Re: HDS Systems EDC # 15
P4 is what was used in previous HDS lights, correct?
Correct, and more specifically it's either the S42180 (4000K CCT) or N42180 (3000K CCT). I've always been told that its CCT is 4000K, although some photos taken under its illumination appear orangish to the point where I can't be sure. The S42180 has a large peak in the orange range of the visible spectrum, just like the N42180 has, which means that orange is going to be emphasized either way, making it hard to tell its CCT due to the many unknown variables involved in examining photos taken by others.
Because if my high CRI Clicky is any indication it's much closer to warm than neutral.
It may be "warm," it may be on the warm side of "neutral" due to manufacturing variation, it may be "neutral" (~4000K) with a peak in the orange range (as its spectral power distribution graph indicates), or a combination these possibilities. It is for this reason that I chose not to purchase this version of the flashlight, as impressed as I was--at least at the time--with its 93 CRI. In fact, this was what first made me doubt the usefulness of CRI in evaluating color rendering accuracy, and everything I've learned about CRI and from my experiences with using flashlights with varied spectra since then has confirmed my doubts.
Well, if it's color rendering you value then you should know that the H51c at 83 CRI lags behind the HDS offerings at 90+ CRI.
I'm not sure where you got 83, but it is rated by the manufacturer as having a minimum of 80 and a typical value of 85. A few months ago that would have meant something to me, but not anymore.
Reading some of the early reports of the H51c, many users were disappointed that it didn't make colors "pop" like they were expecting from an emitter marketed as "high CRI" with some reporting that it was little better than a standard neutral white (read bluish) emitter.
The purpose of color rendering accuracy is not to make colors "pop" (more than they should) but to render them accurately. To make them really "pop" requires exaggerating certain wavelengths, usually in the red range of the visible spectrum. I find that my H51c makes many colors "pop" a little bit more than the typical neutral white LED due to its higher red output, but at the same time it's not overly red to the point where it adds any more "pop" or "richness" than objects should have like most (not all) other high-CRI LEDs do (sort of like putting on BluBlockers
Although I fully acknowledge that we all see a little differently (or maybe even a lot in some cases), I wouldn't be surprised if somebody expressed disappointment in the H51c/SC51c (same LED) even if their eyes and visual perception were exactly like mine. That's because they may be looking for something different, such as more "pop" or a specific tint rather than what I personally define as accuracy. I'm quite pleased that it gives me the accuracy--relative to sunlight--that I'm seeking, or something pretty darn close to it. I've always found artificial light sources lacking in this respect, whether they "pop" or not.
I appreciate the tone of your posts, but I think you're trying to make a subjective judgement sound like an objective one.
Although what I've said does include both subjective and objective elements, I assure you that there was no deliberate attempt to confuse the two. Critical readers should be able to sort them out, I think.
A CRI of 90 will render colors more accurately than 80 at any color temperature. This is undeniable.
It is neither undeniable nor self-evident. I think that my arguments and examples are sufficient to introduce doubt with regard to placing blind faith (as I once did, effectively) in CRI as an indicator of color rendering accuracy. I tried to do it in a way that laymen (myself included) could understand, but there are people with much better credentials who are thinking the same thing, as evidenced in the following links:
What it sounds like is that you prefer cooler tints over warm and judge those colors to be more "accurate" even at a lower CRI and therefore technically less accurately rendered than a warm emitter with a higher CRI. That's fine, and your preference isn't wrong, but I think it's somewhat misleading to downplay the importance of a high CRI for accurate color rendering.
My personal preferences are no secret, and I don't hide the fact that they form the perspective from which I discuss these issues. This is perfectly natural since this particular discussion started when somebody accused those who have such a perspective of making no sense (which I suppose implies that those who have other perspectives are making sense :ironic
. In response, I tried my best to make sense out of my (and others') perspective, without invalidating other perspectives (we all have different preferences and goals).
As for CRI, there are many good reasons to rightfully downplay its importance--particularly where phosphor-based LEDs are concerned. I've given a few of my own, as well as references to the harsh criticisms of professionals for everybody here to peruse. If anything that I or they said is wrong, then by all means refute it--I'd rather be corrected than mistaken while still believing that I'm right (and misleading others).
Generally speaking, CRI is crude and only useful for certain cases. Because of this and the fact that by definition it only measures accuracy against an ideal reference of the same CCT
, it is virtually useless as an indicator of the color rendering accuracy of, say, 4000K LEDs against an ideal 5800K source such as sunlight. Does this make sense? I'm saying that if a specific 4000K LED renders colors very much like my ideal of 5800K sunlight does (with some flaws, of course), then its CRI--due to the very definition of CRI--will in all likelihood be lower than that of other 4000K LEDs that come closer to the theoretical ideal 4000K source. The problem is that I don't care about the ideal 4000K source while CRI--by definition--does, therefore the higher CRIs of these other LEDs means nothing to me. This would be true even if CRI were a PERFECT method of determining accuracy, but in reality it is far, FAR from that.