4Sevens Neutral White (XP-G R4 - 4C0 or 4D0) Q-Mini AA Comparison Review

[UnknownVT]

This is a full-production Neutral White XP-G R4 - 4C0 or 4D0 tint bin
Q-Mini AA as shipping now for the latest limited run by 4Sevens.

Size -

Notice how the black Q-Mini AA looks slimmer than the Titanium version?
It's just the color/optical illusion - measuring with electronic calipers they have the same diameter at the head and the tail.

Head -

the NW are just barely more yellow than the Cool white whereas the Warm White is quite noticeably more yellow-brown.

Where do these new NW stand on the chromacity chart?

These 4C0 or 4D0 are in the blue-gray outline - ther previous XP-E Q3 5A or 5A3 NW are in the green circle and the recent Warm White are the XP-G Q5 7A or 7B in the red outline.

So the first $64K question is how do the new NW compare with the previous run of NW -
well just looking at the chart - although they are adjacent - the newer NW should be a bit cooler at about 4300K vs. the previous 4100K -
so is this really detectable?

vs. previous run XP-E Q3 5A3 4Sevens Q-MiNi AA Titanium Neutral White both max and NiMH

yes, it is detectable - one can see the newer NW is cooler and seems to have a slightly greener tint - which could mean that I have a 4C0?

vs. XP-E Q3-5A Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA both max and NiMH

again the newer NW is cooler and with a slight green tint in comparison.

I am surprised that the brightness level difference isn't greater between the new R4 and the previous Q3 - but the XP-G R4 does have a noticeably bigger hotspot which could easily account for the extra lumens.

OK so we see that this newer 4C0 (or 4D0) is very slightly but just noticeably cooler in comparison than the previous 5A and have a slight green tint.

vs. Cool White XP-E R2 4Sevens Quark AA

Obvious difference in tint - but the difference in brightness level isn't that great - although one has to take into account that the XP-G R4 does have a noticeably bigger hotspot - so it is probably brighter overall.

vs. XP-G Q5 7A3 or 7B3 4Sevens Quark AA-Warm tactical

this comparison seems to emphasize the slight green tint of the NW. There's a difference between the beam profiles because the Q-Mini head has a smaller diameter than the Quark AA (note the Warm Quark AA-T is a made up one from the head of a Quark AA2-Tactical on a single AA body)

In real life I like the NW - and these latest ones seem to me to be even more "neutral" than the previous run - the 5A bin seems to be more brownish in comparison - one does not really notice the greenish tint which shows up in the photos - if anything I think I like these new NW more......

 

[Colorblinded]

Re: 4Sevens Neutral White (XP-G 4C0 or 4D0) Q-Mini AA Comparison Review

Nice comparison.

I got my Mini AA NW as well, on top of the Quark AA2 NW. Both are from the current XP-G run. I've also got a Quark AA2 WW from the current/recent XP-G run. The two NW look slightly different to my eye but it's hard for me to be 100% certain.

I'm planning to do some pics myself to compare them (and some other lights), hopefully tomorrow.

 

[StarHalo]

Re: 4Sevens Neutral White (XP-G 4C0 or 4D0) Q-Mini AA Comparison Review

I ordered a pair of Neutral MiniAAs; one is slightly warmer with a yellow tint and one is slightly cooler with a green tint. (I wish someone sold these in person so I could hand-pick a "perfect" one..)

 

[UnknownVT]

Re: 4Sevens Neutral White (XP-G 4C0 or 4D0) Q-Mini AA Comparison Review

I got my Mini AA NW as well, on top of the Quark AA2 NW. Both are from the current XP-G run.
The two NW look slightly different to my eye but it's hard for me to be 100% certain.

OK....
if you did comparisons at lower levels then there may be a wrinkle -
The Quark series proper have levels controlled by current regulation -
whereas the Q-Mini series are done with (very fast) PWM.

This makes a difference to the tint at lower levels.

The Q-Minis using PWM are basically driven with the same current at all levels - albeit sliced by PWM -
but the Quark has lower currents for correspondingly lower levels.

When driven by lower currents emitters generally become warmer with a tendency toward green.

Whereas a PWM light - the tint should basically remain the same (allowing for brightness level)

So if that is what you've noticed - it is quite normal -
the way to compare the tints - is to use the Quark AA2 on a single AA (body) and see if the max level gives the same tint as the Q-Mini AA on max... kind of like I did in the comparison beamshots with the previous XP-E Q3 5A NW run.

I ordered a pair of Neutral MiniAAs; one is slightly warmer with a yellow tint and one is slightly cooler with a green tint.

Tint differences can give the illusion of being cooler - the 4C0 or 4D0 are within a relatively narrow color temperature range - but our eyes ought to be sensitive enough to be able to see samples that's at the two extremes.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that your greener one may be a 4C0 - like I suspect mine is - and the more yellow one (or maybe more pink?) could be a 4D0?

 

[Colorblinded]

Re: 4Sevens Neutral White (XP-G 4C0 or 4D0) Q-Mini AA Comparison Review

OK....
if you did comparisons at lower levels then there may be a wrinkle -
The Quark series proper have levels controlled by current regulation -
whereas the Q-Mini series are done with (very fast) PWM.

This makes a difference to the tint at lower levels.

The Q-Minis using PWM are basically driven with the same current at all levels - albeit sliced by PWM -
but the Quark has lower currents for correspondingly lower levels.

When driven by lower currents emitters generally become warmer with a tendency toward green.

Whereas a PWM light - the tint should basically remain the same (allowing for brightness level)

So if that is what you've noticed - it is quite normal -
the way to compare the tints - is to use the Quark AA2 on a single AA (body) and see if the max level gives the same tint as the Q-Mini AA on max... kind of like I did in the comparison beamshots with the previous XP-E Q3 5A NW run.

I'm aware of this, and I expected it when I received the two different lights to be honest. Was just interesting to note that I could see the difference (I have relatively poor color vision).

Tint differences can give the illusion of being cooler - the 4C0 or 4D0 are within a relatively narrow color temperature range - but our eyes ought to be sensitive enough to be able to see samples that's at the two extremes.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that your greener one may be a 4D0 - like I suspect mine is - and the more yellow one (or maybe more pink?) could be a 4C0?

In practical use I suspect you wouldn't normally see much if any difference when you aren't A-B comparing them.

 

[UnknownVT]

Re: 4Sevens Neutral White (XP-G 4C0 or 4D0) Q-Mini AA Comparison Review

In practical use I suspect you wouldn't normally see much if any difference when you aren't A-B comparing them.

This is very true -
sometimes even gross differences aren't seen when using the lights in isolation without reference to another light.

Hence the more than acceptable blueish white light from older 5mm LED flashlights - in fact some used to like those claiming they were really pure "white"......

 

[UnknownVT]

vs. Cool White 4Sevens Quark AA-R5

I am a bit surprised at how noticeably brighter the Cool White R5 seems in this comparison.

So I removed the colors/tints by desaturation leaving the just luminance to make the comparison easier -

same comparison beamshots Color desaturated -

Heads comparison:

 

[Colorblinded]

How did you desaturate the images? In photoshop desaturate just averages the RGB values and produces a neutral image whereas "convert to grayscale" takes in account the varying brightnesses we perceive in colors that might have the same brightness if simply desaturated.

Just a quick google search demonstrating this: http://www.inkjetart.com/tips/grayscale/

 

[UnknownVT]

How did you desaturate the images? In photoshop desaturate just averages the RGB values and produces a neutral image whereas "convert to grayscale" takes in account the varying brightnesses we perceive in colors that might have the same brightness if simply desaturated.

Just a quick google search demonstrating this: http://www.inkjetart.com/tips/grayscale/

desaturate was literally sliding the saturation level down to zero -
literally removing the colors only.
- using greyscale is supposed to give bias toward colors our eye are sensitive to - kind of panchromatic.

BUT that is NOT the effect I wanted here - I really literally just want to see the luminance/lightness/brightness levels without influence of the eyes' bias toward any color - sort of like how a light meter would measure......

ie: I do want exactly what you just said: " desaturate just averages the RGB values and produces a neutral image "

I do not want to take a b&w panchromatic photo (which I could have easily done) as that would literally bias toward certain colors - exactly NOT the effect I want.

Ideally if I had full PhotoShop I could have used CIE LAB color and the "L" channel, but I don't -

There was a quite detailed discussion of this some years ago -
please see Posts #94 , #97, #114 (links)
in Puny LED flashlights (Not!) + COLOR RENDITION Comparison

(I had several e-mail with images exchange with that CPF member and in the end they concluded for look-see visual comparison - desaturation of a Macbeth chart was good enough)

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Colorblinded]

LAB was another option, I just didn't feel like going there

Obviously depending on the severity of the tints of LEDs presented the difference between the different methods could range from negligible to noticeable. It's definitely interesting to compare the two. The desaturated luminance would compare the measured brightness whereas the 'convert to grayscale' or LAB (even better being designed to be perceptually uniform) should compare the perceived difference in brightness between two tints that might otherwise have the same luminance.

Thanks for the links btw, fun read. I think I might just throw that comparison in when I get some beam shots.

 

[UnknownVT]

LAB was another option, I just didn't feel like going there

same here - not just because I don't have it -
but because not many actually understand CIE LAB color.

Obviously depending on the severity of the tints of LEDs presented the difference between the different methods could range from negligible to noticeable. It's definitely interesting to compare the two. The desaturated luminance would compare the measured brightness whereas the 'convert to grayscale' or LAB (even better being designed to be perceptually uniform) should compare the perceived difference in brightness between two tints that might otherwise have the same luminance.

This is the whole point I was trying to illustrate - one can see the colored comparisons (within the photographic limitations - my apologies, I am being pedantic - as this discussion seems to be that way ) with all the eyes' sensitivities bias etc (including any personal bias toward certain colors)

I mean - why would I want to present in b&w what our eyes can already see in the color beamshot?

What I was trying to show - without using a light meter
was how the luminance would show qualitatively discounting color/tint -
and the easiest way was to remove the color -

in fact PhotoShop Elements actually has a Remove Color command which is basically desaturate.

from the PS Elements Help page

" The Remove Color command converts to black and white by assigning equal red, green, and blue values to each pixel in an RGB image. The overall brightness of each pixel remains constant. This command has the same effect as setting Saturation to -100 in the Hue/Saturation dialog box.

1. To adjust a specific image area, select it with one of the selection tools. If no selection is made, the adjustment applies to the entire image.
2. Choose Enhance > Adjust Color > Remove Color. "

Hope that has clarified and justified for you what I was trying to do -
As I said I have been here before and had to discuss and justify what I was doing (over 2 years ago) -
and all it was - a simple technique to illustrate qualitatively how the brightness would compare without the influence of color or tint -
I didn't expect it to become quite a Federal case .
The other options suggested although may be useful elsewhere -
they are not applicable here, for what I was trying to do.

Thanks,

 

[Colorblinded]

Haha sorry, just having some fun thinking out loud along with you. Sorry, as this has all been covered before I'm not really meaning to go through it all again.

I could have been more pedantic with my choice of words too but I'm sort of alt tabbing back to this while doing other things so my mind is wandering a bit

 

[Xak]

My old Quark Tactical 123^2 with NW XP-E Q3 5A is my favorite tint of them all. It has a tighter hot spot than the new XPG and, although not technically as bright, it is plenty bright and the perfect tint makes up for it in my book. My favorite EDC.

 

[UnknownVT]

My old Quark Tactical 123^2 with NW XP-E Q3 5A is my favorite tint of them all. It has a tighter hot spot than the new XPG and, although not technically as bright, it is plenty bright and the perfect tint makes up for it in my book. My favorite EDC.

I compared this NW (XP-G R4 4C0 or 4D0) with the XP-E Q3-5A Neutral White 4Sevens Quark AA above in the OP - second set of beamshots - and one can see the difference in beam profiles and that this new XP-G R4 (4C0 or 4D0) is cooler with a slight bit of green.

It's funny but now that I have the newer NW 4C0 or 4D0 to compare the older 5A looks kind of brownish, and the newer NW look kind of "neutral" - and despite having said one might not notice the difference in isolation - I am a bit surprised that I think I can recognize the difference in tint even in isolation.....

 

[B0wz3r]

Vincent,

thanks for the great info... the posts by you and Selfbuilt are the ones I always seek out first for the best and most thorough info on any light or lighting issue I want to get the straight dope on. :twothumbs

I received my QAA2-NW last week and my experience accords with yours; it definitely has a greenish cast to it, even at the highest power levels. I only really notice it when white-wall hunting or when comparing it to my EZAAw which lives on my keychain. I know the output levels will make some difference in tint, but the Q3 emitter in my little Nitecore seems more yellow to me than brown.

Not that the new Quark isn't a great light, but that greenishness definitely puts me off. I'm EDC'ing it now as my primary backup light after my EZAAw (which lives in my pocket and I use 90% of the time).

So now I've decided that I can't deal with cool tints anymore and am only going to get neutrals from now on... I'm also finding I prefer throwier beams too, so am strongly considering a Jetbeam, since they seem to throw well from what I've seen, and are also available with the Q3 emitter. Any thoughts on the Jetbeams, or any reviews you've done you could point me to for more info?

Thanks again for all your great work here... your posts are a pleasure to read and are the ones I always seek out first when reading here (along with SB's too )

:thanks:

 

[UnknownVT]

I received my QAA2-NW last week and my experience accords with yours; it definitely has a greenish cast to it, even at the highest power levels. I only really notice it when white-wall hunting or when comparing it to my EZAAw which lives on my keychain. I know the output levels will make some difference in tint, but the Q3 emitter in my little Nitecore seems more yellow to me than brown.

Not that the new Quark isn't a great light, but that greenishness definitely puts me off. I'm EDC'ing it now as my primary backup light after my EZAAw (which lives in my pocket and I use 90% of the time).

So now I've decided that I can't deal with cool tints anymore and am only going to get neutrals from now on... I'm also finding I prefer throwier beams too, so am strongly considering a Jetbeam, since they seem to throw well from what I've seen, and are also available with the Q3 emitter. Any thoughts on the Jetbeams, or any reviews you've done you could point me to for more info?

I agree with you - I am a great admirer of SelfBuilt's reviews.

I do notice the greenish tint on these new NW when using it on the back of my hand and sometimes when shining on corrugated cardboard - otherwise it doesn't seem that noticeable.

Like you I am less and less enamored with cool whites -
although I really would like to see a bin 3A emitter at about 5000K and on the Planckian locus - which is approximately the color temperature of sunlight (I can wish, can't I?:duh2 instead of the too cool - blue-greenish cool white that all seem to be 6500K and possibly above due to every single manufacturer driving these to the max (I believe most bins' color temperatures are rated at the standard 350mA - so driving at 700mA max in some cases, surely must drive up the color temperature - hence the too cool too blue cool whites that we see so often).

It is not the Q3 (which is only a flux rating) that makes the difference in hotspot concentration - it is because the previous runs were using XP-E which has a different die-size - hence the difference in hotspot and possibly throw.

Sorry I do not have access to any JetBeam NWs - but unless the heads have noticeably larger reflectors - it would be hard to imagine that they could out-throw the XP-E NW Quarks by any notable distance - especially considering an aspect that seems to go unnoticed by many - the Quarks have very well centered emitters - that means not only are the beams smooth - they also make the most of/optimized the throw the emitter/reflector are capable of.

A possible option, if you want slightly better throw, is to get hold of one of the previous run XP-E Q3 5A NW Quarks.

 

[StarHalo]

Any thoughts on the Jetbeams, or any reviews you've done you could point me to for more info?

Unless your Quark is a Turbo, most any Jetbeam will out-throw it, and any of the Jetbeams that are larger than the 1xAA format will out-throw a Turbo Quark by a sound margin.

 

[B0wz3r]

Vincent,

Thanks for the info... I've been considering getting one or two of the Q3-5A Quark heads now as they are relatively inexpensive and available separately from 4Sevens.

After the advice I've gotten from you and some others here on the neutral lights, and the JetBeams vs the Quarks, you're verifying for me what I've been thinking for a while.

I've been reading up on the JetBeams, and my primary interest in them is their small size and high output. I'm searching for a light that can go between my pocket and a TwoFish bike block on my bicycle helmet as I am a regular bike commuter and am always looking for a way to reduce the no. of gizmos I have to carry and make them lighter/smaller at the same time. I also like a throwier beam because I like to have the extra range provided, particularly while I'm biking.

So at this juncture, I think the way to go is a couple of the Quark XPE NW heads, and I can just lego them onto the AA^2 bodies I have. Then eventually I'll get a 1xAA tube (or two) and some 14500's for them to reduce their size and weight, once I get the funds.

Thanks again for all your advice. It has been a challenge finding lights that are versatile enough to go back and forth from pocket to bike helmet, but somehow after all the different ruminations I go through about this, I keep coming back to the Quarks in one way or another.

 

[B0wz3r]

Unless your Quark is a Turbo, most any Jetbeam will out-throw it, and any of the Jetbeams that are larger than the 1xAA format will out-throw a Turbo Quark by a sound margin.

Your advice here agrees with what I've read from various reviews here on CPF and beamshots I've looked at. I'm very tempted to go with a JetBeam, but right now I need to consider my funds and the simplest (and cheapest) solution for me right now is as I mentioned to Vincent above, in accord with his recommendation, to go with the neutral XPE Quarks. They'll lego with the Quark equipment I've already got, so I think I'm going to wait to get a new JetBeam.

 

[UnknownVT]

At first I thought it was just infatuation with Neutral Whites since they were new and remove almost any possibility of blue-green tints (as in most seemingly over blue Cool Whites).

But over time I have consistently favored NW over Cool White and even the Warm Whites.

I have never been an incandescent fan - but do understand the vision enhancement that they seem to give in more outdoors situations - and medical usage.

NW seems to me a good compromise between cool white and warm white.

I have yet to see a Cool White at the color temperature of sunlight (5000-5500K) on the Planckian locus like Cree bin 3A.

However our eye/brain adjusts for different lighting conditions.

At lower light levels we tend to favor light with more yellow/amber content - seeing that as "white".
The most obvious is regular household tungsten lighting - most people persist in seeing that as "white" - yet when compared to daylight/sunlight it is very yellow/amber.

These articles help explain it -

Kruithof curve - Wikipedia

The Color of White

these are well worth reading......

These latest NW 4Sevens run seem like a very good tint selection - I think mine are 4C0 (tending a little toward green) - possibly even better than the previous 5A run - and although the bins are adjacent and there is only a 200 deg K difference in color temperature - I think even in isolation I can tell the difference and favor the latest NWs over the older XP-E Q3 5As.