HDS Systems EDC #21

Status
Not open for further replies.

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
Out of curiosity, is such a thing as a 200 with GDP emitter ever existed? If yes, did this one outthrow the current 250 ?

I don't know if that ever existed, but if it did then it would stand a good chance at your comparison. My GDP170 almost matches the XP-G2 250. 4100kcd on the GD vs 4500kcd on the 250. That's a difference of 6 meters throw, using the FL1 standard. Basically identical. Now of course the 250 seems brighter in use, because it is, and it has a fatter more useful hotspot to me. But if all you're comparing is throw numbers on paper, they're really close.
 

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
A few days ago (back in the #20 thread I'm pretty sure), we discussed trying the new Samsung LH351D emitters, and I said I had some and would give it a shot. Well, today's the day!

EDVGxd1.jpg


Excuse the dirty glass :/ But it works!

0V5cWS0.jpg


First things first, the numbers. Before it even comes up, no I do not have expensive "lab-grade" optical testing devices. What I do have, is a homemade hobbyist integrating sphere that reads to within 2% of factory HDS numbers, so I think its good enough for our tinkering. I defer to Henry or anyone with better gear, as always, so take my numbers for what they are.

Lumens: 360
Throw: 2,900 cd, or 109m throw

So its bright and floody, which is what we all probably expected. Lumens are easy to compare, we all know factory HDS numbers which currently range from 200-325, so this is quite a bit brighter and more efficient than any factory options. I wish I knew the factory "throw" numbers on a 325 but I don't have one to test. For intensity, this emitter is almost exactly equivalent to the HCri200 and other 219b (and probably 219c) options though, which all test at 3,000 cd for me, which is 110m throw. A factory 250 gives 4,500 cd, which is 134m throw. So this Samsung emitter is brighter than any current offerings, but also broader and more floody than any (excepting maybe the 325 which I have no numbers for).

It is, however, 5000k and 90 cri. That shouldn't be ignored. So even if it isn't floodier than the 325, its definitely got a nicer beam (in my opinion of course. The cri is hard to argue against but I know some folks legitimately like very cool white). When it comes to tint, many of you would be very comfortable with this emitter because it looks almost exactly like the 3 o'clock high 219c -- practically identical tint, ever-so-slightly greenish if you cross the beams with others, but really very clean. And with almost the same exact throw, just a fatter beam.

Here's a few beamshots. First the Samsung by itself:
l7pCxkG.jpg


The beam shape is very clean, no artifacts to speak of. There is a very slight ring all the way at the edge of the spill, you can kinda see it in the picture, but the camera exaggerates it some. Its noticeable in real life, if you're white-wall hunting, but overall this beam shape is super clean. You may also notice, if you really look for it, that there's a slight bit more greenish hue to the corona, just outside the hotspot. Again this isn't noticeable at all in actual usage, but if you like to whitewall hunt you can find it there. Really I have nothing to complain about with the beam shape, this Samsung works great in the current reflector.

Here's another "beamshot", this one comparing the 5000k, 90 cri Samsung to a 5000k, 90 cri 219c, aka the 3 o'clock high emitter. Note that the 219c in this case isn't in an HDS body, in fact its a triple behind an optic, so don't look at beam shape/ size here, they're incomparable. This is an attempt to show how closely the Samsung tint matches the 219c.
TJ4QYTS.jpg


So touches of greenish in both of them, to my eyes, maybe a slight bit more in the Samsung. But really not bad at all to me. Its even better in person.

And one last beamshot, this one showing the shape. Here's the Samsung emitter next to an HCri200, both held the same distance from the wall. Remember that the HCri200 is a 4000k emitter, much warmer than this Samsung.
yskF17A.jpg


This photo is the very definition of "crossing the beams". It makes the HCri200 look like muddy water, and makes the Samsung look quite green. They're both much better than this in person. So really, don't focus too much on tint in this photo. That's not the point. The point is to show that the hotspot on the Samsung is dang near twice as broad as the HCri200. That's why they read almost exactly the same intensity (throw) but almost double the lumens.

So there you go. The Samsung LH351D in an HDS. Bottom line -- its quite a big step up in lumens and efficiency for 90cri, but also quite floody. Fans of the 3 o'clock high would probably like this quite a lot, since it offers nearly identical throw and tint but with quite a lot more total lumens. Its not a huge jump over the current 325 though, for customers who don't care about tint and high-cri.
 
Last edited:

INFRNL

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
2,971
Location
Bottom Of Pikes Peak
I thought at one point in time Hogo said there were still variations on output

I'm pretty sure that all my 200lm rotaries are not producing the same output. I can visually see slight differences in output and my meter also agrees with my eyes.

I appreciate you sharing all the info about the Samsung emitter, gives us an idea of what to expect. Thank you for your time on this
 

Lithium466

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
994
Location
QC
Thank you for trying this led in the HDS, and sharing your thoughts with us. How many lumenswas the light initially ?
I will now try to soirce such an emitter, maybe in a warmer tint if that exists!
 

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
I thought at one point in time Hogo said there were still variations on output

I'm pretty sure that all my 200lm rotaries are not producing the same output. I can visually see slight differences in output and my meter also agrees with my eyes.

I really don't know and will have to let Hogo chime in on that, if he wants to. HDS says they calibrate each individual light for the promised output and I'm sure that's true, but I'm also sure there's some level of precision allowed in that. I don't know if its 2% or 0.2%, but I'm sure those numbers are known by HDS....if they want to make them public. I just know that my homemade device comes very close to lining up with what HDS promises, and I like that. The fact that I trust HDSs promised output allows me to also trust my measuring device. Its not how a professional would do it, they'd buy a very expensive sphere and calibrate it using a very expensive standard bulb. But I don't have any of that, so HDS fills that role for me. :)
 

Random Dan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2012
Messages
1,371
Thanks for testing emarkd! Now I want an LH351 HDS even more. Should be able to do 325lm very comfortably and maybe even have better runtime than the current 325, all with better tint and CRI.
 

INFRNL

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
2,971
Location
Bottom Of Pikes Peak
Thanks emarkd.
I have a homemade lightbox type setup as well and I'm sure the light i calibrated from was not as accurate but it works for my needs

One day i will make a diy sphere. I also know that for guys like us the cost to do it all the right way just isn't feasible

My measurements on lower levels on my rotaries are close to matching hds chart but max, i show a bit more than rated output. However i can for the most part match a couple other brands. At 1000 plus lumens it's hit or miss.

Either way, it gives us a good enough idea of what to expect
 

emarkd

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
1,193
Location
Georgia, USA
i can for the most part match a couple other brands. At 1000 plus lumens it's hit or miss.

See the thing about that, is that most brands are wildly unreliable. They either promise some calculated lumen value, or they base their specs on emitter lumens without accounting for reflector/optic/crystal loss, or they just guess and hope for the best, or some of them probably even outright lie. But even if they do absolutely everything right, and actually try to provide real, out-the-front lumen numbers, they will still vary by as much as 14% simply because LED binning is that broad. That is, unless they calibrate each individual light like HDS does, there's no way for them to be any more accurate than that. And that's not something most brands promise.

In other words, its probably not your sphere, its their lights :) If you're within 14% of their promised spec then that's as close as you can hope to be and everything is working as expected.
 
Last edited:

INFRNL

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
2,971
Location
Bottom Of Pikes Peak
I will eventually have to calibrate off one of my hds and see how that effects everything.

But for the current testing I'm doing with malkoff lights, I'll have to leave it be so i can keep things consistent

I appreciate the info
 

Hogokansatsukan

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
5,234
Location
Tucson
Everything we ship is output lumen calibrated.
Henry tried quite some time ago to make his own integrating sphere... He's mentioned it before. Dismal failure. He ended up buying an actual integrating sphere. There is a post from Henry about a year ago on the subject.
The real things cost the same as a car...

The eyes will also play tricks on you, and I don't know if the same thing happens with light meters and what not, but cooler tins generally look brighter at the same lumen level.

I'll be posting in the evening now when I can.

Great write up emarkd
 

INFRNL

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
2,971
Location
Bottom Of Pikes Peak
Is every level calibrated? From what you're saying i imagine so.

Thanks for the clarification, this is good to know


I'm also glad to see that this thread has settled down since the July 6th sale
 

Long RunTime

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
224
Location
Las Vegas, NV
This is what these three lights look like from about 10 feet away at full power. The 300 lumen 3900k has a larger hot spot with a more gradual transition to spill than the other lights, but I did not capture an image of that at distance. You need to see it at about 30 feet or so to appreciate it.

The 300 lumen light is what I will subjectively call "quite warm" with a bit of yellowish orange tint. I like it as I wanted just a bit more light. I will most likely run the 3900k on my 18650 tube.

300
q7Te9x2.jpg

This is what I was hoping to see. Thanks for the beam shot.
 

tech25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
1,252
Location
Near the Big Apple
Ok so all of you clicky fans have got me thinking that a clicky with pseudo-momentary enabled, will cover most of my general usage.

I know that a clicky body on a rotary head acts like a clicky but what happens to the "rotary" preset while on the clicky body?
 

tech25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 26, 2010
Messages
1,252
Location
Near the Big Apple
I thought the rotary body on the clicky head is the issue. Hogo mentioned a few times that if the rotary function is broken the light still works as a clicky, so I figured the clicky body would still work on the rotary.
 

Modernflame

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
4,383
Location
Dirty Dirty South
Yes, I just programmed my rotary to behave like a clicky. The rotary function lies dormant, but can be reinstated with a factory reset.

The rotary can act like the clicky but not vice versa.
 

Modernflame

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 27, 2017
Messages
4,383
Location
Dirty Dirty South
My only problem with psuedo momentary is that you can't lock into constant on with the A setting. In order to get constant on maximum, you'd have to program one of the other settings to max. I don't use pseudo momentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top