9P EO-9 vs P3D Rebel 100

AWGD8

Newly Enlightened
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
138
Location
WI
Ok guys I`m reposting it again. Sorry for the confusion last night...

I was doing a fast copy and paste and I made a BOBOOO...

I didn`t check it after I reposted it.

This is the real deal BELOW...


P3D REBEL 100




9P w/ LF EO-9

 
Last edited:

UWAK

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
326
Location
nearby...
Nice beamshot. But it's hard to compare since you seems to move from the first location of the shoot. Thx anyway.

Frids
 

manoloco

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
690
Location
Lima, Perú
Nice beamshot. But it's hard to compare since you seems to move from the first location of the shoot. Thx anyway.

Frids

??

what? that to me seems like the same picture uploaded to imageshack twice.

either that or its a REALLY close call

*or is that the reason for the edit?
 

AWGD8

Newly Enlightened
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
138
Location
WI
Updated beamshot of P3D rebel 100...

The 9P EO-9 has better intensity although, they both seem to have the same diameter beam...


??

what? that to me seems like the same picture uploaded to imageshack twice.

either that or its a REALLY close call
 

UWAK

Enlightened
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
326
Location
nearby...
That's a lot better now. Thanks AWGD8. Is it EO-9 comparable to SF P90? Fantastic fenix tho. Cheers!

Frids
 

Raoul_Duke

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
854
Location
UK (Norfolk)
Cool, that shows the difference alot better.

What kind of cells are you using AWGD8?

I think, and this is only from what I have read here on CPF It goes:

P90 then EO-9 then P91, but the Eo-9 is alot close to the P91 than the P90.

From my own personal experience the P91 is definatley double the output of the P90 and then some :D

Still thats alot of light coming from a much smaller package than the 9P.

Any Idea on the runtimes?
 
Last edited:

DM51

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
13,338
Location
Borg cube #51
There is no discernible difference between those 2 pictures. They look identical. If one is a LED and the other an incan, you would expect to see a substantial color difference.
 

Dinan

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 23, 2007
Messages
169
Those two pics are exactly the same... (75515 bytes for both)
 

g36pilot

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
220
Those two pics are exactly the same... (75515 bytes for both)

Visually, it's pretty darn close.

Right click on each photo and them select properties. They have different file names. The identical sizes may be a function of reducing the photo files for posting.
 

DM51

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
13,338
Location
Borg cube #51
Visually, it's pretty darn close.

Right click on each photo and them select properties. They have different file names. The identical sizes may be a function of reducing the photo files for posting.
I already did that, and that was the only reason I didn't state categorically that they were identical.
The 2 file names are:
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8954/0410072147om6.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2153/0410072147mn8.jpg
but I have compared them side by side on screen and there is no difference at all. My guess is he resized the same photo twice, saving it under a different name each time.

FWIW, I have a LF EO-9 and the beam is nothing like that - for one thing, the hotspot is not circular.
 

manoloco

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
690
Location
Lima, Perú
??

what? that to me seems like the same picture uploaded to imageshack twice.

either that or its a REALLY close call

*or is that the reason for the edit?

Like i said before, i think its the same picture uploaded twice, or the same origin image modified twice then uploaded, thing is the image looks the same bit by bit

if you have an LCD screen, side by side or above and below the brightness in the pictures are going to look a bit different because of the viewing angle, so its more noticeable the way the poster did it, side by side would look closer.

On a professional flat CRT monitor that problem is almost completely gone, and the pictures look identical above and below or side by side.

those who didnt noticed, have you eyes checked a.s.a.p. :D

i dont have those flashlights to talk about the beam characteristics, but the evidence is there by itself.

so now as a note: professional CRTs are way more reliable for imaging and color matching than LCDs, also the refresh rate on 21" CRTs make them better and more comfortable to look with moving images, i dont care how fast LCD makers say the response time is, it isnt remotely close to a good CRT, and i have to use both at the same time for work, LCDs are great for reading and working CAD (if used at native res) since the image is absolutely flat and the pixels are all the same, also brightness difference in view angles dont affect in those activities

But for seeing photos, color matching and SPECIALLY movies and fast moving games, CRTs are unbeaten, specially 21" ones or bigger with a diamondtron NF or trinitron flat tube. (yes they are expensive, i had to look for a used one in great conditions for working and found one at 65 usd, when it came out its price was close to 800 usd :D:D)

one more example of a non mature product displacing a great one, i dont know if/when LCDs will get better than pro CRTs (for the uses stated) but they are not there yet.
 
Last edited:

g36pilot

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
220
I already did that, and that was the only reason I didn't state categorically that they were identical.
The 2 file names are:
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8954/0410072147om6.jpg
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/2153/0410072147mn8.jpg
but I have compared them side by side on screen and there is no difference at all. My guess is he resized the same photo twice, saving it under a different name each time.

FWIW, I have a LF EO-9 and the beam is nothing like that - for one thing, the hotspot is not circular.

DM51,

My post #9 quoted Dinan's #8 "Those two pics are exactly the same... (75515 bytes for both)"

And you may be correct. No worries.
 

g36pilot

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
220
Yes, and he was following on from my post #7.

"I already did that, and that was the only reason I didn't state categorically that they were identical."

Just thought you were a little touchy with that statement.

Agreed, it does look like the same photo.

Regards
 

DM51

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
13,338
Location
Borg cube #51
No touchiness intended. Look, we're just going round in circles here. Let's hope AWGD8 comes back and clears this up. Perhaps we can just agree that it's the same photo, or 2 almost identical photos of the same light, and it isn't an EO-9.
 

g36pilot

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
220
Agreed about the photo. The anything else is a simple misunderstanding.

Regards
 
Top