VIP / TnC Key-lux & Hyperlux V

Candle Power Forums

Help Support Candle Power:

Let's see TNC Hyper-Lux V rating 5 best in class, how can this be?
Let's see VIP rating 4.75 best in class but below the technically inferior TNC light.
this disparity in ratings brings into question many things.There is no way to compare these, so I won't. TNC makes nice direct drive lights that are reasonably bright. They are nicely machined and offer no technical sophistication that makes them multi dimensional.
VIP regulated with 3 light levels
TNC is direct drive inefficient light
The Aten Imago reviews, although extensive , do not address the technical attributes of the VIP. The regulated electronic ciruity of the VIP goes beyond what was thought to be possible in a 3 volt light. When you combine the elements of diversity that this light offers , coupled with the great diversity in output , you just begin to touch the surface of what makes this light so special.
 
YES, keithhr. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif

Bill
 
keithhr
If you bothered to read the extensive 'scope of project' blurb on the Luxeon Pilot home page, you'd have realised that we clearly and unequivocally state that the evaluations ( not really reviews and definitley NOT tests ) are not reflections or evaluations of technical virtuousity. In that regard, you are 100% correct in your statement about the technical 'superiority' of the V-I-P's circuitry and innovative rheostat. Unfortunately, this is not relevant to our pilot. The ratings we placed on products are based on the quality of attention to details relating to Usability and Human Factors as well as to aesthetics and where relevant, packaging, branding,instructional materials and after-market support. If you carefully re-read the evaluations of the TnC HyperLux V and the VIP, you will see that 'technological' virtuousity appart- the final assessments are based on a perfect implimentation of each light. However, as I state in both these evaluations- because the lights are production custom versus mass-produced consumer products, they are not comparable to each other or to lights outside thier respective 'classes'. That means that until a VIP comparable comes along within a year the as-is VIP rating of 4.75 Stars is absolute and until a TnC HyperLux V comparable comes along within a year, it's 5 Star rating is absolute as well.To compare the technical virtuousity of these two products to each other would be futile - when they have such different designs,form-factors, sizes,ergonomics,end-uses, warranties and....price-points!
I hate to end our defense on this dour note- but our esteemed colleagues on the CPF might want to better familiarize themselves with the type of work that we do , its intent and how this Pilot figures into the equation of designing high quality user experiences. The pilot was not intended to be a reflection on personalities or personal preferences or technological achievements, but rather a narrow proof-of-concept trial on how the design of a common place tool can affect functionality and ease of use. From my personal perspective (I've stated this ad-nauseum before) , the V-I-P is a work of Art that is also a high performance tool. The HyperLux V is a work of Art that is also a high performance tool. One is BIG and the other is LITTLE. Both now sit proudly in the company of several Aluminum tools that I cherish and display in what I'm calling the Little Museum of Aluminum Tools. I'll do a picture later this month to illustrate what I mean. Oh! I forgot to mention that the VIP that I own is not a Black Production Version. My personal V-I-P is a 4.95 Star - Raw Aluminum Wonder ! If the instructions had been clearer and the Warranty better...it would be a 5 Star for sure! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/clap.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink2.gif
 
Aten, no problem, but you have been double posting recently. Thought I would let you know.

Bill
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
so you are evaluating everything except technical aspects and actual capabilities of the lights?
bernhard
 
[ QUOTE ]
Bullzeyebill said:
Aten, no problem, but you have been double posting recently. Thought I would let you know.

Bill

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually he was talking to Keithhr in one post and "you all" in the other. Maybe we were not supposed to read the one adressed to Keithhr. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif
 
I personally like Aten Imago's reviews.I think it helps narrow things down when you can look at his,Led museum,and flashlight reviews(reviews)and if they all mostly agree then it really helps me decide.
 
Not to worry gents. Once all the originally slated evals are done. There will be no more. We're swamped with work till 2006.
Thanks for your continued support and...good cheer ;-) !
 
[ QUOTE ]
coachbigdog said:
I personally like Aten Imago's reviews.I think it helps narrow things down when you can look at his,Led museum,and flashlight reviews(reviews)and if they all mostly agree then it really helps me decide.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, -especially appreciated sre the beamshot comparisons and the color tint graphics.

I just overlook the use of too many acronyms (IMO) in the written descriptions.

There is always room for reviews of something you spend real money for. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif
 
Aten, I read most of your review but the fact remains you gave the tnc a higher rating in it's class, whatever that means. I believe your review of the tnc product should have been limited to the custom maching because that is all that is really unique about the light. So if you want to get into the Elektrolumens lights at half the price, things will get really tricky.
 
The more reviews the better. Gives us more information to make better choices (ideally). /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bill
 
[ QUOTE ]
vcal said:
I agree, -especially appreciated sre the beamshot comparisons and the color tint graphics.

I just overlook the use of too many acronyms (IMO) in the written descriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are there any actual beamshot comparisons or do you just mean the beamshot simulations?
Pat
 
[ QUOTE ]
treek13 said:
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
Are there any actual beamshot comparisons or do you just mean the beamshot simulations?
Pat

[/ QUOTE ]
Pat;
I'm referring to the beamshot page itself.
The imperfections in the pictures and the amazing similarity to the 4 different Luxeon lights that I now have, convince me that the photos on the beam page are real.

-Even the tints shown in both the upper and lower sets of photos tend to match the lights that I have. Also, the actual relative brightness levels between the different models seems to be in line with mine as well.

-Works for me..... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif
Aten(Al),....what do you say?? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
The beamshots are actual beamshots- believe me!! The simulations however,are based on the beamshots, meter readings plus direct visual translation. In otherwords, we combined visual perception of the beams with readings of the beams at different points- creating a much more accurate representation of what the beams look like to the eye, versus what they look like to the camera. We discovered that the camera rarely captures the nuances that the eye sees, so why not 'draw' what the eye actually sees? We have really expert designers that can create photorealistic renderings from almost anything. The renderings are first created in Macromedia Freehand 10 from a combination of DXF files and visual 'translation' or drawing- they're then rasterized in Photoshop where some 'blending' is done to soften the blends created in Freehand 10. The resulting files are then output to JPG's for posting on the site. Our Beamshots are pretty accurate too- only they don't convey the width of the coronas or the subtleties like soft donuts,emitter die wires, gradation from D-Max to Zone 10 etc. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif
We hate acronyms too! ...but what can we do when there's no standard lingua franca? They just help us brand our terminology standards a little.Besides, look at the confusion surrounding how 'brightness' is currently described. Lumens, Lux, Candlepower, Candelas etc. These don't help end-users judge how effectively a light actually illuminates a subject. So the Maximum Distance for Object Identification (MDOI) was quickly whipped up to help everyone understand how far away from a subject a light can be effective in allowing the user to actually see it. We've always happy to see others join in creating new standards. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif
==========

[ QUOTE ]
treek13 said:
[ QUOTE ]
vcal said:
I agree, -especially appreciated sre the beamshot comparisons and the color tint graphics.

I just overlook the use of too many acronyms (IMO) in the written descriptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are there any actual beamshot comparisons or do you just mean the beamshot simulations?
Pat

[/ QUOTE ]
 
I just looked at all of your reviews and I liked what I saw. Great job on a difficult task! And I thought your solutions to old problems like comparable brightness was both innovative and insightful. And the detail of your reviews was very much appreciated.

But I do agree with some of the other posts concerning the VIP, but my opinion MAY be a little biased /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Overall I thought you did a great job. And I agree with coachbigdog, vcal and Bullzeyebill, you really can't have enough flashlight reviews! Your efforts are very much appreciated, thank you. And keep the reviews coming!

Sonic
 
Back
Top