Open letter to the LED industry

[gcarroll]

Pacific Sun RD: The majority of the photos you posted IMO, look borderline bleached. Sort of like Zeovit run tanks. With Zeovit you can use their Zeospur 2 to achieve those colors. Of course that artificially makes the coral expell zooxanthelle. Many people beleive that those corals are riding a fine line between healthy and unhealthy.

Let's keep in mind that the there is not always a correlation between the color of a coral and the health of the coral. Brown corals can often be more healthy than colored.

 

[Pacific Sun RD]

If your nutrient are very low and you are using proper light(spectrum/power) with additional food suplementation to water(we are using human aminoacids complex - 10ml daily for 400 liters) its not terribly difficult to get similar results. Zeospur kill zooxanthelle and we never used it before.. It's not natural.
But even if your water will be on perfect quality - but you will use not good lights - you will never get results - for all we are waiting for, isnt true?
This corals arent bleached - they dont have too many zooxanthelle which could cover their natural color. And you can trust or not - they are healthy.
I personally prefer that kind of corals than palette of browns with little visible colors. ;-)
I am not a proponent methods such as ZEOvit - the tank is run "on the edge" - instead, I am an advocate dosing large amounts of amino acids with carbohydrates (prepared foods for athletes).
They are a great source of food for corals - without burdening organics (decaying remnants of a food) and carbon from carbihydrates help us with keeping no3/po4 on very low, undetectable levels.

 

[gcarroll]

Pacific Sun RD:
I'm not saying that they are healthy or unhealthy. I'm just giving you my opinion. That pastel type coloration is not what I strive for, nor have I seen any coral that has recently come out of the ocean look like that.

 

[sirreal63]

I know I am probably a dinosaur and may have different goals, I am just not sure when this...

Became preferred to this...

Palletas Prehistoric pink tip stag

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/56433817@N06/5647556505/" title="IMG_2350 by emmett4th, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5647556505_c784bf8ab5_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="IMG_2350"></a>

Blue Stylo

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/56433817@N06/5648119924/" title="IMG_2349 by emmett4th, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5149/5648119924_159e1ab7f8_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="IMG_2349"></a>

Shawn Bennet Yellow tort

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/56433817@N06/5647555805/" title="IMG_2347 by emmett4th, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5647555805_3c65993c3c_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="IMG_2347"></a>

Blue Tip Tenuis

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/56433817@N06/5647555533/" title="IMG_2345 by emmett4th, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5647555533_d0717e0bfd_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="IMG_2345"></a>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/56433817@N06/5648118908/" title="IMG_2340 by emmett4th, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5648118908_4d6af1a2aa_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="IMG_2340"></a>

A coral without it's symbionts is having a nutritional relationship interrupted. I remember when the goal was deep, richly colored corals that stood out. Anything less reminds me of an emaciated model in a swimsuit.

Obviously this isn't just a light or nutritional issue, but I still don't get it. I do understand that light plays an important role in the health of a coral and that is the meat of the discussion here, but using pale corals as justification for a discussion of proper lighting just strikes me as counter productive.

 

[gcarroll]

I know I am probably a dinosaur and may have different goals, I am just not sure when this...




Became preferred to this...




A coral without it's symbionts is having a nutritional relationship interrupted. I remember when the goal was deep, richly colored corals that stood out. Anything less reminds me of an emaciated model in a swimsuit.

Obviously this isn't just a light or nutritional issue, but I still don't get it. I do understand that light plays an important role in the health of a coral and that is the meat of the discussion here, but using pale corals as justification for a discussion of proper lighting just strikes me as counter productive.

+1 on that!

 

[nickdo]

I know I am probably a dinosaur and may have different goals, I am just not sure when this...

I just want to point out. Those pictures you posted are "Photoshoped". At least I can tell you it is over contrast. PS RD posted pictures are more "untouch".

I'm not say "touch" the picture is no good, some people increased a picture hue/saturated level/white balance due to re-create what we see. Camera just suck on bluish tank. Those picture just not appear "natural".

 

[ksed]

I have to agree with gcarroll and sirreal 63 on this. The deep rich colors of the second picture are IMO far more attractive with great color. It also resembles a more of a maricultured coral from the ocean. The corals in first picture, as mentioned above appears to look like a Zeovit tank. For some this look is attractive. Just a matter of taste.

 

[sirreal63]

Nick, I won't disagree that camera's are not always a good representation, but if you are suggesting that Emmett's tank and corals actually look like the ones that Przemek posted but are photoshopped to look the way they do, you can ask Emster how much photo processing he does. His thread is here...
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2023909
His TOTM is here...
http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2009-01/totm/index.php

After many years of not retouching photo's and having to take hundreds to get one that is a close approximation, I have begun to shoot in RAW and play with white balance in my own photo's. White balance is hard, especially with a point and shoot camera.

None of this relates directly to the topic, but it is a contributing factor. I see far more pale and color challenged corals under LED's than traditional lighting. I also see it getting better and there are more and more LED lit tanks that look "right". Is this because people are getting better at supplying the nutritional needs of corals or is it from an improved spectrum?

 

[nickdo]

Our lighting should not be an attempt to re-create the sun, the sun does not do justice to the colors of a coral.

Agree.

I know what you saying, different light sources = different results.

MY SSC, 1~2 months different, DIY led, cluster like PS SMT. with CREE XML driving at 1A&1.4A, water level 2000PAR, This coral eating 700PAR.

It is better than the picture. And I can tell you that when it was taken out from the water. I was amazed by its color lighting by my room light. Some corals are just also good in natural light.

Please also notice that.

1. As PS RD said, Bali reef farmer put corals to deep water to regain color, is it necessary? Are they fool do to the unnecessary jobs for the business?
2. Some corals just doing good in shallow water with DsRed as I point out before. There are no rainbow liked corals in shallow water. IMO, shallow water corals almost equal to brown except full red&green only.
3. For SPS, Full of zooxanthelle = brown, I think no one disagree that. There are two kind of peoples, one love pale color(less zooxanthelle), other love deep color but not brown("medium" zooxanthelle). They all have the same goal - "hate full of zooxanthelle". then, why we take the zooxanthelle studies count so much? We all want to control zooxanthelle at a certain level. Not to give it a "most" suitable growing environment. So that give it a 600nm up spectrum for zooxanthelle growth is not necessary. 580nm spectrum below are enough for corals and color.

 

[Pacific Sun RD]

I have to agree that corals on photos looks great
I never said that LEDs are "the king of the hill" and metal halide/t5 are "bad"..
All that light sources have their cons/pros.. The species of corals looks/have different color under T5 and another - under metal halide. Some of them looks better under halid - some under T5..
In the "old Europe" most of TOP tanks(in last few years) was lighted by T5 bulbs.. Colors was amazing, growth good - but not so good like under halide..
In our first test tanks(lighted by LED tubes - many years ago) we got also very nice results - sometimes with 1cm growth(by week!) - its everything documented(photos).
They was simply white/blue combo lamps - and many corals was great - but in the rest - some colours was lost... There was problem with blue acros, some montipora (red) or supermans..
World is changing - we know much more that few years ago - and I think that is good that we(aquarists) try find a ways how to get better and better results, isnt true?

About photos:
You can do a photos with different shutter time(darker - with more contrast), with different CT settings - and even if you will do photos in RAW - its very difficult to do a good picture under leds. Many depend of your camera/knowledge how photos should be done, which times should be used etc...
Everybody who tried did it - know it, and sometimes its much easier to take a movie(with real looking colors) than good photos - a specially from front of aquarium..
So I can say again - Your photos are really nice!

 

[zachts]

It can therefore confirm that for the proper pigmentation of corals red light is not required (or warm white LEDs that) .. It can be use by symbiotic algae(Chl_a, Chl_b) - but its not used by pigments in coral skin.

the red's and oranges are however useful in highlighting colors of non flourescnet corals pigments. the common colt coral and a great many other soft corals or predatory species will look very drab and greyish pink under typical LED or any other light sources untill you start adding warmer wavelenthghs. If you have any studies on those species of coral I'd like to see them as they are not typically discussed since most people are aiming to keep SPS and LPS. the aesthetic benifit to the viewer (i.e. ME) for waveleths over 600nm should not be over looked.

Which violet LEDs did you get that run 1000mA? Out of 14 LEDs you have 4 "white". This is acceptable out of this few LEDs, and running no optics will greatly reduce the "white" LEDs effect on the spectrum, more so than the blue chips (but increase the photometric spectrum which is what you want out of your white LEDs) because of wavelength penetration in water.

This is actually the same experience I had on my first generation LEDs. Remove the optics and add violet. This alone will make them vastly better ime.

they are from Steve's LED, they are darn bright! only problem is their first batch didn't use high enough quality poting material and domes and they browend out (as I expected they would) after about 3months of 14hrs a day due to UV degredation of the plastic dome. I've been in comunication with them for a while now and they reportedly have a new batch coming in with a silicone material that will not burn! for now though to use them long term you have to pop of the plastic domes. (never understood why manufacturers used cheap crappy plastic on violets knowing it would burn up quickly, RapidLED got it right from the start and thier old chips I've been running for years now with no problems! bad part is Rapid's chip is more like 405-410nm and not acutally a 420nm like the ones sold by Steve's)

I may have missed the point of this thread, but to me it seems the goal is to create an LED light that grows and consistently shows the colors of the corals we are accustomed to, not re-create the look of corals under the sun at varying depths. There is very little correlation to how corals look in the ocean and how they look in our tanks. Every coral we put in our tanks is now a shallow water coral. Some people have had great success in creating stunning corals under LED's, many have not. I am neither for or against LED lighting. It is still evolving and that is a good thing.

+10! this is what I've been telling people for quite some time that are doing DIY builds. LOOK at the spectrums of the bulbs you have now and aim to recreate that!!!!! for some reason ($$$mostly I think and complexity of builds) people still lean towards mostly royal blue and a single white source. I'ts proven to grow healthy coral but the spectrum and resulting aesthetic of your tank will be drastically different................

Of course - but that what Im trying to say is, that we cant use continuus warm lighting(which guarantee us proper color renderition) because corals will loose their pigments - will go brown..
What we try to achieve is very difficult - because we have to produce proper light spectrum(for activate and build nice looking pigments) on one end - and from the other - "produce" light whith high CRI - which will not affect that spectrum but will give us abbilities to see that colors...
So - the idea of using non-white led panels is that they cover pigments requirments without producing light which is not needed - and "affect" for our eyes reading of their fluorescence/colors..

your approach is great and far better than much of what I've seen developed in the states, but......

....and this is just my humble opinion but I think better results in the near future will be developed using a somewhat "industry standardized" LED module: Royal blue, Blue, Violet; and companies developing white phosphor coated lenses to go over them letting you change out the "bulb" for a few dollars rather than hundreds. cost of producing the whole spectral array of the ATI (or whatever) lineup should be relatively cheap as compared to trying to do it using single die emitters........... now instead of thousands of unique LED emitter combinations you have one that can be mass produced for the hobby........ the commercial lighting industry did it, why not us.

any entrepreneurs out there that care to team up on such an endevour PM me if you live in the states.

 

[Pacific Sun RD]

@zachts
Yes, they are useful - but only for our eyes. I never said that red light is not needed for proper color renderition - and I didnt say also that we dont use it..
I rather said, that its not needed to build proper light spectrum WITHOUT white leds - using only that kind of wavelenghts which can help in corals pigment intensify - without that ones, which are bright for our eyes(550-570nm) and which are a to "suppress" color vision in higher contrast and better fluorescence.
I think that we are still misunderstanded - we are also using 630-640nm leds for CRI increase - but only for that(and there is not too many red leds which will be adjusted by customer to 20% - because light is "too pink" ot "too warm"..
They are intended to give only the color pigments which are not fluorescent.
Do you think that this spectrum is missing something important for corals pigmentation?
It looks "white"(for human eyes) and offer perfect "contrast" and color renderition. Without white leds.

Last photo - lamp with 2x75W SMT Matrix(working on 50%).

About last suggestion - you can believe or not, but its not so easy as you think.
If ANY company from aquatic industry will want to start their own LED chip production - probably it will be cheap, weak quality product from Chrl - without confirmed parameters and lifetime=?
Most important problem for multichip layers(one chip) is heat dissipation. In weak heat dissipation (it is not possible when LEDs are arranged one beside the other) decreases its efficiency and overheating occur - which leads to a reduced service life.
I'll just add - that the aquarium industry market is too small for producers as Cree or Philips to have made dedicated systems(led chips) - the cost of such a project can be counted in hundreds of thousands of dollars (research, production and start producing certain minimum amount of chips) ..
No one will decide to this when every six months on the market there are more and more newer models of LEDs - with greater efficiency and better performance ..

 

[zachts]

About last suggestion - you can believe or not, but its not so easy as you think.
If ANY company from aquatic industry will want to start their own LED chip production - probably it will be cheap, weak quality product from Chrl - without confirmed parameters and lifetime=?
Most important problem for multichip layers(one chip) is heat dissipation. In weak heat dissipation (it is not possible when LEDs are arranged one beside the other) decreases its efficiency and overheating occur - which leads to a reduced service life.
I'll just add - that the aquarium industry market is too small for producers as Cree or Philips to have made dedicated systems(led chips) - the cost of such a project can be counted in hundreds of thousands of dollars (research, production and start producing certain minimum amount of chips) ..
No one will decide to this when every six months on the market there are more and more newer models of LEDs - with greater efficiency and better performance ..

I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not suggesting that anyone will develop custom LED chips, that will not happen as you say any time soon due to the cost and constant changing technoloty.


Good chips already exist in Royal Blue, Blue, and Violet. just arranging them on an standardized PCB module (or "matrix") that is used to illuminate remote phosphor coated "bulbs" or panels. Not necessarily every PCB layout would be the same from each manufacturer but the module they fit into would be and that would make things interchangeable and cheaper to everyone. it also allows new chip to be used in the future. The remote phosphor is the part that would be customized, which is not a difficult or expensive process to create on a small scale production. you would pop one panel off the module and pop on another to change out the light spectrum being emitted, just like changing a T5 bulb out.

www.zhagastandard.org/‎ is doing this for commercial lighting applications.

Also, look up chromalit and the philips L-prize bulb for an idea of what I was suggesting will start to happen for our hobby.

 

[hypnoj]

following

 

[galleon]

@sirreal
Thank you for very interesting discuss.
Almost all corals which you posted on photos(in shallow water) - like that purple A. hummilis dont have GFP proteins - but rather DsRed and other non-fluoroscent proteins..
You have to agree also, that most of them is brown/cream and similar color variations.. ;-)
The same result will be if you will place corals under 6500K light(which can be called "full spectrum light" in comparision to 20.000K metal halide).
Under 6500K - they will go brown(but growth will be very fast - because algae will have "perfect" full spectrum...

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

 

[galleon]

 

[galleon]

Of course - but that what Im trying to say is, that we cant use continuus warm lighting(which guarantee us proper color renderition) because corals will loose their pigments - will go brown...

Completely, utterly, outright wrong.

 

[Vannpytt]

Completely, utterly, outright wrong.

Why?

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Why?

 

[galleon]

Why?


Why?

Because this: "Of course - but that what Im trying to say is, that we cant use continuus warm lighting(which guarantee us proper color renderition) because corals will loose their pigments - will go brown..."

Is a falsifiable hypothesis. And it has been falsified.

Here you go, An extremely shallow water wild coral, browned out and placed under the most well known 6500k full spectrum light. Iwasaki. 400 watts. Pictured are the same two branches.

 

[Vannpytt]

So by proving him wrong you post a picture of a brown dull coral without much color at all?

And, the Iwasaki 6500 kelvin has quite a lot more blue than the sun on a shallow reef, but it still doesn't look like it would under 10-15meters. The warm light is masking the color it would have under colder light, which is generally what people want.