The Tint Snob Thread

[jon_slider]

That's what I'M Talking About!!!
voted best CRI test of the year

 

[degarb]

I wouldn't trust those CCT apps as they can be wildly inaccurate and even the best ones under ideal conditions aren't very accurate.

In fact, the very one you are using was tested by a member here and wasn't very accurate. I have the same one and asked him to test it.

I am not relying on it, rather testing many emitters I know. . I was surprised how accurate it is, between 200 and 500 K. Probably, dead on if you had enough lights to test, and could figure out best paper, best testing lux, how to adjust for various ranges... I never expected it to be even 1000k close, due to no calibration, to how many brands of devices. . I do have a decent Moto G4, octacore, and the camera is better than former phones.

I have a 4000K xml2 from ledsupply.com, I forgot to measure, then 2 days ago, it nailed it. . However, I no longer buy flashlights, rather parts, so I know the bin specs. Here, within 200k or 500k range, depending on technique and practice. Closer than a human can guess.

I see cct meters on eBay for $100 to $200. However, for average Joe, upgrading their phone or camera is a better investment.


Only found one other cct on Playstore. It only throws up 4000k or 5000k, but no idea if it is rounding or this is last cct threshold crossed. This other one is free, while the more specific one cost a whole buck.

 

[degarb]

That's what I'M Talking About!!!
voted best CRI test of the year

There are so many things wrong with the above, I hate to let past, with that hand photo.

Let's assume not old xml bin. Still, the low cri has Hotspot, the high cri is flood. This means the camera is blown out, with a lux 20 times the hi cri. Over 20k lux probably at that range, where even in my test in upper teens, that lux level blows out the human eye for color.

Then the camera doesnt see what the human eye sees.

I tried this test last night with 5 flashlight from cool to 4000Kelven. Then desk lamp,3000k, hi cri . The high cri desk lamp photographed best for many reasons. Firstly, the flood nature allowed the camera to adjust, where a dark room with Hotspot, the camera seemed to not have a clue how to adjust... Then, could not escape that on low cri the camera couldn't take a quarter accurate photo as to the colors I was seeing. I could see perfectly the reds, details, both red arteries, green veins, purple veins. Camera only saw washed blow out.(manual or automatic) .

There is no doubt the warmer lights were more flattering to the eye. Actually, the coolest light offered the most accurate description of my superficial white body skin health. I could see dry patches, purple, green veins best-contrasts between healthy and dying, flaking skin areas were most apparent in the cool light. The xpl 4700K had the best balance of showing the red capillaries, purple and green veins and dry skin areas of the hand.... The cool was the ugliest for sure...

Again, what is the goal? Flattery, or examination?

 

[twistedraven]

It's a real good test. I find skin to be the easiest and most effective way of photographing tint and color rendering differences between emitters. Sure, we don't know the exact color of his skin, and sure, the camera might be getting the actual appearance slightly wrong, but we all have skin on ourselves and see it everyday, so it's a very ubiquitous thing that we know how should look.
Also, I don't think he would use a 20k lux hotspot for taking a picture at such a close range.


I saw very much the same thing when I tested the 5700k 70cri xhp35 vs the 5700k 90cri 219b on my hand-- both in camera and in person, seen here. The lowest CRI light makes the skin look sickly green, while the highest CRI lights give the skin a pinky flesh quality. The Luxeon T has near the same CCT and CRI of the Easywhite, but it has a slight green tint to its hotspot, whereas the Easywhite is overall closer to the BBL.

 

[Tachead]

I am not relying on it, rather testing many emitters I know. . I was surprised how accurate it is, between 200 and 500 K. Probably, dead on if you had enough lights to test, and could figure out best paper, best testing lux, how to adjust for various ranges... I never expected it to be even 1000k close, due to no calibration, to how many brands of devices. . I do have a decent Moto G4, octacore, and the camera is better than former phones.

I have a 4000K xml2 from ledsupply.com, I forgot to measure, then 2 days ago, it nailed it. . However, I no longer buy flashlights, rather parts, so I know the bin specs. Here, within 200k or 500k range, depending on technique and practice. Closer than a human can guess.

I see cct meters on eBay for $100 to $200. However, for average Joe, upgrading their phone or camera is a better investment.


Only found one other cct on Playstore. It only throws up 4000k or 5000k, but no idea if it is rounding or this is last cct threshold crossed. This other one is free, while the more specific one cost a whole buck.

How are you testing how accurate it is? You realize that emitter bins can vary by several hundreds of Kelvin up or down right? Just because it is a 4000K bin doesn't mean it is 4000K. The bin spec is 4000K nominal.

The exact app you are using has been tested by a member here as I said. He tested it against a high end professional unit and it proved to be quite inaccurate(several hundreds of Kelvin off on some examples). I also have tested it on my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge and it also proved to be quite inaccurate and not very repeatable.

I was just passing on the info to let you know that it should only be used as a very rough guide and is not very reliable. I use it too but, understand it's limitations.

 

[neutralwhite]

 

[degarb]

How are you testing how accurate it is? You realize that emitter bins can vary by several hundreds of Kelvin up or down right? Just because it is a 4000K bin doesn't mean it is 4000K. The bin spec is 4000K nominal.

The exact app you are using has been tested by a member here as I said. He tested it against a high end professional unit and it proved to be quite inaccurate(several hundreds of Kelvin off on some examples). I also have tested it on my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge and it also proved to be quite inaccurate and not very repeatable.

I was just passing on the info to let you know that it should only be used as a very rough guide and is not very reliable. I use it too but, understand it's limitations.

Yes, understand the limitations.

Understand, there is a technique.

Understand expensive meters will be calibrated. You will need to get this part down yourself.

Try it on several bulbs that claim a cct. Your phone might not work like mine. I do own only about 8 smart phones, maybe more. Groupon and freedom pop that supplement my two main mvno. I, however, only tested on one phone. 200k to 500 k seems very consistent, possibly due to bin variation. But, I probably have only tested a dozen lights of stated k. I use common sense and use several white pages that are stacked, lux meter, standard meter distancing, angle standardization. Several, snapshots. . Actually more consistent than a lux reading that can vary hugely during a reading of a Hotspot.

In the end, once tested, this is certainly better than guessing. . Small variables can negate or augment results, as I deal with daily trying to calculate hundreds of man hours of rough measurements before a job is begun. . Usually, variations cancel each other out, rarely augmenting.


Of course, find me a $30 cct meter, I will convert in a heartbeat. But, $100 cct meter is a poor investment, since one always knows the cct of lights you buy, except a few. . Also, I am just tired of average Joe on street guessing cct. Hopefully, this can offer a common reference

 

[jon_slider]

Thanks to twistedraven for these

Im copying them to a thread that others can add their own hand beam shots to
Collected Hand Beamshots XPG, N219b, E01, and more!

 

[degarb]

Thanks to twistedraven for these


Im copying them to a thread that others can add their own hand beam shots to
Collected Hand Beamshots XPG, N219b, E01, and more!

I hate to burst the bubble again, just zoomed picture the 85 cri easy white IS likely the most accurate rendering of the hand. You can see veins that the red exaggerated images are totally blind to. . Accuracy v. Flattery. . Trust me, I spent first 18 years of my life working on hiding my pale skin-laying in sun, tanning creams, pills for tanning. And worrying about blue veins under the eyes, bags, willing to pay for red light to minimize. . Now, examination lighting is more important.

P. S. , the daylight hand color is more likely yellowish, not red. Looking now at my hand through daylight window. Here, daytime:

 

[twistedraven]

Having taken the pictures in person and knowing what my hand looks like under multiple conditions, the 5700k Nichia is by far the most accurate to midday direct sunlight, while the Easywhite and 4500k Nichia are about on par with each other. The 5700k Nichia is tinted slightly towards the Magenta side of things, while the 4500k Nichia is pretty balanced with little tint shift. The easywhite has a small yellow shift. In person when it's the only light source, it makes my hand look like I'm an asian, which I'm not. The Nichias might look red exaggerated next to the rest of the lights, but that's because they have decent deep red rendering (70-80 R9 respectively) while the other lights are floating around 0-10, and in the 5700k XHP35's case, probably like -30.

 

[degarb]

I just attached my daytime, photo,in above post. Not nichia red. I did attach the most red version of 4 shots. More yellow, but less yellow than my eyes see. A high lux, so less examination quality. So I see less veins, white residual paint in hand print from oil white paint ingrained between lines, and can not see dry patches of skin.

 

[twistedraven]

It's overcast where I am today so I can't take a picture under direct sunlight, but I'll try to sometime soon.

 

[degarb]

This is a daylight hand

9am:

10:30 am.

1pm highest outdoor value:

Now, inside under Toys R US florescent, apparently high cri:

The hand also looked overly red under grocery store florescent lighting. Outside, the red is there, but also all the yellows, blue and green, in a strong but balanced rendering.

I am shocked at how red the store florescent renders, after spectrometry of my home 3000k CFL had barely any deep red.

 

[iamlucky13]

The hand also looked overly red under grocery store florescent lighting. Outside, the red is there, but also all the yellows, blue and green, in a strong but balanced rendering.

I am shocked at how red the store florescent renders, after spectrometry of my home 3000k CFL had barely any deep red.

Basically, they're over-saturated in at least part of the red range. I think I said above that over-saturation can be good or bad depending on what you're actually trying to achieve. If accurate rendering is the goal, you want neutral saturation.

From what I've seen, tubular fluorescents usually have a higher CRI than compact fluorescents - I guess they use a different phosphor mix. Probably they also have a strong peak in the near/orange-reds, hence why they often have a slightly pink hue.

 

[jon_slider]

 

[degarb]

I received my calibrated diffraction grating with plastic housing. Also previously made my own. They don't, even the lab one, give enough resolution to conclude much other than the spectrum graphics seem to chop off bottom 90 percent of what you can see with the eye by looking at the diffraction light. The leds, even cool, are a full rainbow. The cool leds, do scream in the yellow, yet have plenty of apparent Crimson-the deep violets appear slightly concerning. You can see a dimmer band between green and blue, with led: but stronger red and Crimson that the above graphic suggests . The CFL does look with brighter bands, matching above graphic. I haven't done all my metal halides, but my basement 400 watt 4700K has six brighter bands violet, dark blue, cyan, yellow, red, deep Crimson. Doing hue chart tests none of the lights are blind, even the cool 6500K. Lower lux lights, make the eye work harder to see colors. Though, the eye has no problem seeing red on my hand with any of my lights that are neutral or below, regardless of cri. Because, no matter what the graph says, all the spectrum is there, unlike a low pressure sodium. Also, we all have seen red green blue projector TVs combine the primary colors to make other colors. I read that rgb lights make colors pop. But shift the colors.


Having matched a few thousand color in the paint stores since the 80s, I do find the Evolution of the florescent cri interesting--especially as they are being phased out with leds. (Led marketing has a history of hype, that takes at least 5 years after the products hit, for the technology to catch up to fulfill the promise.) I see 98 cri florescent bulb in a quick Google search. The paint store just swapped the florescent for led bulbs. But no one, including me, is convinced it is better. Something is missing, probably higher lux levels or lumen levels that we had before. Still the need for light box with several bulb types, and running outside to see outside. Still color isn't real, it is just what that physical surface chooses to bounce, depending on many variables. Perception is relative as well.

 

[degarb]

The first graphic of sunshine doesn't match the bottom. Probably, it is the half hour within sunrise or sunset, to try to prove a point.

With the exception of cloudy day 40 min before sunset, I prefer a violet pink, gradient sunglasses that are quite light on filtering-for max color pop and hue hunting. Just enough to pull out some blue scatter. This is not unlike people who prefer an outdoor white leds, over cool, as best balance to keep lux levels up, yet kill blue scatter, as they call it, that can mask other colors.... I have only found one closeout pair like this, where I bought 40 pair for a dollar each. Yes, we look gay wearing them, as they are the opposite of cool. But man, great optic, everything popped outside. All these glasses were destroyed within 7 years. I might have one or two surviving pair. Driving glasses, a distant second place, are too amber, just don't do it. Yes, looking gay, and proud of it.

The violet pink, darker on top, lighter on bottom. Not very dark. It now makes sense. It was boosting light in the spectrum to which our eyes were less sensitive. But not dimming so much as to dim color perception.

 

[Tachead]

Yes, understand the limitations.

Understand, there is a technique.

Understand expensive meters will be calibrated. You will need to get this part down yourself.

Try it on several bulbs that claim a cct. Your phone might not work like mine. I do own only about 8 smart phones, maybe more. Groupon and freedom pop that supplement my two main mvno. I, however, only tested on one phone. 200k to 500 k seems very consistent, possibly due to bin variation. But, I probably have only tested a dozen lights of stated k. I use common sense and use several white pages that are stacked, lux meter, standard meter distancing, angle standardization. Several, snapshots. . Actually more consistent than a lux reading that can vary hugely during a reading of a Hotspot.

In the end, once tested, this is certainly better than guessing. . Small variables can negate or augment results, as I deal with daily trying to calculate hundreds of man hours of rough measurements before a job is begun. . Usually, variations cancel each other out, rarely augmenting.


Of course, find me a $30 cct meter, I will convert in a heartbeat. But, $100 cct meter is a poor investment, since one always knows the cct of lights you buy, except a few. . Also, I am just tired of average Joe on street guessing cct. Hopefully, this can offer a common reference

You are right, it is probably better then guessing. Yeah, you will not find a descent quality meter for that cheap. Even a $100 model is a low end solution. Considering your interest in CCT, CRI, and your job, it might be worth it to you to consider a professional spectrophotometer kit but, they are in the $1000+ range. Maybe your employer would be willing to cover part of the cost?

If you are interested in a true test of identical light sources using the CCT app you are using here is one. The test was done using a Motorola Moto E vs a calibrated X-rite i1Pro spectrophotometer. The test is courtesy of Maukka.

Flashlight [TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]i1Pro[/TD]
[TD]App[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Astrolux A01[/TD]
[TD]3960 K[/TD]
[TD]4180 K[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DQG Tiny AAA[/TD]
[TD]5610 K[/TD]
[TD]5050 K[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Eagletac MX25L3C[/TD]
[TD]4750 K[/TD]
[TD]4520 K[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Olight i3E EOS[/TD]
[TD]5770 K[/TD]
[TD]5260 K[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zebralight SC5FC[/TD]
[TD]3640 K[/TD]
[TD]3800 K[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The White Balance Color Temp Meter app for Android does give an idea of the color temp but it's not terribly accurate or even consistently inaccurate. From those couple of lights it seems that it can estimate color temp better on lights with higher CRI (only about +-200 K error). I'll check some more lights tomorrow.

 

[jon_slider]

I recently discovered that some flashoholics do not see green as well as I do

in this photo of an ET Nichia on the left, is there anyone here that cannot see that it is green?

some other flashoholilcs also do not see the green in this Jetbeam on right. Is there anyone here that can not see that the Jetbeam is green?

 

[MAD777]

Looks green to me. I wonder if the some coloring could come from the len's anti-reflective coating.