Green tinted LED's being marketed as superior

I keep noticing this trend by high-end flashlight makers such as Surefire to convince us that we need squid-green tinted LED's to give us some kind of tactical advantage. All of my newer Surefire lights have this green tint, for example my G2X LE and E2D Ultra. I recently saw that the new Lasermax Manta-Ray light specifically states that green light is superior: "capitalizing on the most visible wavelength in the color spectrum, Manta-Ray™ LMR-M delivers 140 Lumensof groundbreaking Mint Green™ LED light". I recall the 2015 Surefire catalog stating something similar.

Are these claims based on actual scientific data or is it simply a way for companies to convince their market that the low-end led bins they are sourcing to save pennies are what we've been waiting for all along?

I personally cannot stand the green tint on my newer Surefire's and they pretty much stay in the drawer these days.

Thoughts?


Manta-Ray factsheet link: http://www.lasermax.com/uploads/Manta-Ray_Fact Sheet.pdf

Interesting. I find a green tinted LED really off-putting. No amount of marketing hype will change that.

One thing I noticed myself is that yellow and orange light causes much more squinting than cooler lights, I don't know why.
I would personally choose a warmer or at least close to a CCT than have a cheaper LED or save some energy. One exception being a light that is designed to be a marker beacon that is less than 1 lumen and is designed to run as long as possible. The reason is that human eye are more sensitive to green light so it takes less light to appear brighter. A pure green light might be able to get double the lumens/watt over white light for this reason.

I can't stand low CRI especially when it is combined with a color-biased light source, even if it is just a little pink or green I can't stand it. One exception would be very cool or blue light for specific uses, eg I wouldn't mind a hi-cri 10000K dive light.

EDIT:
I didn't realize that they actually stated the light was green, in that case it might even be monochromatic. Maybe it is a specialty LED that puts out 500-530nm light. I remember I had a flashlight that had a green LED, you loose all CRI but gain some efficiency.

It's just a way to for them to save pennies by using low bin emitters and hoping we'll believe the marketing BS and keep buying them.

Green light does improve contrast as we see more shades of green than any other color, but it has to be pretty green to do that. This is why green is used in night vision equipment.

Green being the most visible color spectrum is true, there's no denying that. However since we're talking about 'mostly' white color output here, the differences between lights with same outputs and slightly varying tints is-- subtle at best. If we were talking only single color output like a laser, then the differences would be dramatic.

Sunlight contains the full spectrum. Is anyone claiming equally bright green light would allow us to see better? I find that preposterous. Perhaps at very dim levels green works better since we're operating mostly on rods that don't detect color anyway but my argument would be to use a brighter light. I used green screen computer monitors for years and they always gave me blurry vision. Nobody will convince me that I can see better with green light than full spectrum hi cri.

I've noticed no "improvement" using green tinted LEDs myself if anything the tint is distracting when you encounter a "white wall". Personally I find the blue tints to be a little less distracting in use than green.

Interesting discussion. I recall a couple years ago one of Surefire's vapor lights was a monstrously bright light with a green LED, designed only to blind people, not to aid vision.

Who says SF does this to save pennies while they can just add a dollar more to retail price?
We have to keep in mind these are not enthusiast lights, there are lots of other choices out there for those who put a premium on tint. People buy them for different reasons, don't want it? Don't buy it.

It is their contention that green tint is "better" we are discussing. For tactical use tint may be irrelevant. I have no idea.

For instance, I once had a Peak Rainier with a traffic light green emitter. In fact, Curt told me the emitter is the same one used in green traffic lights. Color rendition was horrible. However, shining across a field at night into the woods, it dramatically outperformed white flashights in spotting partially hidden objects, persons, etc in that shapes jumped out of the background instead of becoming a blur. It's hard to explain, but the contrast between different objects became significantly more clear.

However, with the puke green tints these flashlights are using I doubt there is any benefit to the color other than being an annoyance to the user. I love Surefire lights, but all of the recent ones I've purchased with the puke green tints are now sold.

RobertMM said:

Who says SF does this to save pennies while they can just add a dollar more to retail price?
We have to keep in mind these are not enthusiast lights, there are lots of other choices out there for those who put a premium on tint. People buy them for different reasons, don't want it? Don't buy it.

Click to expand...

The voice of reason here. SureFire has certain tactical scenarios in mind when they design and build lights. Always have. Likely always will.

If it just so happens that a few flashlight junkies who gripe because a side switch is a half a milimeter too far forward or because the firely is 0.03 lumens too bright I doubt they'll set up and take notice.

It's not that Ima big ole SureFire fan. But I do understand the niche that SureFire has always tried to fill.

If you're ever out on a drizzly/foggy night on an unfamiliar mountain road behind the wheel of an automobile with green tinted headlights you'll understand the advantage.

It's not about how pretty it looks to the casual hobby-ist, but about casting a bright light in adverse conditions without being harsh to the user behind the lens.

Interesting. There seems to be a lot of information here contradicting some relatively common knowledge.

First, while cooler tinted lights create more contrast, it is easier for our eyes to process yellow, orange, and red lights. That's just the physiology of the eyes. It has to do with the rod and cone make up of the pupil.

Second, I doubt the difference between a greenish tinted light and a cool white light would be noticable during either high intensity applications or distance.

You might see a difference at low light levels, but I doubt it would be a major difference.

Both would have a small, perceptable advantage at a distance over incan or warm lights due to the higher contrast; but again, you would have to take a second to really process what you are seeing to get that advantage. Increasing intensity is far more effective on that end. That being said, the general consensus around here is warm lights suck for throw kings.

As far as an advantage in inclement weather, the European and US auto industries adopted orange fog lights for a reason. The longer wave length of the lower spectrum light travels further on the same amount of energy and is less susceptible to interference i.e. rain, fog, etc...

The only advantage a greenish light would have is the same advantage there is the same one a cool white light would have.

As far as an anecdotal thought, the greenish lights I have never seem to perform any better or worse than my other lights. I would actually say the one work light I have with a green tint doesn't actually hold up as well to the others. That could be preference though.

This is all for green tinted lights. Lasers or color specific lights that emit a specific nm range is an entirely different story.

End of the day, I'd say it's a marketing gimic based off of proven science for specific applications. Yes, it's a true statement, but I doubt it has much bearing in this application of it.

Green tint might be good for aliens but we humans are used to our suns light. It's CW or NW for us.

try a green tint on grass, and try to capture details even at close distances with your eyes.

anyone have the CCT and CRI for that light, also does it use PWM or not?

I did not find it on their site, so I emailed the same question, will share if they reply

SimulatedZero said:

cooler tinted lights create more contrast

Click to expand...

Im a newbie and that is not my experience, so can you please link me to more education?

here is my high CRI Neutral vs my low CRI Cool White


to me the Neutral has MUCH more contrast than the Cool, maybe due to CRI, not CCT?

Everyone's perception is different. To me the cool white has more contrast but it is also brighter. Like you I prefer the HI CRI because true color is more important to man than contrast. Even if clinically proven to provide more contrast I would still choose HI CRI over greenish cool white however I prefer 5000k HI CRI to warmer shades. I'd go to 5700k before I would go to 4000k

jon_slider said:

anyone have the CCT and CRI for that light, also does it use PWM or not?

I did not find it on their site, so I emailed the same question, will share if they reply



Im a newbie and that is not my experience, so can you please link me to more education?

here is my high CRI Neutral vs my low CRI Cool White

to me the Neutral has MUCH more contrast than the Cool, maybe due to CRI, not CCT?

Click to expand...

If I wasn't on my phone I could give you a link or three. It's been a while, but somewhere around here there's a few threads talking about this issue and how it related to de-domed LEDs before they came that way from factory. There were photos and some talk of the theory behind it detailing how warm lights made it more difficult to discriminate targets and silhouettes from the background at long distances.

The photos you posted actually show what I'm talking about a bit. By contrast, I don't mean the ability to differentiate one color from the next, I mean the ability to differentiate shades, lines, edges, and shapes from one another. Seeing the difference in color and having that clear difference between a leaf and a branch, grass, etc. is CRI.

If you look at your photos, the one with the cool white light has deeper shadows and a "sharper" image. Contrast. In the one with the warm light, you see the leaves and ground more clearly rendered, but the edges aren't necessarily as clear. They blur just a bit. Monochramitic images tend to be more clearly defined then colorful ones and cool white lights with relatively low CRI create a more monochromatic image. There are exceptions to both rules, but it's a good general principal.

My preference is for warm lights when I'm camping, EDC, working with wires, etc. When I'm at work, it's cool white for me. Cuts through ambient light better and makes it easier to search for anything. In my experience at least.

I prefer cool white at 50+ yards but I seldom if ever actually need to see 50+ yards. I just do it for fun. The cool white shows up better against ambient light in nature imo. Warmer thrower light seems to blend in with ambient light so doesn't stand out as well in my eyes. It's rare for me to be anywhere without some ambient light.

recDNA said:

Everyone's perception is different. To me the cool white has more contrast but it is also brighter. Like you I prefer the HI CRI because true color is more important to man than contrast. Even if clinically proven to provide more contrast I would still choose HI CRI over greenish cool white however I prefer 5000k HI CRI to warmer shades. I'd go to 5700k before I would go to 4000k

Click to expand...

I am not sure whether cool white renders more contrast than neutral or not. But a higher CRI light renders what you might call greater 'color contrast'. In other words, low CRI cool whites make colors appear more uniform. Because we tend to distinguish objects better that stand out due to their color, high CRI lights generate AT LEAST the appearance of greater contrast by making colors more distinct.