Have LED's really caught up with incans?

[js]

kaichu_dento,

No worries mate!

I'm just trying to stop what I felt would be a derailment to this fine thread, and I appreciate your closing comments in post #97 above. Let's just get back on track here, which you've already done. Thank you! I hope others will do so as well.

I figured this thread would be just yet another of the many LED vs. incan threads, but it's not, it's something more, --good stuff here and good posts here-- so why not all let's focus on the good and let the negative fall by the way side.

Thanks in advance everyone.

 

[jtr1962]

Let's just get back on track here, which you've already done. Thank you! I hope others will do so as well.

No problems with that on my end. Icebreak and I already ended our exchange in a peaceful manner yesterday.

I figured this thread would be just yet another of the many LED vs. incan threads, but it's not, it's something more, --good stuff here and good posts here-- so why not all let's focus on the good and let the negative fall by the way side.

Agreed. I for one would like to hear more comments on LuxLuthor's theory regarding anatomical differences and light preference, in a separate thread if need be in the event it's considered too OT for this one. As far as I can recall, that's never been discussed up until now. IMO it would make a great research project if one had access to instrumentation to measure rod and cone distribution.

 

[js]

jtr,

You know, I did hear once, from a somewhat questionable source, that asian peoples have more cones (and thus possibly fewer rods?) that allowed them to have superior color vision. This came up in regards to those hundreds of color coded little electrical wires in a multi-wire cable, and how difficult it was to discern some wires from others (they were all two-color coded).

I have no idea whether or not this is true. But certainly, there are differences from person to person, as has already been pointed out. Even more interestingly, there are actually tetrachromats, who have four color receptors in their eyes, the fourth one being at a shorter frequency than the normal three, thus allowing for very good resolution of fine shades of blue.

Here is the normal (i.e. "average") schema of cones, with "S", "M", "L", standing for short wavelength, medium and long wavelength, and with the bottom scale being nm wavelength, and the vertical scale being normalized sensitivities, with each cone normalized to itself only:

 

[Kiessling]

In terms of output they're getting there...

M*g 2D-->6AA ROP:


Epsilon ED-P72 (SSC P7):



Color is getting closer too...

Dereelight CL1HV3 w/ Q3 "warm" pill:


Dereelight CL1HV3 w/ Q5 "cool" pill:

Thanx for posting this. I am sorry for quoting the whole post, but I need to talk about the pics 😀 ... even though there's no Eva.

If I had to choose one ... it would be the Dereelight "warm pill". It is the only one that manages to reproduce the bluish and the reddish colors in an adequate manner, and it looks pleasant.

Of course one might say that the camera white balance kills the pics and they look different in real life than in the pics. But still ... there is a difference in color reproduction that is significant, and I personally don't think it favours the incan in those pics.

For all those interested in CRI, CCT and color perception ... you must read js's thread here:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=214932

... as well as Don's thread here:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=199054


bernie

 

[Yoda4561]

FWIW, I've got a malkoff in similar tints and a surefire P60, the colors in the pictures are very close to what I see in real life regarding colors and contrast. Richer yellow-red colors, darker greens, just a hair less cyan/blue than I think is ideal, resulting in a slightly pink warm hue. My particular Q2 5A has no yellow tint to it, the tint lottery is probably there though, with some having more or less yellow than others. If my eyes are dark adapted though, and it's been a few minutes since I've been in a more blue rich light area it appears a pure but umm... "soft" white, as opposed to the glaringly snowblind white Q5.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Agreed. I for one would like to hear more comments on LuxLuthor's theory regarding anatomical differences and light preference, in a separate thread if need be in the event it's considered too OT for this one. As far as I can recall, that's never been discussed up until now. IMO it would make a great research project if one had access to instrumentation to measure rod and cone distribution.

JTR, there is no question that there are significant variations between people regarding the anatomical distribution of rods and cones...in addition to the well known variations in color blindness. There is also learning and adaptation that makes it hard to quantify differences more precisely. I would suspect that research has been done to document variations of color perception on a number of bases, but it appears to be a fairly complex subject. I don't have the interest to delve into this more than to explore some cursory searches:

Some PDF files of full articles downloadable from here.

Goes back to the basics of crayon colors in cultural color perception variations.

Listing of synopses from a number of articles addressing our topic enough to know it is a real phenonomen.

Brief synopsis of a study (did not list sources--so can only regard as opinion based on this) leaning towards learned adaption of color perception.

Synopsis of another study verifying adaptation, and persisting altered perception for 1-2 weeks after color filter they used was removed.

Interesting segments from a book titled "Color in Three-Dimensional Design." Backing up to the Table of Contents makes this book almost look interesting enough to buy.

Overwhelming 1500 page "Bible" titled "The Visual Neurosciences" that looks to address many aspects of our discussion.
​

Another important thing to emphasize is that the camera and settings can have a profound impact on how a light's performance is perceived. Click on this thumbnail to see the effect on my just changing the "White Balance" setting option on my Canon Powershot S45. Otherwise the shots were all identical of a SF M4 (MN-61 Incan) with exposure of 5 sec & 4.5 F-stop.

(Larger GIF file is 875K)
​

None of these images looked like what it did in person.




.
No

 

[js]

As was mentioned in an earlier post (apparently unnoticed), my thread Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering contains a lot of discussion about white balance and visual perception, largely thanks to orcinus.

Your eyes and brain will adjust to the CCT of the illumination being used in a similar (but far from identical) way to the way that a camera (or software program like photoshop) can adjust color balance via the white balance setting. This is the reason for the white balance setting. If you set the WB for "daylight" or even more extreme "cloudy daylight" and then take a picture of something illuminated under a standard household lamp, it will look impossibly yellow in the picture. It will not look like what it did in person. Conversely, setting the WB to "tungsten" and then taking a picture outdoors on a cloudy day will make everything look impossibly blue.

This on-the-fly adjustment that the brain makes is the reason why CRI is defined as 100 for any blackbody, any incandescent, regardless of its CCT. (Not that I agree with this, mind you).

However, the CCT of illumination is noticed by people, nonetheless, and not just .1 percent of people. It's noticed by the majority of people, and by "notice" I mean consciously noticed. So, the eyes and brain do not so fully compensate for things that objects under candle light are seen as just the same as under a Cree LED of the same brightness.

So, a camera set to a white balance that is totally wrong for the actual light will capture an image that looks way off from what you actually saw. But the camera can also be set to a white balance that makes objects illuminated under candle light look as if they were illuminated under nice white light. There is an intermediate setting that will compensate, but not over-compensate, for the white-balance in such a way as to render as faithful an image as possible to what you saw in person.

But this is only the white balance, and doesn't even begin to touch other, more important differences between the eye and the camera, at the top of which list is dynamic range.

 

[2xTrinity]

As was mentioned in an earlier post (apparently unnoticed), my thread Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering contains a lot of discussion about white balance and visual perception, largely thanks to orcinus.

Your eyes and brain will adjust to the CCT of the illumination being used in a similar (but far from identical) way to the way that a camera (or software program like photoshop) can adjust color balance via the white balance setting. This is the reason for the white balance setting. If you set the WB for "daylight" or even more extreme "cloudy daylight" and then take a picture of something illuminated under a standard household lamp, it will look impossibly yellow in the picture. It will not look like what it did in person. Conversely, setting the WB to "tungsten" and then taking a picture outdoors on a cloudy day will make everything look impossibly blue.

This on-the-fly adjustment that the brain makes is the reason why CRI is defined as 100 for any blackbody, any incandescent, regardless of its CCT. (Not that I agree with this, mind you).

However, the CCT of illumination is noticed by people, nonetheless, and not just .1 percent of people. It's noticed by the majority of people, and by "notice" I mean consciously noticed. So, the eyes and brain do not so fully compensate for things that objects under candle light are seen as just the same as under a Cree LED of the same brightness.

The way the eyes compensate is actually rather simple. The eyes have receptors for short, medium, and long-wave. Every time these cones absorb photons of light, a chemical reaction actually "bleaches out" the receptor, making it unable to absorb more light until some period of time has passed.

Let's say you're outside on a cloudy day -- there will be a preponderence of blue light, and thus the blue photoreceptors will tend to get bleched out faster than the other colors. BECAUSE they are being bleached out at a faster rate, there will then be less of the blue receptors at a given time -- and sensitivity to blue will go down, resulting in equilibrium.

Same goes with being outside near sundown with only direct sunlight (about 3500k color temp). In both cases however, total illuminance will be on the order of tens of thousands of lux. So there' for example still a substantial of energy in the red, even if the only light source is "blue" diffuse sky light.

With artifical lighting however, particularly flashlgihts, there really isnt' enough energy in the beam for this white balancing due to bleaching effect to really work at all.

 

[kaichu dento]

M*g 2D-->6AA ROP:


Dereelight CL1HV3 w/ Q3 "warm" pill:

If I had to choose one ... it would be the Dereelight "warm pill". It is the only one that manages to reproduce the bluish and the reddish colors in an adequate manner, and it looks pleasant.

... there is a difference in color reproduction that is significant, and I personally don't think it favours the incan in those pics.

bernie

I'd tend to agree and I also have an idea that may or may not apply to all. Comparing the incan shot to the 5A for accuracy purposes, the 5A looks better to me too, but the incan feels more nostalgic, and that in itself is capable of 'coloring' ones perceptions in a way that goes beyond which is verfiably more accurate.

I think I'll be owning more 5A's but I'll never tire of the pleasant warmth of incan... 🙂

 

[Kiessling]

The way the eyes compensate is actually rather simple. The eyes have receptors for short, medium, and long-wave. Every time these cones absorb photons of light, a chemical reaction actually "bleaches out" the receptor, making it unable to absorb more light until some period of time has passed.

Let's say you're outside on a cloudy day -- there will be a preponderence of blue light, and thus the blue photoreceptors will tend to get bleched out faster than the other colors. BECAUSE they are being bleached out at a faster rate, there will then be less of the blue receptors at a given time -- and sensitivity to blue will go down, resulting in equilibrium.

Same goes with being outside near sundown with only direct sunlight (about 3500k color temp). In both cases however, total illuminance will be on the order of tens of thousands of lux. So there' for example still a substantial of energy in the red, even if the only light source is "blue" diffuse sky light.

With artifical lighting however, particularly flashlgihts, there really isnt' enough energy in the beam for this white balancing due to bleaching effect to really work at all.

I think this is oversimplified and reduces the explanation of the adaptive resonse of human physiology to the receptor level. IMHO the main correction and adaption happens later in the optical pathways, more in the Corpus geniculatum and beyond, the optical cortex and the associative cortex in the occipito-parietal regions. However, I have no proof right at hand and I don't have the time looking for one, sorry. This is just a logical theory IMHO.

bernie

 

[DM51]

the adaptive response of ... the Corpus geniculatum

Hey, steady there, Bernie - this is a family forum, you know. LOL :nana:

 

[js]

2xTrinity,

Thanks for your post! Very interesting. However, it is my experience--my long experience--that the white-balance correction effect also happens with lower intensity light situations as well, so I suspect that bernie is correct in suggesting that there is something more to it than the explanation you posted.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I think this is oversimplified and reduces the explanation of the adaptive resonse of human physiology to the receptor level. IMHO the main correction and adaption happens later in the optical pathways, more in the Corpus geniculatum and beyond, the optical cortex and the associative cortex in the occipito-parietal regions. However, I have no proof right at hand and I don't have the time looking for one, sorry. This is just a logical theory IMHO.

bernie

You are correct.

 

[jtr1962]

As was mentioned in an earlier post (apparently unnoticed), my thread Finally, an LED light that rivals an incan's color rendering contains a lot of discussion about white balance and visual perception, largely thanks to orcinus.

Not unnoticed at all. I totally missed that thread on account of having the flu, but next time I have a few hours I'll be reading through it. Great stuff just by my quick browsing!

However, the CCT of illumination is noticed by people, nonetheless, and not just .1 percent of people. It's noticed by the majority of people, and by "notice" I mean consciously noticed. So, the eyes and brain do not so fully compensate for things that objects under candle light are seen as just the same as under a Cree LED of the same brightness.

Yes! And the way we compensate varies from individual to individual, which is why I think there exist strong preferences for this type of light or that type. At the extremes of the CCT range nobody can compensate. This is why objects illuminated by candlelight appear strongly biased towards orange no matter how long you stay under it. Ditto for a very purple LED except now the bias is on the other end of the spectrum. The interesting part is CCT ranges where some people can more or less fully compensate but others just can't. A good example the CCT range typical of incandescent. On the really low end (say 2400K) typical of low-wattage lamps I imagine a few can fully compensate but to most the light will always appear orange or yellow. Now if you move to 2700K-2900K standard bulbs a greater percentage will find the light "white" if they're under it a while but others like me won't. As you approach perhaps 3500K nearly everyone will be able to compensate, even myself. So 3500K is about the lower extreme of my own personal range. On the other end it might be as high as 7500K because I know 6500K lighting loses its slight blue bias if I'm under it long enough. For someone who prefers warmer light to the same extreme I prefer cooler light their compensation range might be 2500K to perhaps as low as 5000K. They're utterly incapable of adjusting to a 6500K LED, and in fact their sweet spot for "white" lighting might fall in the low 3000s compared to perhaps the mid 5000s for someone like me. I really believe there is this much variability among individuals due to mostly anatomical reasons. Just as some cameras can compensate better under certain types of light, so it is with individuals.

You know, I did hear once, from a somewhat questionable source, that asian peoples have more cones (and thus possibly fewer rods?) that allowed them to have superior color vision. This came up in regards to those hundreds of color coded little electrical wires in a multi-wire cable, and how difficult it was to discern some wires from others (they were all two-color coded).

I have no idea whether or not this is true. But certainly, there are differences from person to person, as has already been pointed out. Even more interestingly, there are actually tetrachromats, who have four color receptors in their eyes, the fourth one being at a shorter frequency than the normal three, thus allowing for very good resolution of fine shades of blue.

Indeed, and if true that may also explain why some people are more tolerant to light sources with spectral deficiencies so long as they're happy with the color temperature. If you have superior color vision, then you may be able to discern colors even under a fairly poor CRI source. The color difference between two similar but not indentical colors might still be there under a poor light, but it wouldn't be enough for someone with average color vision to notice. But with good color vision, the small differences will be noticeable. Again, so it seems to be with me. The poor color of those old school fluorescents didn't really both me as much as others. I found I could still discern colors fairly well, and preferred this light simply because the white point was closer to my ideal. Now of course with today's high CRI flourescents I see how bad those tubes really were.

BTW, I actually started a thread once on tetrachromatic vision.

 

[copperfox]

I would like to echo an earlier post which questioned the move to such warm-white LEDs such as the 5A tinted Crees. In my limited experience with SX0, SW0, and the SR (the so-called "high CRI SSC") tint bin Seoul P4s, I find myself wanting something right in the middle...say, SUN bin. Likewise for the Cree XR-E, I find myself wondering what a 3A bin looks like.

Compared to a generously overdriven hotwire (ROP-HI on 2x fully charged "C" li-ions with all resistance fixes done), I find the "high CRI" SSC to be a little bit too warm. To me, the two problems with this bin of the SSC are the 1) tint variation from hotspot to corona, and 2) color temp being at least 500k too low. If SSC could fix these two problems (and match the efficiency of the cool white bin), we'd have a real winner on our hands that would make me seriously consider abandoning my incandescent flashlights.

 

[Kiessling]

Agreed. We are stumbling in a direction going "make LEDs warm" instead of "make LEDs High CRI" on CPF, because most members think that warm=color rendition.
bernie

 

[lctorana]

Agreed. We are stumbling in a direction going "make LEDs warm" instead of "make LEDs High CRI" on CPF, because most members think that warm=color rendition.
bernie

You've just reminded me of something. I've found the white LumiLED colour bin nicknamed "puke green" to be the best LED I own for colour rendition. Maybe it's just my eyes. Strange but true.

 

[KiwiMark]

There is a lot of discussion in this thread about CRI & tint. But in my experience it doesn't make much difference for most 'real world' uses of flashlights - you just want some light so you can see stuff.

LEDs definitely outperform Incans by a wide margin, at least in efficiency. For a small 1 x AA EDC torch I can get a bright little sucker with 3 modes that will give a pretty decent run time (50 hours on low, less on full) by going with an LED. LEDs can produce a lot of light from less power while generating less heat (it is because more power makes light and less makes heat that they are more efficient). Generally for small EDC you are better off going with LED, regardless of limited CRI or cool tint.

For sheer brightness & WOW factor incans have the higher upper limit. I have some Maglites that I am going to mod (Hotwire, ROP Low, ROP Hi) that will give me a fantastic amount of light, but limited run time. Although I should be able to get a ROP Low up to 2 hours off Li-ion D-Cells, which is pretty good considering the output.

The solution is obvious to any flashaholic - own both types of torch. :twothumbs


I have LEDs running from:
1 x AAA
1 x AA
2 x AA
1 x 16340
2 x 16340
1 x 18670
4 x D Cell NiMH
I will have incans running from D sized Li-ions and maybe 6 x D NiMH or NiCd.
With this sort of variety it is easy to find the best torch for any job. The best being - LED . . . or incan . . . it depends!

 

[baterija]

I think this is oversimplified and reduces the explanation of the adaptive resonse of human physiology to the receptor level. IMHO the main correction and adaption happens later in the optical pathways, more in the Corpus geniculatum and beyond, the optical cortex and the associative cortex in the occipito-parietal regions. However, I have no proof right at hand and I don't have the time looking for one, sorry. This is just a logical theory IMHO.

Interesting talk about the opponent color theory here. It is related to the color pathways between the sense receptors in the eye and the brain - the neural pathways carrying visual information to the brain. The theory has support in testing although I couldn't find specific physiological explanations behind it. In effect it's like preprocessing the data for transmission along 3 channels.

Here's a link about a study showing how quickly the brain adapts to a loss of sight (due to blindfolding). While not directly related to the processing of sight information it shows rapid adaptation at the brain level to perceive touch data differently. The same input data from the ears gets processed differently resulting in different perceptions.

Some interesting bits in the color vision wikipedia entry - especially in the "color in the human brain" section.

While none of this is a specific to the question at hand together it seems to point to the notion that just looking at sensor level adaptation (the physiology of rods and cones) neglects how that data is forwarded to the brain and how it is processed into perceptions by the brain. Given the complexity of the system it seems to make sense to not look at only one portion of the system...

and dinner is about ready so it's time for me to wander off to the kitchen to finish and eat instead of googling about color vision adaptation. 😛

 

[Kiessling]

Yes. Then there's not only "perception by the brain" but also the complex state of "consciousness" and "awareness" as well as older learning experiences and emotional byproducts infused via the limbic system of the brain.

"Perception" is not only receptors and processing by the brain, it is also experience, emotion and awareness.

bernie

P.S.: if we forget for one second that everythnig happens in the fat organic tissue we call brain 😀