Headlamp beams

I've noticed that the shape of the beam on a headlamp makes a lot of difference to me. The more the light seems natural (as in from a natural source) the more I like it. When I'm walking around and the light is like it's coming out of a tunnel (even if it's a wide tunnel) it's distracting because every time I move my head I see the large circle of light moving.

I now have 4 headlamps...PT EOS, BD Storm, Zebralight H51 and H51f. The Storm and EOS both have optics and the Zebralights both have reflectors with the H51f also having a frosted lens.

The EOS and the H51 both have large circles of light with a sharp cut-off (spill to darkness). The H51f is the most diffused and the Storm is more of a directed flood. It throws almost as far as the H51 even though I have added a piece of tape over the optic of the Storm to clean up the beam a bit. They throw almost the same since the Storm has a XP-E and the H51 has a XP-G.

I added two pieces of tape over the EOS to eliminate that large tunnel effect. Now there is plenty of light where ever I look and as I move around there is no large circle where it's either bright or absolutely dark. I'm much less aware of the source of the light now. Now it doesn't throw as far as the Storm however.

The H51f has the most flood but it's also got a max output of 200 lumens so it can usually shine as far as I need it to. The detail is just not there in any one spot.

The H51 is the brightest of the 4 and throws the furthest but it doesn't throw that much further because it's an XP-G so it's only going to throw so far.

The light beam from all of them except the H51 (after some tape) is natural and pleasant to hike with. I'm unsure what to do with the H51.

I can modify it with some tape but then it won't be that different than the H51f but I could do that so all the lights will have pleasant beams. I can try to use it in combination with the H51f which lessens the sharp cut-off effect since the H51f adds more light at that cut-off point or I can just keep the H51 in my pocket as a backup and for those occasions when I do need a little more throw. This last choice would be to use it more or less as a thrower flashlight.

If there was a good flip-up diffuser that would be nice as well. I have the Fenix diffuser than has been pictured in another thread but it has some problems and the diffusion material itself isn't very nice. I could try to drill it out and put some better material that was more like tape but it just ends up making the light feel tacky and less robust. If there was some easy snap-on diffuser that I could easily snap-off I'd consider that as well. I'm talking about diffusion material however that would result in a directed beam as with tape so it will still be useful for hiking. I'm not referring to diffusion material so strong as to only be useful for reading or for when inside the tent.

I realize that we are not all the same and that we have differing preferences but I rarely hear of anyone else who is bothered by that large tunnel effect. Does this not bother any of you?

I realize that when that tunnel effect is small enough that it bothers people but the EOS bothers me and it seems no one else. I haven't heard anyone else commenting on this aspect of the H51 either. The Storm is the only one with decent throw that also has illumination all the way up to the user and with no obvious edge to the light so it's more like walking around in full moon light which is the effect I prefer. I'm talking about spot mode too and not just flood mode.

Unless I find an easy diffuser solution I'll probably just keep the H51 in my pocket as a backup. It would be nice to find something like a rubber band that was made of diffusion material so that you could have it around the tube over the lens and when you needed more throw you would simply slide it down the tube and from over the lens. Unless any diffuser fits tightly however you end up with glare and that's not acceptable either.

Does this effect bother none of you or if it does how have you addressed this issue?

gcbryan said:

I've noticed that the shape of the beam on a headlamp makes a lot of difference to me.

Click to expand...

That makes two of us, for sure! I hope someday that headlamp and handheld manufacturers will thread the inside around the lens, like camera lenses, so we can modify beams to our heart's content using screw-in filters. The SF Saint already recognizes the importance of beam modification and supplies snap-over colored lenses.

On the other hand, I like a sharp cut-off of light if the beam is sufficiently wide. I don't like areas lit with flood where my eye has to readjust, so I prefer lighting that's even up to the edge, and then just stops. For example, the Irix Icon II is a big offender here...it just fades gradually away to nothing. So anything that's lit near the edge, my eye's iris has to open to compensate...then as my eyes shift to the center of the beam, my eye's iris has to shut down again...open, shut, open, shut...this brings eye fatigue over time.

Bolster said:

That makes two of us, for sure! I hope someday that headlamp and handheld manufacturers will thread the inside around the lens, like camera lenses, so we can modify beams to our heart's content using screw-in filters. The SF Saint already recognizes the importance of beam modification and supplies snap-over colored lenses.

On the other hand, I like a sharp cut-off of light if the beam is sufficiently wide. I don't like areas lit with flood where my eye has to readjust, so I prefer lighting that's even up to the edge, and then just stops. For example, the Irix Icon II is a big offender here...it just fades gradually away to nothing. So anything that's lit near the edge, my eye's iris has to open to compensate...then as my eyes shift to the center of the beam, my eye's iris has to shut down again...open, shut, open, shut...this brings eye fatigue over time.

Click to expand...

I can see it from your perspective. You want an even beam that just stops because you are using it up close and by the time it reaches the sharp cut-off it's probably way in your peripheral vision anyway.

I'm using it outside to "illuminate a scene" if you will and unless the angle is 180 (which it's not...more like 90 degrees) then I'm looking at a brightly lit scene with part of my vision and I'm looking at a big round circle moving around and then pitch black with the other part of my vision.

A 180 degree beam with a 10 degree hotspot would be fine but that's not generally the way it works so to get a 180 beam it generally involves diffusion which does away with the 10 degree hotspot. Some optics (TIR) are able to maintain the hotspot (for throw) and reduce or eliminate the sharp cut-off...mainly by just reducing spill.

A very light diffusion material can have a similar result. It reduces the intensity of the hotspot as a cost but still throws fairly well and eliminates that sharp cut-off.

The best solution for the H51 would be a very light diffusion filter that would stay on most of the time and maybe slide off if a little more throw was needed.

gcbryan, didn't you mention somewhere that you rather liked the flood beam capability provided by the Storm?

Storm has two separate flood emitters, IIRC. Did you tape over the flood emitters, the throw emitter, or all of them?

The basic design concept of having one throw emitter and also a separate flood emitter, or flood emitters, seems solid to me.

Maybe a separate flood setup isn't the best design for a compact, lightweight headlamp for backpacking.

For bigger, heavier, more powerful, more all around useful headlamps, having separate throw and flood emitters looks like it'd be the way to go.

.

ringzero said:

gcbryan, didn't you mention somewhere that you rather liked the flood beam capability provided by the Storm?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do like the flood mode on the Storm. It only goes to 25 lumens but for those times when a pure flood is appropriate the Storm has a pure flood mode.

It has two flood emitters. One on each side so the beam angle is even wider than it would be otherwise.

ringzero said:

Storm has two separate flood emitters, IIRC. Did you tape over the flood emitters, the throw emitter, or all of them?

Click to expand...

There would be no need to tape over the flood emitters. The "spot" emitter on the Storm isn't really much of a spot. It's an optic and it is somewhat diffused. It does throw somewhat (especially compared to the pure flood mode). The particular optic that they uses is a bit ugly so one piece of tape over that optic improved (greatly) the look of the output and didn't reduce the throw that much (or I wouldn't have done it).

ringzero said:

The basic design concept of having one throw emitter and also a separate flood emitter, or flood emitters, seems solid to me.

Click to expand...

I agree.

ringzero said:

Maybe a separate flood setup isn't the best design for a compact, lightweight headlamp for backpacking.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The Storm has done a good job in that regard.

ringzero said:

For bigger, heavier, more powerful, more all around useful headlamps, having separate throw and flood emitters looks like it'd be the way to go.

.

Click to expand...

I agree. The problem with the H51 (IMO) is that it has throw but not all that much because it's a XP-G rather than a XP-E or XR-E and the beam angle of the spill is not enough for the user to see what is at foot level. You can see out ahead but not where you are standing.

With the H51f you can see where you are standing and far enough ahead for many situations but where real throw is needed it doesn't provide that.

That's the issue. The H51f is fine for what it does. The h51 is a bit limited in stand alone mode. The spill beam needs to be wider. The spot part of the beam is fine. An optic would be the best solution to this particular problem (TIR). It would at least (in most cases) reduce the sharp cut-off (spill to darkness) which is very distracting.

gcbryan said:

I disagree. The Storm has done a good job in that regard.

Click to expand...

Sorry for not being clearer. I didn't mean the design approach itself was undesirable for a backpacking headlamp, but was thinking in terms of rapid battery consumption by a typical AAA format headlamp when running both spot and flood emitters. But, I now remember that the Storm can't do that, so rapid battery consumtion wouldn't be an issue for Storm.

The ability to run both spot and flood at the same time seems to add a lot to the capability of a headlamp. I don't own one that can do that, so I'm going from beamshots I've seen of Petzl headlamps that can do that, and also beamshots of Stenlight and similar uber-expensive, dedicated caving headlamps.

.

ringzero said:

Sorry for not being clearer. I didn't mean the design approach itself was undesirable for a backpacking headlamp, but was thinking in terms of rapid battery consumption by a typical AAA format headlamp when running both spot and flood emitters. But, I now remember that the Storm can't do that, so rapid battery consumtion wouldn't be an issue for Storm.

The ability to run both spot and flood at the same time seems to add a lot to the capability of a headlamp. I don't own one that can do that, so I'm going from beamshots I've seen of Petzl headlamps that can do that, and also beamshots of Stenlight and similar uber-expensive, dedicated caving headlamps.

.

Click to expand...

I think even an AAA headlamp should be designed to run both at the same time. It doesn't have to be a battery consumption issue. It's more of a UI complexity issue but doesn't really have to be either.

It's true that it's a battery consumption issue if you run the spot and flood on high but in playing around with both the H51 and H51f at the same time I've found that 7 lumens flood and 7-28 lumens spot is a good combination. If both are used at 7 lumens that's only 14 lumens combined.

It just allows you to shape the beam profile more. A little more flood takes care of that sharp beam cut-off with the spot and the combined beam looks much more natural and appealing.

I truly think that this isn't done more just because the designers/engineers don't seem to be climbers/hikers/outdoors people. They may be but it doesn't appear that way from some some of the design flaws that get out the door.

How could the Petzl designers let the XP2 get out the door when the body of the headlamp is now clear and results in glare. Who would make a clear box that you are going to put a light in and then wear on your head just above your eyes

Regarding the Storm...it's technically pretty good but the UI that toggles between spot and flood every time you turn the light on would drive anyone crazy There is no mode memory in that regard...just using your light in spot...turn it off for a minute...start using it again...and now it's in flood!

ringzero said:

The ability to run both spot and flood at the same time seems to add a lot to the capability of a headlamp...

Click to expand...

Agree! And here is a market opportunity for the manufacturers. Not that many inexpensive (say under $100) lights have dual emitters, designed differentially for spot/throw. I think:

Pixa 3
PT Apex
BD Storm

...off the top of my head. There are probably others, but not lots.

Imagine a Zebralight, 1/2 inch longer than those in production now, with two emitters, one above the other. One spot, one flood. By adjusting the illumination level of each, you could custom-mix your beam all the way from spot only, spot with a little flood (for the bikers), balanced, flood with a little spot (for the hikers), and finally pure flood (for workers like me). All from one light with two emitters. The backpackers would love it. Spot bears and set up camp all with one light.

Someone will make it someday! And that someone will eat somebody else's lunch! Because who doesn't want a compact two-emitter light?

i would buy this in a heartbeat.

Bolster said:

Imagine a Zebralight, 1/2 inch longer than those in production now, with two emitters, one above the other. One spot, one flood.

Click to expand...

Great idea there, Bolster.

I'm sure Zlight could do that without too much trouble, and I'm betting it'd be one of the best headlamps out there.

The trouble I have with most modern headlamps, is that when I started using headlamps for caving and outdoor activities, they were carbide headlamps.

After using carbide lamps for years, I got used to having massive output, pure white color, and very smooth, floody beams. That directional flood surrounding a wide hotspot with a bit of throw is just awesome for usability.

The only electric headlamps that'll match or exceed that wonderful carbide goodness, appear to be Stenlight and similar expensive, limited production lamps.

If Zlight, or any company, could make a flood plus spot headlamp that approximated the beam of a carbide lamp at a lower output level, I'd be thrilled to buy one.

.

The floodiest headlamp I have, in terms of the width of the beam itself, not necessarily the intensity profile in the beam's area, is my Spark ST5-190NW. I use the frosted lens with it. It literally lights up my entire field of view; I did an informal test with it a week or so ago, to see how far to either side I could see the light from it on my thumb... What I got looked to me literally like a 180º field of view. It's floodier than even my H51w with DC-fix on it.

Because of that, I use it mostly for outdoor activities where I'm moving around a fair amount, hiking, cutting firewood, camping, etc. I use my H51w mostly for indoors use where I need more focused light, like reading at night, sewing, working on some small items at my work bench, etc.

If someone is going to make a double emitter headlight light that, I'd like one at each end, spaced roughly the width of my eyes. (and for heat dissipation, of course

LOL, I thought exactly the same thing after I mocked up the doubler. You'd have to screw off an LED head to replace the battery but that's doable.

But the chances of production are probably somewhere between zero and zilch. And I'm no electrical engineer, so I don't know what additional complexities such a venture would involve. It might be too complex to get as small as I've envisioned it.

But I'm betting that if such a light were available, it would be pretty darned popular. It would solve a lot of the tradeoffs we have to make currently, regarding which beam profile fits the situation at hand.

Here's my current workaround. Depending on the task I can place a spot up top and a flood down below. Here shown with two floods for work at arm's length. I'll be experimenting with my own home-made high-CRI when my H501r shows up.

MichaelW said:

If someone is going to make a double emitter headlight light that, I'd like one at each end, spaced roughly the width of my eyes. (and for heat dissipation, of course

Click to expand...

if you want to maintain the sleekness of a Zebra, the heads have to be stacked on the same side. if you have them on either end of the battery tube, you'd basically need wire running from one head to the other and that be kind of awkward.

Fantasy Zebra's

Why couldn't the body unscrew in the middle?
Why couldn't there be multiple perpendicular cells to the body, sort of like a Spark in reverse. One emitter on each end, with 2 or more cr2 body appendages.

I don't think it would be a problem to have to two heads together as pictured. Just have the spot first and the flood at the end and it should be fine unless weird shallows were cast or something like that.

The flood doesn't really have to be centered due to it's beam angle.

Re: Fantasy Zebra's

MichaelW said:

Why couldn't there be multiple perpendicular cells to the body, sort of like a Spark in reverse. One emitter on each end, with 2 or more cr2 body appendages.

Click to expand...

i suppose you could. but then you'd lose the sleekness of the Zebra and end up with a fairly awkward headlamp.

GCB makes a good point about the flood. it can be pretty far off center w/o it being noticeable.

Bolster said:

Here's my current workaround. Depending on the task I can place a spot up top and a flood down below. Here shown with two floods for work at arm's length. I'll be experimenting with my own home-made high-CRI when my H501r shows up.

Click to expand...

Looks like you've built an excellent, adaptable to differing conditions, all around useful headlamp there, Bolster.

In a way though, doesn't it seem kind of pitiful that you have to resort to a home built headlamp to get a beam that is useful for your work environment?

Other than one Petzl Pixa model, there isn't a true spot-flood headlamp available off the shelf for a reasonable price - is there?

Finally, would you please post a beamshot of your setup when using a spot-flood combination?

.

Thanks, Ring! Actually I was looking for a redundant solution...I want to be able to change out the cell of one lamp with the light of the other. Since this is also my CERT helmet I wanted it redundant enough to do emergency duty. The most useful beam pattern for most of my work is the double-flood setup, both lights on medium. A scootch of the flood beam from the top hits the knurled knob of the lower light, casting a small bit of shadow at the bottom right of the beam. That's the price I paid for angling the clamp back for compactness. I'm curious what it'll be like to replace one of the H51w lights with an H51R to "make my own high-CRI" light. I'm not expecting great things but I'm going to give it a try.

Experiment in progress...

My solution to the H51 is to keep a little throw and give up some in the name of having a diffused edge to the spill.

I took a piece of translucent tape and punched a hole in the middle and put this over the clear lens of the H51. I tested it out in a semi-dark basement and garage and it has more throw than my H51f and now has a diffused edge to the spill as desired.

It doesn't have a lot of throw but it is a directed beam now. I'm waiting for it to get darker outside so I can test it in a real world environment.

I want it to be different than the H51f (a little more throw) but still have a pleasant (to me) beam shape (no sharp cut-off).

The hole if small enough wouldn't do anything really. It would just let spill out but it isn't that small so some collimated rays come out as well.

Diffusing the outer rays of the reflector which are the most efficient since they are closest to a point source kills a lot of the throw but that can't be helped given my beam shape desires.

I'm going to compare the hole size I using now when it's good and dark and then I'm going to enlarge that hole while still (hopefully) retaining the diffused cut-off and see if I get more throw.

Results to be reported soon