Holy LED light Hood Batman. Solaris.

[hahnmeister]

Originally posted by sherm71tank
Hahn, I looked. I can't even find a number on the box it came in. The crew at Best Buy REALLY wanted to come to my house and install it for me but I declined. At any rate, I like it. The picture looks better than any other I've seen.

On the back of the monitor it should tell you.

[sherm71tank]

Thanks! I would have never guessed. . . I can't make out the *** numbers at the end of the ln-t40*** s . They look like 6's and 8's were made in the same spot.

[BeanAnimal]

Hanh I am not confusing anything with contrast ratio. If it makes you feel better to think that then be my guest. As I mentioned a "contrast ratio" number is rather useless. You are the one who brought it up.

Thanks for the lesson on color but I am very aware of how display devices work and produce color.

My calibration sensor is much more advanced than the unit that came with your NEC or the Sony unit. It needs a firmware update to correct for cosine errors for front projection screens.

If you want a top notch sensor at a very reasonable price then http://www.progressivelabs.net/ is the place to look. I have worked with Cliff (the brains behind the operation) and he is brilliant. I have not had a look at the latest version of the software, but I am sure it is great.

Hahns, I honestly do not wish to continue this conversation here. It is off topic and I honestly think your in a bit over your head. I would be more than happy to continue it via PM or in another forum.

[burton14e7]

My IBM P260 which im pretty sure is a Sony looks way better than my sharp aquos 32" lcd on the computre...I turned the Sharp back into a hdtv.

[GSMguy]

Originally posted by burton14e7
My IBM P260 which im pretty sure is a Sony looks way better than my sharp aquos 32" lcd on the computre...I turned the Sharp back into a hdtv.

thats because it was designed to be a tv not a computer screen i bet the icons were giant and pixelated because most video cards dont handle that size screen well.

[sjm817]

Originally posted by BeanAnimal


Did I ever mention that fish are my second hobby and home theater and DIY high end speakers are my first hobby? I am an ISF certified calibration tech. A family member owns Ovation Multimedia (the makers of the AVIA calibration suite). We just finished AVIA II where I was a technical advisor for the project. The HD version will be out soon.

I used AVIA to calibrate my Pioneer 5070HD Plasma. Nice piece of SW. Will the HD version be available on Blu-Ray? Any tips for the 5070 setup?

[BeanAnimal]

AVIA II is shipping now. The HD and Blu-Ray versions will follow shortly. I think all of the HD test patterns are done, the post production is what is going to take some time. We shot everything in HD

The Pioneer 5070 is pretty nice. Initial grayscale can be tricky. I am not sure how to get into the service menu on that unit. I would not advice messing around in the service menu unless you really know what you are doing anyway. You can easily KILL the TV permanently in the service menu!!! Stick with the user settings as described in AVIA or other calibration disks.

If you really must delve deeper, then I suggest getting a GOOD colorimeter like the one posted above and then doing your research.

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/2/326450.html
http://www.keohi.com/ibf/hdtv/index....ST&f=82&t=3462

It should be noted that using the settings from somebody elses tweak will not likely provide the same results on your display. Each unit is unique as each room it is placed in.

*********************************************

As for the LED thread. Has anybody got any new information about the AI units? A thought crossed my mind about the testing that Dana and Sanjay are doing or have done. I do no tthink that either company has cheated... but how would we know if they shipped a hopped up unit to be tested instead of a production unit! I am an honest guy, but if I were the OEM the thought would surely cross my mind. The output of the devices can be raised well above the production levels by simply raising the current via the driver. This would certainly boost the output significantly but would also shorten the life of the LEDs. Not a problem for a short term test!

[jcltok]

Professional graphic designers do not rely on manufacturers calibration. They use a calibration tool like Huey and others. These instruments calibrate any color screen output against PANO standards for true color work.

[BeanAnimal]

yup... and each industry has a standard that they calibrate to. In home theatere we calibrate to the SMPTE-C, EBU or HDTV color standards... maybe

You print folks calibrate to PANTONE, DUOTONE or some other spot or process colorspace.

The cool part is that new generations of devices will be able to calibrate themselves with built in sensors.

Likewise, in the not so distant future products like the SOLARIS or AI will be able to self regulate color instead of working off of a fixed program that does not take into account phosphor changes or other color shifts in the devices.

[Mutagen]

I haven't posted here in almost forever, guess I got inspired by this thread.

I too have been watching the LED technology and waiting for its price to be acceptable to me. I have also been frustrated by the failure of manufacturers to simply and clearly state the efficiency of their LED's (and other bulbs as well) especially when they are sold as "high efficiency". I think this failure is precisely the reason this thread generated so much debate. (Plus I find many people confuse efficacy with efficiency). I get particularly frustrated by the inconsistent use of the various units that can be used to measure light. The games that can be played by focusing the light to report a higher PAR without actually changing the total light output are also frustrating.

So as a consumer I respectfully challenge all vendors to clearly report the actual operating characteristics of your products. For lights I would like to see:

1) Total light output from the bulb or LED, preferrably reported in photons per second or Joules per second. PAR and PPFD require us to guess about reflector and lens combinations and how the the measurements are taken. PAR including an actual fraction of the total irradiated area measured is an acceptable second best. Lumens suck so don't bother. Lumens are a light measurement strongly weighted to the sensitivity of the human eye. The same number of photons of green light will have a much higher lumen value than an equivalent number of photons of blue or red light.

2) A spectrograph of the bulb or LED

3) The ratio of visible light energy to total energy output of the bulb or device. This is THE direct indication of the devices efficiency not including drivers, ballasts, circuitry etc.


Not having the above data I decided to use the data from Dana's review of the AI system to take a stab at getting some actual efficiency numbers. The technique I used is admittedly crude but I think it turned out pretty good and definitely raises some questions. Here is what I did.

I started with the illumination output graphs on Dana's review and "visually" estimated the effective area of illumination and the average PAR for that illuminated area. I converted the photon flux density to energy per unit area per unit time and multiplied this incident power rate by the illuminated area to get a total incident power for each of the two "bulbs". I then divided this output power by the input power to each of the two lighting systems to get an efficiency estimate for each. To be fair one cannot convert photons to energy without knowing the wavelength of the photon in question so I conducted the calculation several times using different wavelengths. Since short wavelengths have the highest energy per photon I used this number as it gives "benefit of the doubt" to the light sources in question.


Here are the summarized results


LED

Area illuminated 6" x 10 "
PAR for area 1200
Incident watts on area 12.3
Efficiency 15%


MH
Area illuminated 10" x 10"
PAR for area 800
Incident watts on area 13.7
Efficiency 5.5% !?

The results tell me that the efficiency of the LED is in line with the data previously provided by BeanAnimal. BUT the performance for the 250 watt MH is OUTLANDISHLY poor. Every source I have seen reports MH bulb efficiency between 20% and 25% so the 5.5% seems to indicate I have made a big msitake or the source data is flawed when compared to a "normally working" MH bulb and reflector. I used a spreasheet for the calcs so if there is a calculational error it is applied to both lighting systems. The only error I can see from my end would be in estimating the illuminated area or the PAR for the illuminted area, but by a factor of 5 I doubt!!

If you look at the illumination graphs on Dana's review you can see I used smaller areas than the total area given but increased the average illumination in said area to add the "lost light" back into the calculation. I don't think the estimates were too far off. Also i did a sensitivity check and unless something went terribly wrong the results don't change that much.

If anyone wants to check the calcs I'll save you the problem of looking up the constants

Planks constant 6.63 e-34 [Joule sec]
Speed of light 3.0e8
PAR is microMols/meter^2 * sec
1 mol is 6.023e23
I used E = planks * frequency to get energy
I used speed of light = wave length times frequency to convert wave length to frequency


Ok, all you physicists can open fire now!

[Gobie74]

Lol, remember when this thread was about LEDs for aquariums? Ah better days!

just kidding with ya

[jcltok]

I am not a physicist, but as a manufacturer of LED lighting, I can respond to your statements and questions.

1. LED provides a more precise light source than any other. The reason is that the LED is design to provide a vary narrow wavelength of light.

2. All current LEDs have a dip in the 475nm spectrum. Simply LED manufacturers have not found a precise phosphor for that spectrum range.

3. You seem to confuse PAR with light output. They related but not the same. Light output is based on lumen and can be measured by a lux meter and then converted to lumen. You can also use a lumen meter to measure if the instrument has that function.

4. PAR has been used in reef lights because of research by Ryther at Woods Hole Oceanographic on plankton showing the lighting needs of the plankton algae which happen to be the same species of the symbiotic algae found in stony corals. PAR, measured with a quantum meter, should measure the output of evenly distributed 400nm to 700 nm wavelengths. PAR has been manipulated as you state. Many MH manufacturers add exceptional amounts of violet/blue phosphors at the expense (lack) of other wavelengths, to manipulate the quantum/PAR meter into reading higher PAR.

5. PAR manipulation success depends heavily on the ignorance of users and their unwillingness to publish even their manipulated PAR results. Why? Because sea water level PAR should be about 1700 microMols/m2/sec and the manipulators are putting out maybe 300 or 600 PAR. The PAR of LEDs can also be manipulated by adding more blue color LEDs and minimizing the count of white LEDs. The same logic applies to adding phosphors to MH to manipulate PAR. That is why you see deep blue but very low light LED fixtures. The trade off is lower manufacturing costs, higher Kelvin ratings and faint light.

6. Lumen out put at sea level is 2600 lumen per square foot or 18 lumen per square inch. Lumen and PAR should be measured at the water level, and not at the source. The reason is that light output is inversely proportional to the distance it travels - the farther the light is, the dimmer it is. So high lumen - brightness is necessary. MH will reduce their light output and change spectrum very quickly which is why they should be replaced every six/eight months. LEDs if kept at proper operating temperatures, do not change lumen or spectrum until after 30,000 hours - assuming you buy the best product.


7. Kelvin ratings are a measure of COLOR COORDINATE TEMPERATUREs which can be measured by instrumentation. Higher Kelvin does not mean better PAR. Higher KELVIN means bluer light. Why is this relevant? Because corals grow at different depths and some grow in the violet/blue light - hobbyists think that is what they need and it looks cool! Unfortunately many corals live in a higher water level and do not get the spectrum they need. Also actinics make corals fluoresce and therefore leads people to bluer lights.

8. You state you are frustrated by efficiency claims. You are correct in that when you have not been provided full information, every thing else is suspect. Some LEDs are very efficient at taking one watt and making more light - therefore the efficiency claim. Notice I state SOME - since that is not all manufacturers. What really matters is the total lumen output, PAR measured correctly, power supply efficiency and so on. Then you can decide whether one light source provide the results you need for a given watt rating.

9. I have not seen your analysis of efficiency/output of LED vs MH. But, the proportions are likely close - you are basically correct in your conclusion. MHs are very inefficient as are fluorescents.

10. Spectral graphs are provide in "relative output" - in other words the proportion of one wavelength in comparison to others. In high Kelvin MH you see a huge spike in blue and minimal in the rest of the spectrum. In LEDS, you can expect a spike in the blue, a dip in the 475nm range, a rise in the 500nm tapering off to near infrared. (700nm). LEDs are not the perfect solution either - they happen to be better than MH and Fluorescents. Keep in mind that what I have stated above assumes the best LED available and not just any LED. I have not stated which LED is best on the basis of published data because that is not appropriate in this forum! I can be reached at jcltok@cox.net

[deansreef]

9. I have not seen your analysis of efficiency/output of LED vs MH. But, the proportions are likely close - you are basically correct in your conclusion. "MHs are very inefficient as are fluorescents".

How come our corals grow very well with such inefficient lighting?

[Fishbulb2]

Because we use so much of it.

[jcltok]

One more thing - lumen can manipulated in the way you state. However, if measured correctly, lumen is still the best measure to use. Measure correctly means ensuring a correct, balanced spectrum.

Once again there is a catch! 6500 Kelvin is the correct spectrum, yet no manufacturer produces a bulb or LED that has a perfectly balanced spectrum. You have a choice of the better or worse.

Also, hobbyists dislike the yellowness of the 6500 K output and buy an unbalanced spectrum weighted towards the blue. LED count can be setup to produce a Kelvin rating, but overall, they still offer a better balanced spectrum compare to MH and fluorescents.

[jcltok]

Efficiency is measure of how much light you get from 1 watt.

MH are still better than their predecessors. Well made LEDs are better than MH. MH will still work and grow coral. LEDs are an advancement as were MH. When I started CORALIFE was the only MH manufacturer and their best was 5000 Kelvin!

[hahnmeister]

I have yet to see a LED on the market that can produce more than 100 lumens/watt like a halide.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by jcltok
Efficiency is measure of how much light you get from 1 watt.

MH are still better than their predecessors. Well made LEDs are better than MH. MH will still work and grow coral. LEDs are an advancement as were MH. When I started CORALIFE was the only MH manufacturer and their best was 5000 Kelvin!

Efficiency can be related to whatever you are measuring. Total light per watt, specific spectrum per watt. Uv per watt. Efficiency has to be defined and then used in context.

You also err in your assumption that LEDs offer the proper spectrum. Combinations of LEDs are used to fill in the desired spectrum.

You also err in your assumption that LEDs are better than MH. Better how? They may be "better" some day, but if you have followed this and many other threads you will understand that the definition of "better" is very open.

[scarletknight06]

Question: I've gotten a little confused in this thread, but don't the arguments that MH's put out more light per watt assume that one wants the light spread out over a larger area? What if I have a cube style tank (something like an oceanic 30g cube or elos 70) and I just want the light focused on 1 rock pillar in the middle of the tank? Wouldn't the LED actually be putting more light right where I want it?

Or am I getting way too confused?

[GSMguy]

Originally posted by scarletknight06
Question: I've gotten a little confused in this thread, but don't the arguments that MH's put out more light per watt assume that one wants the light spread out over a larger area? What if I have a cube style tank (something like an oceanic 30g cube or elos 70) and I just want the light focused on 1 rock pillar in the middle of the tank? Wouldn't the LED actually be putting more light right where I want it?

Or am I getting way too confused?

untill you have a nice 14 inch coral that is not getting light at the tips and only in the center,

even spread is what allows corals to grow properly

[chrissreef]

I'll just say that I saw the new I seriese 15k 400w Solaris all lit up - it was very very nice. The 250w version wasn't bright enough for my liking... but for corals the PAR seemed fine.

Time for me to find a second job and start saving! =P

[scarletknight06]

Originally posted by GSMguy
untill you have a nice 14 inch coral that is not getting light at the tips and only in the center,

even spread is what allows corals to grow properly

I understand that. But in a tank thats a 21" cube with a single rock pillar in the middle, there's no room for a 14" (in length) coral.

[BeanAnimal]

Originally posted by scarletknight06
Question: I've gotten a little confused in this thread, but don't the arguments that MH's put out more light per watt assume that one wants the light spread out over a larger area? What if I have a cube style tank (something like an oceanic 30g cube or elos 70) and I just want the light focused on 1 rock pillar in the middle of the tank? Wouldn't the LED actually be putting more light right where I want it?

Or am I getting way too confused?

Your getting confused

[scarletknight06]

dang it, my brain hurts from this thread.

[killagoby]

I've got an H series and I need to dim the day whites to 70% and the day blues to 80% or else it burns out my corals. It's a great fixture. I can simulate cloud cover and moon rotatation over a 28 day period. Plus no heat, so no chiller!