FENIX's Next step after the Q5

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
They have introduced LEDs of increasing brightness step by step. I'm very curious to know what they are planning for their next presentation. Based on their history I'm confident it will be noticeably more efficient/brighter than the Q5, but I haven't seen any information about this, or perhaps I've missed a thread.

FourSevens, can you enlighten us?

Brightnorm
 

WadeF

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,180
Location
Perkasie, PA
We may see R2 Fenix lights at some point, but probably not until Fenix feels there is a large enough supply of R2's in the tint bins they accept.
 

Hitthespot

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
1,662
Location
Mentor, Ohio
Q6
crackup.gif
crackup.gif
crackup.gif



Seriously I think we will see R2's pretty soon.

Bill
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
Would R2's provide an increase over the Q5 proportional to the Q5's increase over its predecessor?

BN
 

Hitthespot

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
1,662
Location
Mentor, Ohio
There is a list somewhere that gives the increase on each of the emitters. I'm sure with some searching you can find it.

Bill
 

StarHalo

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
10,927
Location
California Republic
When it comes to the future of Cree bins, you have to take into account the amount of difference/gain in lumens between each bin. Let's take a look at the Cree bin guide:

CreeBins.gif


So we're currently at Q5 (and in a few rare instances, R2) and the chart shows what we can expect in the future all the way out to the R4 bins. So here's the final net difference for the flashlight user - We know the Fenix L0D, for example, uses the Q4 emitter and is rated at 75 lumens, so what if we dropped a Q5 into it? According to the chart, the difference between the Q4 and Q5 bins is right around 7%, so extrapolating from that (7% over 75 lumens) the finshed L0D Q5 would put out 80 lumens, or five lumens more than the Q4.

"Is that good?" Well not really, and here's why - the human perception of light is logarithmic; meaning in order for you to perceive something as being twice as bright, it actually has to be *four times* as bright! So to make our example Fenix L0D appear twice as bright, it'd have to put out an unbelieveable 300 LUMENS! And that's not going to happen anytime soon off of a single AAA battery.

What if we took it to the extreme and went into the future to acquire a prototype R4 emitter for our L0D? Again going by the chart numbers, the R4 is 30% brighter than the Q4 (a long ways from 400%) which would give you a grand total of 98 lumens - not even enough of a gain for you to be able to distinguish between the two bins visually.
 

Kiessling

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 26, 2002
Messages
16,140
Location
Old World
StarHalo ... I really appreciate the reality check here. I think bazillions of CPFers are completely waisting their flashaholic energy with the hunt for the "bin of the day", not realizing how completely and utterly in vain this is from a realistic point of view.
Meanwhile, they might well miss more important flashaholic things than a 7% increase in brightness.
bernie
 

Mike Painter

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
1,863
What if we took it to the extreme and went into the future to acquire a prototype R4 emitter for our L0D? Again going by the chart numbers, the R4 is 30% brighter than the Q4 (a long ways from 400%) which would give you a grand total of 98 lumens - not even enough of a gain for you to be able to distinguish between the two bins visually.

But it would mean longer battery life for the same emmision or a wider hot spot and in some cases the difference between seeing something and not seeing it at a distance
 

asdalton

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
1,722
Location
Northeast Oklahoma
"Is that good?" Well not really, and here's why - the human perception of light is logarithmic; meaning in order for you to perceive something as being twice as bright, it actually has to be *four times* as bright! So to make our example Fenix L0D appear twice as bright, it'd have to put out an unbelieveable 300 LUMENS!

This explanation of logarithmic sensitivity isn't quite correct. What it actually means is that the eye is sensitive to percent changes in brightness rather than simple differences. So a change from 1 lumen to 10 lumens (1000%) is much more significant than a change from 80 lumens to 89 lumens (11%)--even though the difference in output is 9 lumens in both cases.

A doubling of brightness is quite noticeable and is generally perceived as a doubling. However, my experience is that you usually have to go to a 4X change or more before you obtain a difference in practical usefulness. This is one reason why simple 2-level lights with high/very low are surprisingly useful.

You are right, of course, that the real-world differences between the newest brands and bins of power LEDs (Cree, Seoul, Rebel, K2 TFFC) are small. (It's not small for these LEDs versus the old Luxeon I/III/V/K2.) The small percentage differences in advertised output are part of the reason. Another is that the regulator can make a big difference regarding the overall battery efficiency of a flashlight.
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
I read somewhere on CPF that people can distinguish a 20% difference in brightness level. I don't recall whether that was an AB comparison or in general usage but assuming it's a valid figure, 107 + 20% = 128.4. Considering that an increase from 107 to 114 is only +7%, it looks like I'll continue to get excellent use out of my Q5's (and Q4's and my brighter Seouls) for quite a while.

Brightnorm
 

IMSabbel

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
921
"Is that good?" Well not really, and here's why - the human perception of light is logarithmic; meaning in order for you to perceive something as being twice as bright, it actually has to be *four times* as bright! So to make our example Fenix L0D appear twice as bright, it'd have to put out an unbelieveable 300 LUMENS! And that's not going to happen anytime soon off of a single AAA battery.

While the rest of your comment was more or less true, you seem to have no idea what "logarithmic" means, and neither a grasp on when it is relevant and when not.

Edit: Well, it has been explained by others how to really understand the "logartihmic" part.
Maybe you just thought about the r^-2 relationship to link throw to output?
 
Last edited:

StarHalo

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 4, 2007
Messages
10,927
Location
California Republic
StarHalo ... I really appreciate the reality check here.

TY Kiessling. A few days ago I came up with the idea of having a "form letter response" to those topics that keep popping up every few days, usually with such frequency that no one cares to respond in full; As is usually the case, someone asks an earnest question, and all they get back is a handful of short, unproductive posts, maybe a couple of links to "go read about it", etc. It would be more helpful to provide a thorough and concise single post, sort of like a study/cheat sheet, something that would give the reader a quick but solid understanding of the subject.

Another benefit of this method is that it could be refined over time - I think Asdalton and Brightnorm's brightness/percentage concept is more concise and understandable than logarithms, so I'll use that explanation the next time I post the "form". I also have a form for lubricants, and I'm hoping that there it might help to gather objective empirical data on how various lubes actually compare to one another, rather than the usual "I use Brand X and it works. The end."

you seem to have no idea what "logarithmic" means

I know what logarithmic means, thank you for your example of an unproductive post.
 

glenda17

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
279
Fenix doesn't need brighter emitters, they need LED's w/out rings. Hopefully the R-bins take care of this?
 
Top