P1D vs P1DCE

[x2x3x2]

@yaesumofo
hi, mind posting pics of the 3 lights u have and their respective beamshots?

btw, i dun understand what u mean by the "image of the emitter being project" ?
to my understanding, this only happens with lenses which Newbie has posted. With reflectors, the light emitted will be too diffused to observe this.

secondly, u implied in your earlier post than the silver collar around the XR-E emitter is what caused the rings. yet in another thread, a close-up pic of the A-19's head shows the reflector does not cover the silver collar snugly yet no rings in beamshot, and the FT-01 i moded with XR-E didnt have circles either.

so im kinda confused what's ur stand is on this issue?

 

[yaesumofo]

I have not shot beam shots because they are done so well by others. I will post some images when I have time to do the set up required to show the effect. To be frank I am not that interested in how these lights look on white walls. So my motivation to spend a couple of hours photographing a well documented effect is not high.
If you compare the 19mm reflector to the 27mm reflector. Less of the ring is exposed when using the 19mm reflector which is less ringy than the 27 mm reflector which shows the entire ring to the reflected image.
BTW the beam I like the most is projected by the light on the left.
this is as much work as I am willing to do on the obvious:

In the above image you can clearly see the emitter ring in the reflector on the left. much less so in the image on the right.
left 27mm right 19mm.
OK.
Yaesumofo

I added the thoughts below after realizing I was being asked where I stood on the issue.

My stand on the issue is this.
First of all it is not that important.
Second it is clear to me at least that we are all possibly talking about 2 different effects.
Third All I am doing is trying (a poor attempt) to explain what I am seeing.
I see a ring being projected by a reflector which is part of the image. Others are saying something else. The image above tells a great story IMHO.
Fourth I can't wait to see what an optic does with this emitter. I believe it is all about the combination of reflector/optic with this emitter. It seems like we are all in search of the perfect beam. It is clear that while the cree emitter is excellent in some areas that we may not see a "perfect" beam out of it.
Personally the "ring" effect doesn't bother me at all. I am not a wall hunter. If you do not shine the light on a flat wall and study it you will not see the effect.

@yaesumofo
hi, mind posting pics of the 3 lights u have and their respective beamshots?

BTW, i dun understand what u mean by the "image of the emitter being project" ?
to my understanding, this only happens with lenses which Newbie has posted. With reflectors, the light emitted will be too diffused to observe this.

secondly, u implied in your earlier post than the silver collar around the XR-E emitter is what caused the rings. yet in another thread, a close-up pic of the A-19's head shows the reflector does not cover the silver collar snugly yet no rings in beamshot, and the FT-01 i mode with XR-E didnt have circles either.

so im kinda confused what's ur stand is on this issue?

 

[yaesumofo]

You are correct no matter what you do to the ring it will still be there and still be part of a reflected image if it is in or near the focal point of the reflector.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Yaesumofo

Not it isn't, you are just saying more or less the same thing but from a different prospective. If the reflector was purpose designed so that it butted on top of the retaining ring, the ring on the beam would go away for sure. We don't know that merely painting it back would cure the problem at all as no one has actually tried it yet and logically, if the black ring still shows in the reflector there would still be some kind of artifact in the beam. Heavy reflector stippling might also cure the problem but at the expense of some throw.

The answer to the original question remains the same though - you won't see the rings in the P1D.

chevrofreak = exactly my thoughts m8.

 

[matrixshaman]

This shot was taken with an optic on the Cree and to my eyes there is even much less ring or dropoff - really none at all when you see it in person - as compared to having a reflector. This is an NX-01 optic on a XR-E P2 running off a Longbow LE: (taken against off white sheetrock at about 12 feet)

 

[yaesumofo]

Thanks for the nice beam shot. This looks like a very nice clean beam to me.
I think the "problem" is something that has to do with the ring around the emitter lens being in the focal point of the optic. It is clearly not there in this image with an optic.
Cree has a line of optics designed for these new emitters which look like they will work very well. It may be the best way to go for those people looking for a perfect white wall hunters beam.
Yaesumofo

This shot was taken with an optic on the Cree and to my eyes there is even much less ring or drop off - really none at all when you see it in person - as compared to having a reflector. This is an NX-01 optic on a XR-E P2 running of a Longbow LE: (taken against off white Sheetrock at about 12 feet)

 

[tino_ale]

No matter how I think of this matter, I cannot see how the metal ring could possibly be the cause of the ringgy beam.

The ligh you see on the wall comes from the light-emitting solid state part of the led. I cannot see how the ring could interfere with this light, knowing the trip it makes from the solid state substance to the wall. This just doesn't makes sense to me.

I believe until it is a proven fact, if it ever becomes one, people should prevent from giving this explanation in any other way than what it is : a plane and simple assumption.

Nothing more than an assumption.

 

[IsaacHayes]

I have a theory that it's not the metal collar but the dome that causes the ring. I have some domes that dont have a ring in them, and I will test soon to find out if I'm right. If I'm not then I'll color the metal collar with black sharpie and test to see if that fixes it. I can see how it *might* cause the bright ring in the beam, if light reflected off the lens hit the collar or something and was picked up by the reflector. In my light I cannot see the collar in the reflector though... I'll test both things out and report with in a few days.

BTW that metal collar is silver plated copper, and doesn't pull heat anywhere. The die is mounted right on the ceramic. It might heat up as the ceramic does, and may dissipate some heat into the air, but that's not the method for removing heat from the led, a proper heatsink is...

 

[shiftd]

Regarding the ring. Well, here are beamshots to prove that it is not because of the cree lens ring

first pic:
http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00355zv2.jpg


second pic:

http://img225.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00357nk5.jpg


third pic:

http://img459.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00358lg5.jpg


if the images look similar, they are. guess which one I left the ring exposed?















The first pic, I put wide metal ring on top of the cree, and thus eliminate the whole reflector and the ring contribution toward the beam. see the ring? I guess so.

On the second pic, this is where i left it exposed. See the ring? of course, it is the effect of cree ring right?


How about picture three?
in this case, I enclose just the top part of the cree ring with white paper. I bet you can still see the ring though.
this is my set up for pic three:
http://img374.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00359mj1.jpg

Notice that the side part of the cree ring is GLOW PAINT-ed. now, is glow paint that reflective? i wonder

the glow paint is there on all three of the pictures.


So what does all this tell us? I guess it is up for you to decide now.
I will stick to my opinion that the ring on the beam is NOT because the cree ring. Unless you have some proof to deny this, dont claim anything.

Just because on one of the light the cree ring is not exposed does not mean the cree ring is the cause for the ring. It might be the placement of the light or reflector focal point or even how different the peeled the orange peel is.

 

[tino_ale]

Looks like we have some more serious tests here instead of assumptions. The theory of "The Ring" is compromized.

Just because on one of the light the cree ring is not exposed does not mean the cree ring is the cause for the ring.

Of course it doesn't. It sounds so obvious I still don't understand how some show this around as an evidence???

 

[x2x3x2]

wow not bad beam with sidespill from an optic
cant wait for my Q2 bin with Cree optic from cutter.com, gonna mod it into my Elly asap!

anyway, consider the following. none of the light from the emitter can be directly reflected to the silver collar. of course some diffusion off the reflector wall will radiate back however this is very negligeable, hardly enough to project the the said ring...

 

[yaesumofo]

I did not make assumptions. I made observations based on what I am seeing with three different cree based lights. Do you have any lights based on the cree? Have you seen a cree based beam first hand? What are your observations? To be frank the "ring" issue really is a non issue unless you are a wall hunter. I have only described what I have seen. I still believe that we are talking about 2 different things. One is an optical illusion. One is an effect caused by either the ring around the emitters primary optic or the combination of this emitter and certain reflectors. The scraps aren't worth fighting over really.
In my opinion (yes another) the Cree XR series, ring and all, is a great step forward. The three that I have are all wonderful lights with fantastic beams. The real problem here is that most of us are used to the beams created by Luxeon emitters. New beams and emitters may be difficult to accept. Remember when the CR2 ION came out? Many people had big problems with the beam so much flood, too much for some. Some people are never satisfied and are very picky about beam quality. I am happy if the thing isn't green. I can remember a time when the luceen lottery really was a lottery. These days the vast majority of these emitters and flashlights made with them produce acceptable beams with decent color.
I am pretty much done with the ring issue. Some people will simply not accept anything but perfection. I am not one of one of those people. As the technology moves forward we can all look forward to better whiter brighter emitters. As this new technology appears we all will have things to learn, emitter reflector combinations will certainly be very important. There will be some that work and some that don't. We will see a whole new versions of optics for these emitters. Some more efficient than others.

Imagine having emitters which are so efficient that enough lumen overhead is produced that if an optic produces a perfect beam at a cost of 10% of total lumen output, it wont matter in the grand scheme. Those times are not that far off.
Enjoy these times. We are about to enter a whole new world of solid state lighting. The next 18 months are going to be great!!
Yaesumofo

Looks like we have some more serious tests here instead of assumptions. The theory of "The Ring" is compromised.


Of course it doesn't. It sounds so obvious I still don't understand how some show this around as an evidence???

 

[x2x3x2]

hmm.. some said the rings is caused by the fact that the XR-E emitter is larger. wasn't it initially cos of the 75 degree radiation angle compared to the near 180 degreee of Luxeons which mean it not being to use current reflectors designed for Luxeons? or perhaps both?

 

[chevrofreak]

hmm.. some said the rings is caused by the fact that the XR-E emitter is larger. wasn't it initially cos of the 75 degree radiation angle compared to the near 180 degreee of Luxeons which mean it not being to use current reflectors designed for Luxeons? or perhaps both?

The beam angle is most likely the problem. When someone starts using a ray tracing program to design reflectors specifically for this LED then we're likely to start seeing more typical beam shapes.

 

[tino_ale]

Really?

Writting the first affirmative reply you posted (beginning with "Sorry, wrong...", I won't quote it I'm sure you can scroll up) basing your judgment on a comparison of THREE Cree-based flashlights totally different and using different reflectors... If there's no assumption in there then I am the Pope.

Between the light you compare there are hundreds of different possible factors that are in play. But you have decided that the metal ring is the explanation. Somehow, you have decided that it IS the only explanation.

You have been proven wrong, and now you slip the subject on "I'm done with this ring matter, it's not important to me blah blah blah".

Honestly, I don't mind if you think the metal ring is the cause of this ring. I don't mind if you try to find a way out with optical illusion and two different rings, XR-E being a step forward and technology moving...

What I definetely don't appreciate is misinformation. You have repeatedly affirmed this explanation about the ring in several threads, spreading your assumption as if it was a common truth. To me the greatest thing with CPF is that people are sharing knowledge. Many of us make great efforts to be as precise and as honest as possible when giving feedback, tips and tricks, tests results etc. Spread knowledge.

You have tried to spread your assumption (not knowledge) with no hesitation and no reserve. Reading your posts again, it looks obvious now that you wanted to prove others wrong. And once you were proven wrong, you don't even have the honesty to accept it. You slip on other subjects. EGO.

THIS is what disturbs me. Let's be honest, and stop spreading false ideas. Transmit knowledge. There's no problem making assumption or guess, but then STATE that they are assumption, guess, or whatever unverified data.

I did not make assumptions. I made observations based on what I am seeing with three different cree based lights.

 

[easilyled]

The beam angle is most likely the problem. When someone starts using a ray tracing program to design reflectors specifically for this LED then we're likely to start seeing more typical beam shapes.

I think this is the most likely cause of irregular beam patterns too.

You only have to read the research than Don has done (in the McGizmo
forum) to see why he has re-designed reflectors specifically for the
Cree-XRE's different light emission.

Its no coincidence that with the McR19XR reflector the beam pattern looks
so good with the McCreeXRE - the shape of the reflector is utilising the
angle of emission to its maximum effect.

If the reflector has been designed correctly then it should "trap" nearly all
of the desired reflected light.

Let's deal with the metal-ring "hypothesis" now

Take the old McR27 reflector for example. In Aleph-1 lights this is not tight
against the dome of the luxeon but surrounds the luxeon mount leaving
space around which the solder points can be seen.

The solder point images are not projected into the beam though because
they are totally bypassed by the reflected light.

In most cases the led is flush or above the bottom of its reflector.

Therefore unless light is coming out at more than 180 degrees from the led,
I don't see how anything contained within the bottom hole of the
reflector would be projected into the beam.

We know that neither the luxeon nor the Cree's angle of emission is anything
like 180 degrees! This is probably not possible to attain even if desired.

 

[EsthetiX]

Can someone point me to some information on performance ocmparison between p1d and p1d ce. I'd like to see some side by side shots, etc..

 

[mchlwise]

You have tried to spread your assumption (not knowledge) with no hesitation and no reserve. Reading your posts again, it looks obvious now that you wanted to prove others wrong. And once you were proven wrong, you don't even have the honesty to accept it. You slip on other subjects. EGO.

THIS is what disturbs me. Let's be honest, and stop spreading false ideas. Transmit knowledge. There's no problem making assumption or guess, but then STATE that they are assumption, guess, or whatever unverified data.

I agree with this post.

It seems to me that yaesumofo has a THEORY. It may be plausible, it may even be right, but it's an unproven idea/guess based on his observations. A theory.

Vigorously promoting a theory by telling people that they are flat wrong because their ideas do not coincide with your theory does little if anything for anyone, except create animosity.

 

[NewBie]

Really?

Writting the first affirmative reply you posted (beginning with "Sorry, wrong...", I won't quote it I'm sure you can scroll up) basing your judgment on a comparison of THREE Cree-based flashlights totally different and using different reflectors... If there's no assumption in there then I am the Pope.

Between the light you compare there are hundreds of different possible factors that are in play. But you have decided that the metal ring is the explanation. Somehow, you have decided that it IS the only explanation.

You have been proven wrong, and now you slip the subject on "I'm done with this ring matter, it's not important to me blah blah blah".

Honestly, I don't mind if you think the metal ring is the cause of this ring. I don't mind if you try to find a way out with optical illusion and two different rings, XR-E being a step forward and technology moving...

What I definetely don't appreciate is misinformation. You have repeatedly affirmed this explanation about the ring in several threads, spreading your assumption as if it was a common truth. To me the greatest thing with CPF is that people are sharing knowledge. Many of us make great efforts to be as precise and as honest as possible when giving feedback, tips and tricks, tests results etc. Spread knowledge.

You have tried to spread your assumption (not knowledge) with no hesitation and no reserve. Reading your posts again, it looks obvious now that you wanted to prove others wrong. And once you were proven wrong, you don't even have the honesty to accept it. You slip on other subjects. EGO.

THIS is what disturbs me. Let's be honest, and stop spreading false ideas. Transmit knowledge. There's no problem making assumption or guess, but then STATE that they are assumption, guess, or whatever unverified data.

I did not make assumptions. I made observations based on what I am seeing with three different cree based lights.

Well said in so many ways.


.

 

[tino_ale]

NewBie, when I wrote about people making great effort to transmit knowledge here in CPF, among others I had your name in mind

Well said in so many ways.


.

 

[Penguin]

I got both my P1D and P1D-Ce, my P1D has a 'Flawless Fenix' Beam while the CE has a very slight dark halo around the corona. I believe it's there for sure... not just some optical illusion... BUT, you really have to be looking for it to see it, in normal use (even when just white walling) I forget it's there... the INTENSE hotspot and beautiful corona is what I concentrate on and the dark ring disappears! I had my doubts when I first read about the rings, but I honestly think only the VERY nitpicky CPFer's will find this even remotely annoying.