cool vs neutral white for my specific use: clarity vs depth?

ultra24 · Jun 24, 2014

I asked for headlamp recommendations for a 24 hour skating event in another thread and am still thinking the Zebralight H600(W) is the best option for me because it seems to give the best balance of weight/lumens/cost. Now I'm wondering if I should go for the cool or neutral white version. I read a lot about that in the archives and that only made me more confused. I read experience from one person who said that the neutral white version was too dim for running and that he much preffered the cool white, even with the same lumens. I found this video and from that small segment I thought the cool white version definitely was brighter, but I'm still not sure if that trumps the other benefits of the W version.

Here's what I think I learned:
Cool White
- appears brighter. This appeals to me. The whole reason I'm buying an expensive-for-me headlamp is that I want brightness, I want to be able to skate safely and see my surroundings and not be afraid I'll miss something.

Neutral White
- better color rendering. This is nice, but not essential for me.
- easier to distinguish animals in nature. I would like to see it if a rabbit is sitting in the grass right next to my bicycle road.
- easier on the eyes. I'm skating for 24 hours, 7 of which will be in the dark. Easy on the eyes sounds great.
- better depth perception. I'm unclear about this, but it came up quite a few times in the discussions I read.

I'm unclear about contrast. Some people say neutrals offer better contrast, other people say that that's why they prefer cools. One issue I need a headlamp for is pebbles and twigs and slugs on the road. One pebble can mean a fall if it comes between the wheels the wrong way. Seeing what is on the road is the most important thing I need a headlamp for.

I know the cool white/neutral white divide is basically just preference, but also a lot of "what do you do with it". I totally see the case for neutral whites, but I wonder if there is any consensus on whether cool whites might be better specifically for running/trail cycling when you go somewhat fast and need to see well? I feel like my night vision is below average. I wish there were a way to try these lamps and see for myself, but alas, I don't live in a country where I can just return the lamp if I don't like it, so I'd love your opinions.

WalkIntoTheLight · Jun 24, 2014

I think you have the pros and cons listed, although I'm not sure why NW would offer better depth perception. It will offer better colour rendition and contrast, so that will help you pick out details that are different in colour. Good for outdoor use in summer, when there are lots of subtle colour differences especially in browns and greens where NW is better than CW.

Cool white will give you about 10%-15% more brightness, so it compensates a bit for its poorer colour rendition.

I think the differences are small enough that it really comes down to a personal preference in tint. I like warm colours, so a neutral white or a warm white is better for me. Warm white is best IMO, but hard to get, and quite a lot dimmer. Others like the harsher light of cool white, maybe it wakes them up more or something.

If identifying pebbles on a road is a big concern, perhaps a neutral white would serve you better. They will probably stand out a little better because of the higher colour rendition.

Chrisdm · Jun 24, 2014

Personal preference, nothing more than that. I use my lights for lots of things, photography, search & rescue etc... But in the end for me I pick neutral tints simply because the blueish hue cast by cooler temp LEDs to me just begins to feel creepy for long periods outdoors, like I'm rendering everything as a cheap horror movie. In fact I tend to favor the warmer side of neutral, ie 4000k, as the hint of warmness in the glow is more inviting, like a campfire or fireplace renders the night.

AnAppleSnail · Jun 24, 2014

I really prefer cool white for concrete-based settings, and neutral-white for natural settings. Something about the way cool white works with concrete helps me to see better. Sidewalks, industrial spaces, (And concrete skate ramps?) seem to soak up buttery neutral-white photons.

markr6 · Jun 24, 2014

ultra24 said:
- better depth perception. I'm unclear about this, but it came up quite a few times in the discussions I read.

This one stuck out for me. I had to switch to a NW headlamp while running at night, because the cool white was very strange regarding depth perception. It's hard to explain, but it almost made me feel cross-eyed after a few minutes. It could have something to do with the overall comform of a warmer tint, but can't be sure. Shadows from uneven concrete or the edge of the road on the shoulder where it meets grass seemed exaggerated. NW really seems to help and since I'm not the greatest runner, I need all the motivation and comfort I can get!

TEEJ · Jun 24, 2014

ultra24 said:
I asked for headlamp recommendations for a 24 hour skating event in another thread and am still thinking the Zebralight H600(W) is the best option for me because it seems to give the best balance of weight/lumens/cost. Now I'm wondering if I should go for the cool or neutral white version. I read a lot about that in the archives and that only made me more confused. I read experience from one person who said that the neutral white version was too dim for running and that he much preffered the cool white, even with the same lumens. I found this video and from that small segment I thought the cool white version definitely was brighter, but I'm still not sure if that trumps the other benefits of the W version.

Here's what I think I learned:
Cool White
- appears brighter. This appeals to me. The whole reason I'm buying an expensive-for-me headlamp is that I want brightness, I want to be able to skate safely and see my surroundings and not be afraid I'll miss something.

Neutral White
- better color rendering. This is nice, but not essential for me.
- easier to distinguish animals in nature. I would like to see it if a rabbit is sitting in the grass right next to my bicycle road.
- easier on the eyes. I'm skating for 24 hours, 7 of which will be in the dark. Easy on the eyes sounds great.
- better depth perception. I'm unclear about this, but it came up quite a few times in the discussions I read.

I'm unclear about contrast. Some people say neutrals offer better contrast, other people say that that's why they prefer cools. One issue I need a headlamp for is pebbles and twigs and slugs on the road. One pebble can mean a fall if it comes between the wheels the wrong way. Seeing what is on the road is the most important thing I need a headlamp for.

I know the cool white/neutral white divide is basically just preference, but also a lot of "what do you do with it". I totally see the case for neutral whites, but I wonder if there is any consensus on whether cool whites might be better specifically for running/trail cycling when you go somewhat fast and need to see well? I feel like my night vision is below average. I wish there were a way to try these lamps and see for myself, but alas, I don't live in a country where I can just return the lamp if I don't like it, so I'd love your opinions.

Its really a question of DEGREE. Its not like rabbits in grass are invisible with a 6k tint and suddenly hop into view at 4k, etc.

Everyone has personal preferences, and, everyone's eyes perceive the world around them differently. That means YOU might prefer something that someone else doesn't prefer, and visa versa. Neither of you would be "wrong" either, any more than if you liked chocolate and they said vanilla was better.

Some people find cooler white easier on the eyes, and, as cooler white means more lumens, tend to be able to see more with the added illumination. Some people find that warmer tints are easier on their eyes, and, despite the lower level of illumination, they find it simply works better for them overall.

If you are skating at night and your eyes are night adapted, you mostly see in black and white anyway, so color rendition is ONLY a factor when NOT night adapted.

As a rule of thumb, based upon studies done for lighting in museums, etc, to best display art work, etc, the higher the illumination level, the more preferred a cooler white becomes. When lighting levels drop to the 50 lux or so ranges, preferences SHIFT to warmer tints. So if oyu're going to have more than 50 lux on what you are looking at, you MIGHT prefer cooler tints, and, if less than 50 lux, you MIGHT prefer warmer tints. Those are the TENDENCIES based upon the studies.

The DEGREE of color rendition will be, frankly, small...as warm doesn't increase CRI for example, its a common misconception. A high CRI light can render colors more accurately, and, most of those tend to be warm tinted....but its not the tint that makes it high CRI. In a cool light, a rabbit still looks like a rabbit, again, its a question of degree and personal preference.

My OWN preference is ~ 5k for example.

WalkIntoTheLight · Jun 24, 2014

Interesting theory about preferring warmer tint as light levels drop. I fall into that camp too, but I always assumed it had to do with being able to discern colours. At high light levels, cool white is fine because it's providing so much light that colours are easy to tell apart. At low light levels, I have problems separating colours, so a warmer tint / higher CRI helps with colour rendition especially with reds and browns and greens.

And I suppose it is psychological too. Warmer just feels better.

kbuzbee · Jun 24, 2014

WalkIntoTheLight said:
I'm not sure why NW would offer better depth perception. It will offer better colour rendition and contrast, so that will help you pick out details that are different in colour.

You basically hit the "why". There are two components to depth perception. Basic stereoscopic vision. Tint doesn't impact that much. And contextual clues. Here, being able to differentiate one object from another comes into play and color is part of that. In another study they figured out men and women excel at these differently. Men were better at context and women better at stereoscopic vision. But again, those were statistical averages and any given person is different. The more you work on either aspect the better you get. But, yes, there us a case to be made for better color rendition aiding in depth perception.

Ken

MichaelW · Jun 24, 2014

There is some psychological 'comfort' by using cool-white at night, outside. You send wavelengths out, and get a strong unnatural return. That strong, distorted return can be 'comforting'. [the basis for this 'comfort' may be is rooted in delusion and/or denial; a coping mechanism by any name] For some people this can offset the extra strain in the visual cortex, and possibly the eyeball.
The extra light offered by cool-white over neutral-white is 5-10%-half a bin to one bin, not 10-15%, but neither is really noticeable. You'll notice flux-distribution, and CCT/SPD more so.
I'd get the H600Fw Mk II Floody, and have some D-C fix to make it more floody if need be.
4400K is neutral, tending toward cool, Zebra's 6300K cool-white is just...

RetroTechie · Jun 24, 2014

I switched from CW to NW as front light on my bicycle, and there's no going back. It's just easier to tell different greenish or brownish shades apart, spot what's lurking in the grass at the side of the road, etc. To me, it just feels like my brain doesn't have to work as hard to tell what's there, as compared to a CW light. I'll gladly drop some lumens output for that.

For indoor uses, I just like colors better as rendered using a NW light. Not sure if actual warm white would work for me in either use, I think I prefer lights on the warmish side of NW (~4K CT).

But it's definitely a preference thing. Depending on environment, what you're used to, and how much light you have to work with. And not all people are built the same...

Taz80 · Jun 24, 2014

I also skate-rollerblade and know how fast you can move. It doesn't take a very big pebble to trip you up. Objects on roads tend to blend into the backround, because they are small rocks and pieces of asphalt. During the day when you spot these your actually seeing the shadow. I would recommend also using a hand held, or a headlamp clipped to your waist. Like TEEJ, a light around 5k would also be my preference. Warms make some colors stand out more but hides others.

TEEJ · Jun 24, 2014

For perspective, There are two side by side beams: On the left is a Zebralight SC600, and on the right, is a Zebralight SC600W

Both are old versions, albeit the one on the left is the cool white version, and, on the right, is the warm version.

Its not a great pic as far as sharpness, as the old camera didn't like LED light to start with, but, it does show about what all this warm vs cool stuff is about.

Yeah, that's what its about.

Here's a crappy control shot using just the camera flash and no flashlight. Notice the grass IS missing from areas, and, present in others, etc....so some differences are the yard, not the lights or camera per se.

So, you are gliding along and you have the scene on the left, and the scene on the right....does one make you dizzy like you will fall off your skates due to a lack of depth perception and inability to tell what's in front of you, while the other presents a landscape of unparallelled clarity and depth, and fills you with hope and swells your sails so you swiftly traverse the terrain in an effortless and graceful passage?

Pick the one that swells your sails.

If it just doesn't seem to matter, then, it doesn't.

Slewflash · Jun 25, 2014

If you're using it while skating make sure it is current controlled and doesn't have PWM. when you're moving really fast and your only source of light is a PWM controlled light that's going to mess you up.

soddo · Jun 25, 2014

is it pitch black or lots of light pollution with paths lit up? If its the latter you might find cool white brighter

WalkIntoTheLight · Jun 25, 2014

TEEJ said:
For perspective, There are two side by side beams: On the left is a Zebralight SC600, and on the right, is a Zebralight SC600W

The cool white side looks really washed out. I find it hard to believe anyone would prefer it, but I'm sure there are some that will! :shrug:

TEEJ · Jun 25, 2014

WalkIntoTheLight said:
The cool white side looks really washed out. I find it hard to believe anyone would prefer it, but I'm sure there are some that will! :shrug:

Oddly, I see the warm side as more washed out....and see more detail on the cooler side. I guess every one's perceptions are different.

Some of that will also be the aim of the light, and, in this case, that some area have grass (Detail TO see) and some area are balder (Less detail to see...), etc. The control flash pic does show the same scene lit equivalently - so, it is possible at least to see what a color balanced camera flash version looks like.

AnAppleSnail · Jun 25, 2014

TEEJ said:
Some of that will also be the aim of the light, and, in this case, that some area have grass (Detail TO see) and some area are balder (Less detail to see...), etc. The control flash pic does show the same scene lit equivalently - so, it is possible at least to see what a color balanced camera flash version looks like.

Don't forget that our monitors and eyes are calibrated differently

Is your laptop/phone on Powersave?

TEEJ · Jun 25, 2014

AnAppleSnail said:
Don't forget that our monitors and eyes are calibrated differently

Is your laptop/phone on Powersave?

Naw....power wasting as usual.

And, yup. So many variables.

I find a lot of the time that on my computer, before uploading, etc, a pic may look one way, but after uploading it, and its subjected to CPF's size limitations, etc...the pic looks totally different.

When doing beam shots, I'll go nutz making sure the pic looks like real life did at the time, and then I post, and the pic sometimes looks black, instead of black with a spot of light in it, etc.

The bottom line, to me at least, is that as I HAVE warm lights, high CRI lights, neutral whites and cool whites, the differences, in USE, such as disaster response, etc, are far different than in forensic inspection and detail work.

For the disaster response, cool almost always works better. For forensics/fine details, higher CRI is nice for some stuff, and the ARTIFACTS on non-high CRI can actually highlight some details of interest...and I can take advantage of that. Using a 365 nm UV light would be an extreme example of a non-high CRI light working better than a high CRI light.

AnAppleSnail · Jun 25, 2014

TEEJ said:
For the disaster response, cool almost always works better. For forensics/fine details, higher CRI is nice for some stuff, and the ARTIFACTS on non-high CRI can actually highlight some details of interest...and I can take advantage of that. Using a 365 nm UV light would be an extreme example of a non-high CRI light working better than a high CRI light.

Shining Red+Blue light on green tomatoes at night will show brown (Instead of green pretending to be blue) when they are two weeks from being ripe. This is because the red light penetrates and reflects off whatever reddening chemicals flourish when the tomato is ready.

As a photographer/beamshot guy, I found Flickr Pro to be a good way to avoid the compression that many web sites force on you. However, I first have to pre-compress my photo to below the web site's threshold to avoid their mangler from working on my pictures. On Facebook, this size was 1028x762 for a while.

tl;dr, if your photo is like this to show beamshot intensity with greenish tint

|RGB
|RRGGGBB
|RRRGGGGBBB
|RRGGGBB
|RGB

A data-saving server might compress it to:

|
|RGB
|RRGGBB
|RGB
|

This compresses the dynamic range (From 3RGB to 2RGB) and messes with the color.

Then someone's monitor has the gamma cranked up for gaming, and the next guy has a Photo-calibrated monitor, or a Dell with acceptably ok settings, or a CRT, or a phone on a train in full daylight. Good luck!

TEEJ · Jun 25, 2014

AnAppleSnail said:
Shining Red+Blue light on green tomatoes at night will show brown (Instead of green pretending to be blue) when they are two weeks from being ripe. This is because the red light penetrates and reflects off whatever reddening chemicals flourish when the tomato is ready.

As a photographer/beamshot guy, I found Flickr Pro to be a good way to avoid the compression that many web sites force on you. However, I first have to pre-compress my photo to below the web site's threshold to avoid their mangler from working on my pictures. On Facebook, this size was 1028x762 for a while.

tl;dr, if your photo is like this to show beamshot intensity with greenish tint

|RGB
|RRGGGBB
|RRRGGGGBBB
|RRGGGBB
|RGB

A data-saving server might compress it to:

|
|RGB
|RRGGBB
|RGB
|

This compresses the dynamic range (From 3RGB to 2RGB) and messes with the color.

Then someone's monitor has the gamma cranked up for gaming, and the next guy has a Photo-calibrated monitor, or a Dell with acceptably ok settings, or a CRT, or a phone on a train in full daylight. Good luck!

LOL

So true, So true!

cool vs neutral white for my specific use: clarity vs depth?

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Flashaholic

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashlight Enthusiast

Enlightened

Flashaholic

Newly Enlightened

Newly Enlightened

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Flashlight Enthusiast

Flashaholic

Similar threads