Do you see a big difference between 90 and 280 lumens?

[Singh]

I was playing around with my old Quark Mini AA (R5 emitter, irrc) and a Zebralight SC52w. I noticed some interesting things.

 
The Quark ‘s beam is blue-white. Even though my Zebralight  model is a ‘cool white’,  it has a greenish tint that is noticeable on lower lumen outputs.  The greenish tint wasn’t really an issue once you hit 50 lumens and above. Because of that greenish tint, the Zebralight’s 25 lumen setting looked dimmer than the Quark’s 25 lumen setting.

I then tested out the beams inside, at night, with all the lights off.  There is a clear difference between 25 and 50 lumens; 50 lumens seems 2x as bright as 25 lumens.  But I really can’t tell a big difference between 90 and 280 lumens! The Quark on its highest setting (90 lumens rated) and the Zebralight’s 172/280 lumens don’t seem that far apart. I would expect the 280 lumens to be 3X brighter than 90 lumens, but it seemed only 50% brighter, at best.  And the difference between 172 and 280 lumens is negligible. Maybe that perception changes when outdoors?

 

Below is a picture is a side-by-side comparison of  the Quark and Zebralight on various settings, laid out as follows:

[Grant Lamontagne]

From what I understand, a lumen is a very inaccurate way to measure light, which is supposedly why many manufacturers use it.  From what I have been told it varies greatly which is why some manufacturers prefer to measure in lux, which is a set scale.

I couldn't really give you any details beyond that, but I'm sure someone smarter than I am will come along and explain it with a bunch of big words I don't understand.

Def

Sent from a digital multitool

[sticktodrum]

Lumens aren't an inherently inaccurate measurement. They are just a measurement, calculated per repetition of a given quantity just like any other measurement. The accuracy and precision of the measuring equipment notwithstanding, of course.

What you're witnessing is just your body perceiving stimuli on a logarithmic scale. Brightness is perceived that way, which is why overall output of a light doesn't match the brightness you see.

Here's a good starting point for reading up on this avenue of information: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?271967-Perceived-Brightness-Index

[Gareth]

My knowledge of this is limited, but from what I understand it is a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one.  Roughly you have to double the number of lumen to make for a notable difference in brightness.  So 5 lumen doubled to 10 is notable, but adding 5 to 100 would be nigh impossible to see.  Keep in mind that doubling the lumen doesn't mean double the brightness, it's just going to be a level that you can perceive as being somewhat brighter than before.

I'm certain there are better and more accurate descriptions out there though.

[thebullfrog]

My knowledge of this is limited, but from what I understand it is a logarithmic scale rather than a linear one.  Roughly you have to double the number of lumen to make for a notable difference in brightness.  So 5 lumen doubled to 10 is notable, but adding 5 to 100 would be nigh impossible to see.  Keep in mind that doubling the lumen doesn't mean double the brightness, it's just going to be a level that you can perceive as being somewhat brighter than before.

I'm certain there are better and more accurate descriptions out there though.

Thiis is pretty much it. My understanding is that for a light to look twice as bright, it has to actually have like quadruple the lumens. So you would need something closer to around 360 Lumens before it looks substantially brighter than the 90.

[dks]

from what I recall your eyes adjust to light. So once there is enough light you do not see better if you increase the light as your eyes will just close the iris more so you will utilise less light. Also  lot will depend on the beam profile as if you are lighting a spot the increase in perceived light  volume will not be the same as if your spreading the beam and lighting better a larger area. Also it appears that if the light's colour temperature is close to sunlight then you can utilize the light better than if it is at a different colour temperature; the same amount of light appears more.

taaaaaaapaaaaaaas

[N_N_R]

Indeed, there isn't a big difference. But thinking in "ratios", there isn't a big difference between the 30ish lumen and the 110ish lumens on my Fenix E11. 110 is approximately three times more than 30. In your case 280 is approximately 3 times more than 90 and there's again not much difference. So, I guess despite the huge numbers, the difference indeed isn't that big.

[ducttapetech]

Maybe it just me, but that is a big difference between 90 and 280.

live from Nate's mobile

[Singh]

from this experiment, I think the brightest settings I would need indoors would be 50 lumens, but it's nice to have the 280 lumen Blowtorch Setting. 

But 2.7-25 lumens is quite sufficient for indoors.

I should repeat this experiment out in my backyard and see what things look like.

[Styerman]

I had a lot of high powered stuff at one time . A lot depends on reflector design . My personal feeling , is that anything over 125 honest out the front Lumens , is bright as hell . You don't discern much as you go up the scale .

I'm happy with 60-100 , with good sidespill .

Chris