Have LED's really caught up with incans?

[Kiessling]

Hey guys !
No one touches Eva Green, right? No one! 😀 :nana:

I see incan as a lightsource that is as far from the truth than LED is, only more inefficient and less long lasting. But incan is beautiful and a very comfortable light, which LED is not yet. Except for the 083 that I have.

And ... incan has some other advantages that LEDs can't match yet ... like IR filter use and fog penetration, for example.

Either way ... whatever we may or may not agree upon, incan is doomed. Which is sad.

bernie


P.S.: Lux ... you wanna see a nice throwing LED beam in a small package that destroys incan throw of the same size ... check the SF TIR out. Color rendition forgotten for a while 😀

 

[jtr1962]

In any case, it is obvious to me that JTR suffers from an altered perception of reality. I have not heard of anyone else getting headaches in the presence of incan lighting, nor having to describe incans in terms such as "...the depressing yellow pallor of incandescent lighting."

Maybe not in so many words, but quite a few people here have mentioned that they consider 4000K to 5000K to be the sweet spot for lighting which they prefer. No surprise, either, as this is the type of light we evolved under. As for my headaches under incan, I'm sure I'm not the only one. I attribute it to my brain trying to autocolorbalance but being unable to do so when the light is too yellow. For what it's worth I find purple-tinted LEDs just as obnoxious as yellow-tinted incandescents. I'm an equal-opportunity hater of poor light sources.

While I agree the original 2 images are not properly color balanced, I am also sure that this is a camera setting problem, and not how it appears in person. I am 100% certain that JTR's perversely altered museum image does not correlate to reality. I know wood floors should be wood colored. Chrome should be chrome colored, rather than some shade of Navy blue. Use the dropper in Painshop/Photoshop to verify what I am saying. In any case IMHO, JTR's altered version is hideous, unnatural, and makes my case about what makes an LED Jockey (term used with endearing affection) unique. He actually believes his alteration is nice looking!!!

I don't really have the software to properly color balance. I simply subtracted red and added blue. I'm sure it's not that simple. I'd like to see what the image would look like if it were properly color balanced. The original reminds me of looking at the world through those blue-blocker sun glasses. Yet, it's pretty close to how I personally perceive a scene in person lit with incandescents. But in general you're right-an image tells us little. All of our monitors are adjusted differently. The chrome in the adjusted image has only a hint of blue on my monitor just as it would under a light source approximating sunlight. Maybe the color temp on your monitor is adjusted too high, exaggerating the blues? In any case, without standardization looking at images is a pointless exercise.

It is not accurate to imply that overdriven incans last a handful of hours...which would be 5 or less hours. I can't think of any of my many overdriven incan lights that have lasted less than 15 hours. I have said this before, but I do not reach for a light with the thought "let's see...which of these lights have the best efficiency?" I pick up a light that will do the job I need it to do. If that means I may have to buy $3-5 extra bulbs on occasion, or recharge its batteries more often, so be it. Having the light you want trumps all of the intellectual efficiency arguements. I have no problem with those who prefer the attributes of LED's, and have 20-25 of them myself that I use in many scenarios.

15 hours or even 5 hours is an eternity for a light you only switch on or off occasionally as most of your uses seem to be. I'm thinking of my own uses which are usually continuous and last an hour or more. For example, a bike light with a 15 hour lamp life is useless to me. I can do that amount of riding in 2 weeks, and I've no guarantee the lamp won't fail right in the middle of a ride. On my budget I can't afford $5 replacement lamps even once a month. And any incan giving a decent amount of light would require an inordinate amount of heavy batteries to last for a 2 or 3 hour ride. So even if I considered incan superior in terms of light quality, it would be a nonstarter for me due to the practicality issues.

General lighting makes for an even more interesting comparison. Take the light in our kitchen. It's a 4x32W linear fixture putting out maybe 10,000 lumens and using about 107 watts. It's on roughly 12 hours per day. Suppose I wanted to use incan to generate the same amount of light. Now I need about 6 100 watt bulbs. At our electric rates that's about $550 more in electrical costs per year. Let's play devil's advocate and suppose I couldn't care less about efficiency or power cost. There is still the enormous practical issue of constant lamp replacement. 12 hours times 6 lamps equals 72 lamp-hours per day. With a rated lifetime of 750 hours typical for household incandescents that means on average I'll need to replace one lamp every 10 or so days. That's about 36 new lamps per year. I don't consider this an even remotely acceptable situation having to keep a fairly large stock of replacement lamps and replenish it regularly. With the tubes I've yet to replace one, and I purchased them in July 2003.

I guess my point in both cases is that I want light sources which serve me rather than vice versa. You may not consider it a big deal to change out a lamp, but perhaps with your usage patterns you rarely do. I know I've had so many incans fail on me, especially back in my days modeling HO trains, that I won't touch them any more. It quickly becomes tiresome when you have to disassemble scale models and replace 2 dozen lamps. The annual ritual of lamp replacement after every Christmas season when my fingers hurt from pulling out dead bulbs was equally tedious. It got so bad I stopped putting lights outside until I went all LED in 2007. If any of my posts in these threads seem at all biased towards LED, then perhaps that is mainly due to me own personal years of bad experience with incandescent. After saying for a long time that there has to be something better, I'm glad there finally is with LEDs. Not perfect of course, but much better.

There is some truth to what Bernie said. It seems whatever real or perceived advantages incan has it is doomed due to the practical issues of lamp life and efficiency.

 

[mudman cj]

Some of the topics under discussion have been addressed at some length in this thread. It demonstrates pretty handily that a photograph taken by a cool white light source can be manipulated by computer to appear as though it were illuminated by a 'balanced' light source. And the members discussed what conclusions we can reliably draw from photographs and the type of useful comparisons that can be made between light sources.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Bernie, I'm pretty sure I will get one of those SF TIR lights...just need to figure out which would be best, and searching out if any have been reviewed yet.

I would give quite a bit to "touch" Eva Green, but in the meantime, I agree her photo is delicious just the way it is.

I respect your opinion that incan is 'doomed,' but I don't agree. At least not in my lifetime. There are too many who love using them.

JTR, I know that types of lighting and colors affect people differently...so I'm not disrespecting your reality, but I don't feel it should be extrapolated into the general population. I agree that 4000K to 4300K is a pretty nice sweet spot, but I don't see the incans I use giving "a depressing yellow pallor." It would be interesting to examine your retinal accuracy vis-a-vis color perception and distribution of rods & cones.

I don't hate the colors of most LED's even if it is the original blue spike generation. It is rather a matter of missing proper color/contrast/depth/detail rendering which is more cone mediated. I do find the illegal car HID blue tinted headlights obnoxious, because they overwhelm the 10 times more sensitive rods at night, and temporarily displace the functional rhodopsin mediated night vision.

I use a CRT (NEC FP2141SB) monitor that I periodically calibrate with Display Mate, so I'm confident of my colors being accurate. I blew up your motorcycle version to show the blue chrome perversion. You should be able to use the dropper and get the RGB color values as well. It is just not at all an accurate rendering.

I agree with an application like a continuously on bike light, that I would also be using an LED. I'm more talking about hand held flashlights when taking walks.

Your discussion of kitchen lighting is just not applicable to my life. When I go in the kitchen, I turn on the various banks of recessed incan 100W bulbs. There are 3 sets of 4 bulbs. Sometimes I only turn on the set over the sink, other times the set over the stove. In any case, when I'm done with my time in the kitchen, I turn them off. I would estimate any one light in the kitchen is on no more than 1-2 hours per day. I use bulbs that are 750 to 1200 hours, so a bulb lasts about a year. Novel idea, those "off" switches, huh?

For small models, that are toys and decorative novelties, I would have no problem using LED's. My discussions have always been about practical flashlight uses, and to a lesser degree home/office lighting.

 

[DM51]

One benefit of this thread that has made a contribution however, is finding out about the TIR concept which I have not discarded.

Off-topic, but if you are interested in TIR you might like to look at this thread by Ra. He is very knowledgeable on the subject, and his input in other threads such as this one is very interesting indeed.

 

[Icebreak]

In some cases this simply has to do with what you're used to. For example, if a doctor or dentist has been trained to look at tissue under incandescent light then they have no frame of reference using anything else. And most LEDs are deficient in red, making looking at tissue harder.

I'm unsure what to do with a challenge statement that is in diametric opposition of itself. It makes no sequential sense. Training is the problem but missing reds is the problem so training isn't the problem but training is the problem.

Individuals that prefer incandescent light for some tasks don't have the preference because they are stuck in a rut or lack training or don't know any better. It's their preference and it's valid. If the frequency isn't in the light the color will not be revealed. If Grandma Goodcookie doesn't like the light from LEDs because it appears to be harsh to her then that's that. She doesn't need to be trained or educated. She just needs someone to bring her a good incandescent light. They'll be rewarded with some wonderful baked goods and a kind smile. How hard is that?

I'm no Shelby Chan . The white balance was not perfect on the bike but it was close. It is a beautiful piece of work. With the entire spectrum of reds, oranges and yellows present in the lighting, the awesome paint becomes eye candy. I've got a few other shots of it. When I find time I'll post them in a thread. In the mean time I've managed to completely screw up some interesting shots by giffing them too big.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm unsure what to do with a challenge statement that is in diametric opposition of itself. It makes no sequential sense. Training is the problem but missing reds is the problem so training isn't the problem but training is the problem.

Actually, no. The information is still there with LEDs, but the end result just looks different and perhaps more subtle. If you've gotten used to looking at tissue samples under LED light, then you could probably pick up the same things as under incandescent. Maybe you would just need to increase the intensity of the light to make up for the relative lack of reds (the frequencies are still there, just not in abundance). Remember that LEDs have a continuous spectrum, just that the colors are in different proportions than a black body. The brain is great at compensating in cases like this. Fluorescents on the other hand are discontinuous sources. In many cases certain frequencies just aren't there, period, and that's where you have a problem.

Individuals that prefer incandescent light for some tasks don't have the preference because they are stuck in a rut or lack training or don't know any better. It's their preference and it's valid. If the frequency isn't in the light the color will not be revealed. If Grandma Goodcookie doesn't like the light from LEDs because it appears to be harsh to her then that's that. She doesn't need to be trained or educated. She just needs someone to bring her a good incandescent light. They'll be rewarded with some wonderful baked goods and a kind smile. How hard is that?

I've found it's about 90% force of habit and 10% need. In most cases an incan doesn't reveal any additional necessary information over any other type of decent light sources. Hence the "need" part doesn't exist. It's simply a matter of "I'm used to the room looking this way at night" or something similar. However, in quite a few cases when I've shown people higher CCT lighting options with decent color rendering they actually end up preferring it over incandescent. I'll get comments such as "that looks so much more natural, more like how the room looks under daylight" and "it's nice not having to compromise colors because before the room looked different at night compared to the day". The thing is, unless I showed them the difference, most never would have even tried it. Many had the reflexive "fluorescent is harsh" or it flickers or some other nonsensical reason for not even trying something new. This is especially true of older people who spent most of their lives in a world with no real alternatives to incandescent light in their homes. Of course, some tried higher CCT lighting and just don't like it and that's fine. I have no problem with preferences and consider any preference valid if you've tried all the reasonable alternatives. However, anyone who says they prefer incandescent without having even tried lighting with other color temperatures is going purely by force of habit. Same with LED versus incandescent flashlights. I respect Lux Luthor's opinion that incan is better because he owns and uses LED lights. At least he tried the alternative before coming to his conclusion. That's really all I ask. Try it and live with it a while. If you don't like it after a week or two chances are you never will. I have tried incan both for home lighting and flashlights. I simply can't live with it as it's just too yellow compared to sunlight. Back when I was a kid and the house was lit with incan everywhere except the kitchen I found myself spending the most time there. Granted, the flickering, crappy cool-white fluorescent of the time was hardly an example of a great light source, but just the fact that it made whites look somewhat white was a plus. By comparison, today's cool-white LEDs, although admittedly still lacking, are a quantum leap compared to those old halophosphor fluorescents.

Regarding my attempt at white balancing, remember that I have no frame of reference for what is a white object in the picture. I assumed that the background in the picture frames is white. If in reality it's an off-white, even in sunlight, then that means I subtracted too much red and added too much blue. The best way would have been if the camera taking the picture had its white balance set to incandescent.

 

[Icebreak]

In most cases an incan doesn't reveal any additional necessary information over any other type of decent light sources. Hence the "need" part doesn't exist.

We disagree on this. I can give you thousands of examples. Remember we are talking flashlights here, not train sets or a bat cave in the basement. It could be something to do with lifestyle. If knowing the temperature of an Angus fillet is unnecessary information, if knowing that snake on water's edge is poisonous is unnecessary information, if knowing that Eva just blushed is unnecessary information; we have different lifestyles.

If LEDs work best for you that's fine and thoroughly acceptable but don't try to explain to me why I'm wrong about why Incandescent flashlights work best for some of my purposes. I'm right. It's my preference. And don't try to explain to Grandma Goodcookie that she's wrong either. She's right. It's her preference.

 

[Kiessling]

I think people like warm lights best. We had the cold energy saving lamps ... we had those cold and flickering neon tubes ... and basically, they're gone, except maybe in metro stations.
People had plenty of time to adapt, but they didn't. It is the lighting industry that adapted ... producing low color temperature energy saving lamps and warm white LEDs and what not.
IMHO the question is not what kind of light the people want, that has long been answered. The question is what will produce this warm light ... and the averge citizen couldn't care less if it was a LED or a CFL or an incan ... as long as it is cheap and meets the criteria.

And I wanna see Eva blush. Really. 😱

A lightsource for a flashlight is a different thing though I think. Color temperature is less important to most people and to most tasks, as long as the main problem is solved ... the power of the flashlight. Since we now have basically solved the power and runtime requirements, the talk about CRI and CCT begins, which is good.

bernie

 

[jtr1962]

I just want to point out that in Japan and many other Asian countries 5000K is the preferred type of light for residential. It's as much as cultural thing as it is personal preference. And warm is a relative term. The 3500K and 4100K lamps which seem to be preferred now as opposed to 6500K are certainly warmer than daylight but cooler than 2700K household incandescent. I'll even admit unless you light a room very brightly it looks eerie with 6500K. But even here in the US, I look in people's windows and see more and more high CCT lights than a few years ago. They have the same choices anyone else does yet they're avoiding the very warm incandescent-type lighting.

And to say people have had time to adapt but didn't, that's not true at all in regards to residential lighting. Many people have not even tried anything other than incandescent lamps. No idea if they'll prefer 3500K or 5000K instead until they try it. Based on what I read in these forums, the low 4000s seems to be a sweet spot for people in the know. In offices and workplaces where fluorescents have been used for years the majority of places seem to have shifted to 3500K or 4100K. Evidently that's what people who work there prefer, not 2700K or 6500K. A local grocery store actually got rid of their 3000K tubes as it made the place look dreary. The strange thing is they replaced them with 6500K. The store is bright enough so it doesn't look strange, but that's sort of moving from one extreme to the other. If anything I'd say neutral white LEDs are what is going to be big, and they'll catch on in residential lighting.

 

[jtr1962]

We disagree on this. I can give you thousands of examples. Remember we are talking flashlights here, not train sets or a bat cave in the basement. It could be something to do with lifestyle. If knowing the temperature of an Angus fillet is unnecessary information, if knowing that snake on water's edge is poisonous is unnecessary information, if knowing that Eva just blushed is unnecessary information; we have different lifestyles.

If LEDs work best for you that's fine and thoroughly acceptable but don't try to explain to me why I'm wrong about why Incandescent flashlights work best for some of my purposes. I'm right. It's my preference. And don't try to explain to Grandma Goodcookie that she's wrong either. She's right. It's her preference.

If they work for you then wonderful. My comment about the need part is exactly that. A doctor examining tissue may need a light source biased towards red (or a much brighter light source without red bias) to be able to shine enough red photons at tissue to discern subtle differences. Same for you cooking steak or examining a snake. That's exactly what I meant about need and thanks for giving those examples. Many (most?) really have no such needs. I know I don't. I don't need to examine tissue, I don't really care for red meat (and would use a thermometer, not a flashlight, to determine temperature if I did), I don't go where poisonous snakes exist, and I doubt I'll ever meet Eva in person much less need to see her blush. My only real need is to see white that looks like white and to have a light source which doesn't fatigue me or give me headaches. If it has good color rendering it's merely a bonus, not a necessity. Point of fact I'd say the majority have no real need to distinguish subtle degradations of color at either end of the spectrum, so pretty much any light source will do, and people generally buy based on initial purchase price. That's their real preference. No surprise then incandescent is widely used. If LED bulbs cost 25 cents that's probably what you would see in every house. Generally people will only avoid using a light source if it's really, really awful, such as a very green fluorescent, a very purple LED, or a sodium vapor lamp. Other than that they don't seem to care one way or another so long as things look more or less normal. Most won't even notice the difference between a CRI 82 CFL and an incandescent even if the CCTs aren't close. Only a few people have ever picked up that we have 5000K CFLs in the table lamps in the living room. Most don't even notice the difference, or if they do it isn't enough to comment on. That shows how adaptable people are to different light sources. Those who have really specific needs for lighting know it and buy accordingly. Everyone else it's either force of habit or just buying whatever is cheapest. I wouldn't call such behavoir a preference.

 

[baterija]

Lux and trinity thanks for following up to my post. Even having read a lot of the color threads before, Lux made me have some "aha" moments which continued and continue as I think about it all. Some of what you two have thrown in added to things that popped to mind as I processed more...not with as much clarity as you two gave though. Especially flashlight beams and peripheral vision came to my mind.

I do know this. I have repeatedly been annoyed with incandescent house lighting during my life. They always seemed hazy and dirty if I stopped to really look. By hazy I literally mean it looks like a haze hanging in the room with me. It was while reading one of Lux's links that I finally made the realization. The haze and my annoyance with it usually gets noticed first with my peripheral vision. That's where the rods aren't getting the blue that would accompany indirect daylight at that lumen level. Hmmmm :thinking:

Interesting to see where it goes. More than any of the other color threads this has sparked more thought. Luckily I was already leaning forward in the saddle to experiment and see what works for me.

I've got one of the Q2 5A dropins on the way. I've got a neutral SSC P4 SV0 (~5000-5500k) on the way to upgrade a rayovac sportsman. I've got my LF3XT that has a WC. I've got my SF weaponlight with P60, and I have my PT Quad with it's bluish Nichias. I'm going to have to put in some peripheral vision experiments for myself now. Maybe hang some various color objects off clothes lines to the side. Thanks CPF for making me look crazier. :twothumbs

It will be interesting later this year when (if) cree brings new emitters with their announced trenching for phosphors that they imply will, among other benefits, give them more control over emission wavelengths.

 

[jtr1962]

I do know this. I have repeatedly been annoyed with incandescent house lighting during my life. They always seemed hazy and dirty if I stopped to really look. By hazy I literally mean it looks like a haze hanging in the room with me. It was while reading one of Lux's links that I finally made the realization. The haze and my annoyance with it usually gets noticed first with my peripheral vision. That's where the rods aren't getting the blue that would accompany indirect daylight at that lumen level. Hmmmm :thinking:

Wow, that's exactly the same way I've felt, even as a child, long before I knew anything about CCTs or CRI (actually that metric didn't exist back then) or spectra. In your case, has it been bad enough that you've actually gotten headaches like me? And to add to what you wrote, the lack of blue in your peripheral vision is what accounts for the well known tunnel vision effect of driving on a street lit with sodium vapor lights. While lack of blue light is merely an annoyance indoors, it's actually downright dangerous while driving. Do you find the effect you described to be even worse under sodium streetlights? I know I do. It's a shame that knowledge of how we see was limited when these lights were foisted on us in the 1970s. Besides the tunnel vision, the much lower S/P ratio meant these lights appeared dimmer than the mercury vapor they replaced, even though the photopic lumens and efficiency were higher on paper.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Oh great, just what we need in this topic, baterija reinforcing JTR's beliefs to make a majority of two!!! baterija....even if you noticed getting headaches from incan lights, please lie and say "no," or this will get written into the Old Testament somehow. :green:

I really think some of these preferences are anatomical rather than cultural, or a matter of adaptation. We have not even talked about the % distribution of the 3 types of cones (red/green/blue) which can also have variability from person to person.

In reality, 99.9% of the population notice very little about their environment, let alone how colors on walls or a lighting source/spectrum affects them.

Many experiments have been done to verify that environmental colors and even colored lighting has effects on people in different ways. I seriously doubt there are very many people who objectively get consistent headaches from incandescent lights. Recognizing the uniqueness of that (headache) occurrance, JTR, IMHO, I think you should be extra careful not to project that kind of reaction as a widespread guideline or common phenomonen.

I'm also 99.9% sure I could have 10 people over for dinner 7 nights in a row, and use a totally different source and color of lighting, and none of them would notice anything....or if they did notice something, they would not be able to have enough conscious awareness of something like lighting to bring it up as a conversational topic. If they felt different, they would ascribe it to the food, company, conversation, etc.

A better experiment would be to have a group of people separately go into a series of identically shaped and painted rooms, but each with their own unique type of lighting, and ask them to pay attention to how the various lighting sources and colors makes them feel.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Off-topic, but if you are interested in TIR you might like to look at this thread by Ra. He is very knowledgeable on the subject, and his input in other threads such as this one is very interesting indeed.

Thank you sir! Very interesting to read those links!

 

[LuxLuthor]

PS) I just spent 40 minutes looking at various Eva Green photos. LOL! A lot more interesting than flashlights. 😛

 

[LuxLuthor]

The E2DL is a real puncher in the night with just 120 (SF) lumens. IMHO this optic is a small revolution. They really got it right this time.

bernie

Bernie, is this the one you are talking about ? Is there a better version coming out, or have people modded this one?

 

[Long RunTime]

Very interesting discussion.

 

[baterija]

Oh great, just what we need in this topic, baterija reinforcing JTR's beliefs to make a majority of two!!! baterija....even if you noticed getting headaches from incan lights, please lie and say "no," or this will get written into the Old Testament somehow. :green:

I don't even need to lie. No I haven't noticed a correlation between incan and headaches for me.

It's hard to say for sure since until a couple years ago home was all incan for my whole life. Honestly for most of that time I would say I strongly preferred incan to the bad flourescent of the time. Most of the time my brain just adapts. It was just every so often I would notice, get really annoyed, turn on more lights to try and overpower the haze, and then give up and ignore it. The worst part of this thread is I have spent pretty much 2 days in constant notice mode because I am thinking about it. Months worth of haze annoyance in two days.

I really think some of these preferences are anatomical rather than cultural, or a matter of adaptation.

Exactly. There's value in discussing the the center of the bell curve for public lighting (assuming it is a standard distribution). In flashlights I am predominantly worried about ME...which is why I am waiting for a couple shipments to test what works best for me. I do know the old 5mm bluish LED's annoy me as much or more that the light from a P60 LA without some it's contrast benefits.

In reality, 99.9% of the population notice very little about their environment, let alone how colors on walls or a lighting source/spectrum affects them.

Lighting...the world around them...whether they are walking in front of traffic...

Many experiments have been done to verify that environmental colors and even colored lighting has effects on people in different ways.

Yes. I in fact was surprised by some of the studies mentioned in your links pointing towards a higher color temp being preferable. I expected the opposite. Those studies either covered just color temp (with flourescent) or compared two low CRI source (high pressure sodium vs LED) so they aren't directly applicable. They just put the whole discussion in a "new light" for me. <cues the drummer for the rimshot>

I seriously doubt there are very many people who objectively get consistent headaches from incandescent lights. Recognizing the uniqueness of that (headache) occurrance, JTR, IMHO, I think you should be extra careful not to project that kind of reaction as a widespread guideline or common phenomonen.

As a kid I had two pairs of corduroy pants that I HATED wearing. (Those pants are a couple orders of magnitude worse in my memory than all of my incan haze annoyance combined.) I swear it felt like the fabric sucked all moisture from my skin and the noise made me hate moving. I was perfectly oblivious to the horror of them being bell bottoms and the big collared, loud patterned, plaid polyester shirts I was normally forced to wear with them. I wouldn't argue that people shouldn't wear similar fabrics. Their might be some parallels to this discussion.

And I still have the urge to build an eye scorching IMR. :devil:

 

[Kiessling]

Bernie, is this the one you are talking about ? Is there a better version coming out, or have people modded this one?

Yes, this is the brightes of the lot that uses the new TIR. There's also the L1, E1L, E2L and the E1B with the same TIR. Or you can buy the KX2C head that produces the same oomph as the E2DL but is one level only and sports no teeth. It costs the same as the whole E2DL though :green:

bernie