# Hps - led



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

The Lightman said:


> This past Wednesday, I fixed a sign. Replaced two 150HPS with two 17 watt LED floods.


 It really makes a difference, but would the fixtures have to be further back, to eliminate the circle effect? Or, could they be focused?


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

They're spots, I aimed them a little better after the picture. The circle shows up on the camera worse than it really is.


----------



## 10492 (Jan 4, 2010)

Couple observations?

1. In the top pic, it appears as if the 150W hps on the left isn't working, and the one on the right is pretty much pointing towards the ground.

2. In the bottom pic, with the LED replacements, is the flash on?

It appears as if the flash is not on, on the top pic?


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

1. Right, the left one was out and the lens was broken. Needed a new fixture.
2. Same exact settings for both pics.


----------



## Fiki (Sep 28, 2010)

The wave of the future, I love it. Looks great and good job .


----------



## Ima Hack (Aug 31, 2009)

The Lightman said:


> 1. Right, the left one was out and the lens was broken. Needed a new fixture.
> 2. Same exact settings for both pics.


Looks great Lightman. I hate HPS on a sign.

What model fixture is it and what did it cost?


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

Ima Hack said:


> Looks great Lightman. I hate HPS on a sign. What model fixture is it and what did it cost?


Thanks, Ima. Those are TMF by P-2. I also like the TMO. There are several models starting at around $200. 
http://www.p-2.com/products/led-lighting/


----------



## LegacyofTroy (Feb 14, 2011)

Don't like it, the light effect is great, but your boxes are jilflirted a little bit, also your mounting post are leaning, but I can't see it from my house so I guess it's ok. I bet you could have done better install.


----------



## nrp3 (Jan 24, 2009)

The color of light is a vast improvement. I have started to use the Rab inground short posts to eliminate those boxes when I can. Makes for a cleaner looking install. A lot of times I find those boxes all full of dirt and corrosion.


----------



## tim5544 (Dec 27, 2009)

They look great, curious if you have used other products by p-2 and what your thoughts were. I have never bought from that company before. See they have actually some parking lot lights using 4' fluorescents. Kind of odd but maybe worth looking into.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

................


----------



## Scantone (Mar 30, 2011)

LegacyofTroy said:


> Don't like it, the light effect is great, but your boxes are jilflirted a little bit, also your mounting post are leaning, but I can't see it from my house so I guess it's ok. I bet you could have done better install.


Was thinking the same thing. But I'm sure he dident install the post or boxes he just replaced the lights and that part looks nice


----------



## kaboler (Dec 1, 2010)

If you're trying to sell LED lighting as good, I'm suspicious of these pictures. The LED one, you used the camera's flash. The yellow one, you didn't. I can see the railing's shadow. And only one light is on instead of 2. I can see by the lettering's shadow. I think you yellowed the HPS pic, but I can't say for sure. The black lettering isn't all that black. Did you brighten the photo?

I hate HPS but cmon.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The LED one:
KODAK EASYSHARE M580 DIGITAL CAMERA
DateTime - 2011:03:15 20:29:36
ExposureTime - 1/30 seconds
FNumber - 4.00
ISOSpeedRatings - 250
Flash - *Flash fired*, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode
FocalLength - 11.10 mm
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 62 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - High gain up

HPS:
ExposureTime - 1/30 seconds
FNumber - 4.00
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 250
ApertureValue - F 4.00
MaxApertureValue - F 4.00
Flash - *Flash fired*, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode

The flash on camera is variable output, but that output modulation constant isn't reported in EXIF. Looking at similar values in other parameters, it seems like your flash fired a lot stronger when you took the LED photo just from how the front area grass is much better lit up. 

Have a look at this:

All about photography magic. 
http://www.electriciantalk.com/f8/m...t-field-visit-photos-16716/index3/#post361415

I could use a dimming ballast and dim the lighting by 50%, open the aperture a stop, double the ISO, or halve the shutter speed and it will look the same. Point & shoot cameras with the flash inhibited will do this automatically in order to obtain the same exposure level. 

With cameras having manual settings, you can manually manipulate the settings. Even with an automatic camera, you can pretend you replaced a 50% depreciated output with a new lamp. Simply bump the EV setting to +1.0. 









Real output: 0 lumen
Perceived photographic output >0 lumens

The IR remote is lighting up that spot. It looks pink on my screen, but *I* can't see it directly. My camera phone sees it though, and it will display it on the screen as if its visible. 

Point is, cameras can see a range of wavelength we can't see. Conversely, CCD or CMOS do not have the optimal sensitivity at wavelengths our eyes do. 

The REAL output of that thing is 0 lumen, because lumen is a unit weighed to human eye response. The perceived output as seen through camera is higher. 

Sometimes, seeing is believing is BS. Cameras are designed to mimic colors to look as close as possible on print and screen as they're in real life, but they're not calibrated to mimic our eyes spectral power response curve.


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> The LED one:
> KODAK EASYSHARE M580 DIGITAL CAMERA. Cameras are designed to mimic colors to look as close as possible on print and screen as they're in real life, but they're not calibrated to mimic our eyes spectral power response curve.


Very good. What was the intent of your post. Are you saying that I intentionally mislead anyone with my easyshare?
My intention of posting the pictures was merely to share with my contractor colleagues some recent work as we do on occasion.


----------



## vickieB (Feb 21, 2011)

The Lightman said:


> Very good. What was the intent of your post. Are you saying that I intentionally mislead anyone with my easyshare?
> My intention of posting the pictures was merely to share with my contractor colleagues some recent work as we do on occasion.


Looks Great!!!


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

The Lightman said:


> Very good. What was the intent of your post. Are you saying that I intentionally mislead anyone with my easyshare?
> My intention of posting the pictures was merely to share with my contractor colleagues some recent work as we do on occasion.


My intention is that you can't use a camera to convey the downgrading/upgrading of lighting systems.


----------



## The Lightman (Jan 9, 2010)

Electric_Light said:


> My intention is that you can't use a camera to convey the downgrading/upgrading of lighting systems.


 Sure I can. I can use a camera to take pictures of whatever I want. Ima, Vickie and Fiki said that I could, even Scantone approved. 
You can take pictures using your television remote as a flash source as well, if you wish. 
I understand that photography is a science, as is lighting and they do not mix well. 
A crayon rendering would have been spotted by as sharp a fellow as the kaboler. My HPS image would certainly have appeared to have been yellowed.


----------



## LegacyofTroy (Feb 14, 2011)

Too many independent variables. In the matter of light installs...seeing IS believing, thats that purpose of the light. Lumens, spectrums, wavelengths? All that doesn't matter when the light is serving it's purpose. You guys are making mountains out of molehills. Using your tv remote? Cmon, you are wasting our time. Bottom line is efficiency and customer appreciation. Besides we all got different cameras.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LegacyofTroy said:


> Too many independent variables. In the matter of light installs...seeing IS believing, thats that purpose of the light. Lumens, spectrums, wavelengths? All that doesn't matter when the light is serving it's purpose. You guys are making mountains out of molehills. Using your tv remote? Cmon, you are wasting our time. Bottom line is efficiency and customer appreciation. Besides we all got different cameras.


Seeing invisible light through camera is believing that it is visible in real life? c'mon. Cameras do not duplicate the magnitude of lighting.


----------



## LegacyofTroy (Feb 14, 2011)

Electric_Light said:


> Seeing invisible light through camera is believing that it is visible in real life? c'mon. Cameras do not duplicate the magnitude of lighting.


We are talking practicality here. Maybe I should take pictures of different wavelengths, with several cameras. Then I could display the pics thru a 3-d image projector and do power point on the index of refraction between the different spectrums. My reflectometer would measure the lumens capability of each projected image, therefore enabling us to decide witch light is best for certain applications.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LegacyofTroy said:


> We are talking practicality here. Maybe I should take pictures of different wavelengths, with several cameras. Then I could display the pics thru a 3-d image projector and do power point on the index of refraction between the different spectrums. My reflectometer would measure the lumens capability of each projected image, therefore enabling us to decide witch light is best for certain applications.












Tell me which one was lit up brighter and by how much.


----------



## LegacyofTroy (Feb 14, 2011)

Yes, 17% shade fluctuation difference between images. But that don't matter...... Are you paying me to brighten your night or not. Because if you were then I would choose the light you desire.


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

Only 17% eh? The one on top is at 12x the illumination level.


----------



## LegacyofTroy (Feb 14, 2011)

Not talking about illumination, we are talking shade fluctuation, 2 different scopes of measurement. And since light is absence of darkness, the level of non reflective properties vs index of refraction states the fluctuation of around 17%. You can look that up. White Plastic reflects intense sudden lighting much quicker than textured wall therefore giving different quality images. Lots and lots of variables to consider.........


----------



## Electric_Light (Apr 6, 2010)

LegacyofTroy said:


> Not talking about illumination, we are talking shade fluctuation, 2 different scopes of measurement. And since light is absence of darkness, the level of non reflective properties vs index of refraction states the fluctuation of around 17%. You can look that up. White Plastic reflects intense sudden lighting much quicker than textured wall therefore giving different quality images. Lots and lots of variables to consider.........


So you're just reaffirming my point of uselessness of using a camera to convey illumination level.


----------



## LegacyofTroy (Feb 14, 2011)

Electric_Light said:


> So you're just reaffirming my point of uselessness of using a camera to convey illumination level.


I agree with you, 100%, that was for everyone else.


----------

