment they own or have available, whether it is a stock car stereo or a boombox or a $5,000 home stereo setup. The music lover enjoys listening to the music. An audiophile will typically spend much more on the equipment to play the music, than on the music itself. He enjoys listening to the excellent playback his high dollar equipment gives him, and how it delivers the music accurately, like he was there, live. In essence he enjoys listening to the equipment.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with either viewpoint, and both sides usually fail to identify with the other way of thinking. Personally I'd rather spend $1000 on more music than on a new CD player that should be better than my current $400 CD player. The analogy can break down before too long, but some people are perfectly happy with imperfect beams even though they are aware of better flashlights and can afford them. I have a friend who does HVAC work, and carries a AAA MiniMag in his shirt pocket. He has seen and played with all of my lights, but the MiniMag does what he requires out of a light. I'm still working on him, but not everybody (even people who use lights every day as part of their jobs) feels the need for a SureFire quality beam.

-Keith

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

[ QUOTE ]
Luciferase said:
Seems to me that you're not actually talking about focusing the beam--you're talking about changing the brightness. With the new Arc4 and upcoming Arc5, you'll be able to have both a smooth beam and variable brightness.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Scorpion can't change brightness, it can only change focus. I was comparing how usefull a focusable light compared to a smooth non-focusable light with a bright hot spot.

Variable brighness is also good but not many light have that feature at this moment. The ideal light would be both, variable focus and variable brighness.

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

[ QUOTE ]
TheProphet said:
I find this issue to be too important to be "discussed" in few words. I'll try...

If you use a knife, you want its blade well sharpened.

[/ QUOTE ]

TP -- On the other hand, to continue your analogy, what does "well sharpened" mean? On my razor blade, it means razor polished and ground at 12 degrees inclusive. On my axe, that kind of edge means I've traded off too much strength for cutting ability, so it means coarse finished and ground at 45 degrees inclusive. In other words, there are multiple qualities for the "perfect" edge for a particular application, and if you get too focused on just improving one, eventually you find yourself de-tuning the rest.

Like a razor-sharp blade on a knife, you don't get a perfect smooth round beam for free. It may not be a universal rule, but in my experience, for a Surefire-quality beam, you give up both brightness and throw. For many uses, beam quality is paramount, but I can definitely see uses where more brightness (or more runtime for the same brightness) and throw would be the better choice. I do admire the relentless search for excellence, and I think our near-obsession with beam quality reflects that search; I also think it's worth re-examining whether we've become a little too focused on one particular feature.

That's exactly where I am now. I'm not sure I'll ever be happy with Maglite-quality beams, but for certain types of lights, I'm thinking hard about whether it wouldn't make sense for me to get a little more brightness and throw, if I can end up with beam quality somewhere between Maglite and Surefire. 'course, I may end up deciding that I do indeed demand only Surefire quality beams.

Joe

Silly me. I assumed my beam requirements were just a spillover of the same for the female breast.

(Yes, I know - I need to get out more often).

Re: Why the obsession with a totally smoothround b

There is a certain comfort in not being a perfectionist in some areas of life.

I like smooth round beams, but I have never been dissatisfied with Mag Lights, and if it were not for the size I would not particularly want anything else.

I can't imagine a circumstance, including clearing a building, where the beam of a Mag Light would not be entirely satisfactory. I don't much care if I can see pimples on a face, as long as I can see the face and anything he holds. It does not take a perfect beam or 200 lumens to do that.

But I agree that if one pays the price that the Surefires for example go for he should get a superb instrument and the beam should be commensurate with that level of quality.

But it doesn't have to be that good to be very useful. I wonder how I have gotten through a lifetime without ever needing more than a Mag Light, though it is too large to carry in one's back pack or pocket.

As for knives, I sharpen mine so that it will cut an individual dry hair on my arm. I used to carry a small steel to touch up the edge when I cleaned and skinned big game. I have some very high quality knives, but a Case or other production knife does as well in the field. It is a situatiion where you touch it up often, or after a longer time spend more time getting it sharp again.

I think a lot depends on whether in flashlights, knives, guns or whatever, one wants a work of art for the pride of ownership or as a tool to do a good job. It doesn't take a $160 light to get to where you want to go in the dark ot to change a tire, and a beam with some rings will allow you to see well enough to do what needs doing.

Jerry