Solaris Led lighting systems
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
Amphibious
New member
BeanAnimal
LarryW Yes!
In the original thread (link to it above) I posted pictures of my clams under the Solaris from Nov 7, 06. A couple of RC members made claims that my clams were gaping and starving to death, which was preposterous. So how are my gaping and starving clams doing now? Here are two pics of them.
The one above from straight on.
This one taken from above. Both pictures taken 3/30/07.
Many people don't realize that most clams look different from above because of the different angle of light reflection.
I just wanted to set the record straight. Clams do great under Solaris lighting.
Dick
You are absolutely correct but, lacking the system to go look at in person, pictures are the next best thing.
LarryW Yes!
In the original thread (link to it above) I posted pictures of my clams under the Solaris from Nov 7, 06. A couple of RC members made claims that my clams were gaping and starving to death, which was preposterous. So how are my gaping and starving clams doing now? Here are two pics of them.
The one above from straight on.
This one taken from above. Both pictures taken 3/30/07.
Many people don't realize that most clams look different from above because of the different angle of light reflection.
I just wanted to set the record straight. Clams do great under Solaris lighting.
Dick
Zoom
Premium Member
WOW that acro looks like mine.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9635261#post9635261 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Amphibious
FYI, anyone wondering about the above Acro, here is a current pic of it. You can see the Acro Crab is doing fine, too.
Thought you might like to see the growth under the Solaris lights, now six months into them.
Dick
Here is a picture .
pjf
Premium Member
Spectral Quality
Spectral Quality
Spectral Quality
See figures 5 through 10 of this review: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2006/8/review2.
Amphibious
New member
Anyone can buy a nice colony like that and easily pass it off as their own handy work rather than showing the progression of growth over a period of time.<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9639735#post9639735 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Zoom
WOW that acro looks like mine.
Here is a picture .
Zoom
Premium Member
Is just going to take to long to find allllll the pictures .
And to tell you the through i don't remember what the frag look like back then. I upload pictures of some frags in my gallery take a look if is the same coral .
If You like you can send me your E-mail addy and i can upload some more pictures for you if you like. I always get frags or small ORA frag plugs it is more fund that way
And to tell you the through i don't remember what the frag look like back then. I upload pictures of some frags in my gallery take a look if is the same coral .
If You like you can send me your E-mail addy and i can upload some more pictures for you if you like. I always get frags or small ORA frag plugs it is more fund that way
Last edited:
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
You can disagree all you want, but you will be wrong.
Camera Settings:
CCD or imaging chip type
exposure
white balance
ISO setting
Flash setting and/or color type
compression algorithm and settings
automatic "color correction" settings
lens type
ambient room light
Software settings:
JPG settings
Color profile settings
Color correction settings
Display device:
Color profile settings
Phosphor color
User controls (color, brightness, tint, color temperature etc)
Video card properties (color decoder)
System settings
And 1,000 other variables. Your "disagreement" just shows your lack of understanding of the situation. That of course is understandable and the reason I posted in the first place.
Advertising companies, movie studios, TV production houses, etc., all use state of the art color profiling equipment and spend countless hours and dollars trying to at least RECORD color correctly. Go into your local "Best Buy" or other TV store and stand in front of the wall full of TV's. EVERY ONE will render colors differently. Which one is correct JNB???
I have top of the line calibration equipment and can still only get a display device close. The greens may be perfect, but the reds will be out. Getting the red reigned in will push the blue out. And that my friend IS JUST THE DISPLAY and does nothing to correct the color errors introduced in the other stages of production!
Now how can a novice can take a snapshot on their digital camera, "fix it" in their $29 software package and post it on a forum and ensure that the REST OF US all see the same thing that the human eye sees when looking at their tank.
Take (3) 12xp rolls of 35mm negative film and (2) rolls of 35mm slide film expose each roll the same way (use a tripod and the same lighting and scene). Now drop those 5 rolls of film off at (5) different processors. You will get five DIFFERENT SETS of prints back. That is using the SAME camera and lens and FILM. Now do the experiment again and use (5) different brands and speeds of film. Your results will be even more varied. That is without the problems introduced by software on digital cameras, computers, video cards and monitors. That is without the problems introduced by display device sensors, phosphors, and all the other crap listed above.
I suggest looking into COLOR and how it relates to FILM and DIGITAL mediums. I tis a very interesting subject and an eye opener (no pun) if subjects like that interest you.
Camera Settings:
CCD or imaging chip type
exposure
white balance
ISO setting
Flash setting and/or color type
compression algorithm and settings
automatic "color correction" settings
lens type
ambient room light
Software settings:
JPG settings
Color profile settings
Color correction settings
Display device:
Color profile settings
Phosphor color
User controls (color, brightness, tint, color temperature etc)
Video card properties (color decoder)
System settings
And 1,000 other variables. Your "disagreement" just shows your lack of understanding of the situation. That of course is understandable and the reason I posted in the first place.
Advertising companies, movie studios, TV production houses, etc., all use state of the art color profiling equipment and spend countless hours and dollars trying to at least RECORD color correctly. Go into your local "Best Buy" or other TV store and stand in front of the wall full of TV's. EVERY ONE will render colors differently. Which one is correct JNB???
I have top of the line calibration equipment and can still only get a display device close. The greens may be perfect, but the reds will be out. Getting the red reigned in will push the blue out. And that my friend IS JUST THE DISPLAY and does nothing to correct the color errors introduced in the other stages of production!
Now how can a novice can take a snapshot on their digital camera, "fix it" in their $29 software package and post it on a forum and ensure that the REST OF US all see the same thing that the human eye sees when looking at their tank.
Take (3) 12xp rolls of 35mm negative film and (2) rolls of 35mm slide film expose each roll the same way (use a tripod and the same lighting and scene). Now drop those 5 rolls of film off at (5) different processors. You will get five DIFFERENT SETS of prints back. That is using the SAME camera and lens and FILM. Now do the experiment again and use (5) different brands and speeds of film. Your results will be even more varied. That is without the problems introduced by software on digital cameras, computers, video cards and monitors. That is without the problems introduced by display device sensors, phosphors, and all the other crap listed above.
I suggest looking into COLOR and how it relates to FILM and DIGITAL mediums. I tis a very interesting subject and an eye opener (no pun) if subjects like that interest you.
Last edited:
jnb
Premium Member
you are not a novice and neither am I. And a novice may come up with photos that are useless but to get an idea of color and brightness - photos can be of great use as opposed to being useless - especially when photos are being compared for different lighting systems. look at the comparisons in the article recently posted in reefkeeping which studys 250 se bulbs
far from pretty much useless
far from pretty much useless
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Of course photos can be of use. They are pretty. They can show growth, relative brightness thoughout parts of an image, etc. I said they are useless for the purposes of determining color and how a bulb will look and how colors will be rendered under that bulb.
They are simply not useful for asertaining the color of a bulb setup and how it will look above a tank. A "photo" can show that different bulbs are well, different. But the recorded and displayed differences are not what our eyes are going to see. You can get an idea that bulb "A" is bluer than bulb "B" but the difference recorded on film (or digital) and what your human eyes see can (and is) be worlds apart. Not only are the differences in color going to be skewed, but AGAIN the overall colors being displayed are not going to be accurate either.
"Novice" or "expert" status only has a little do do with the problem. Even if I take all of the precautions when composing and editing a photo, it still has to be displayed on YOUR monitor. That is a HUGE problem.
Just because Reefkeeping posted an article using photos, does not validate their use for color accuracy.
So yes JNB if you are saying that one photo can show "more" blue than another, or "more" yellow than another, you are certainly correct. But what is "more" blue and how accurate is the blue you are looking at? Again, go to your local electronics store and have them put the same image on all 100 displays. You will not see the same color on ANY of them.
jnb
Premium Member
ok, someone said post some solaris pics and you gave your reply to which I took too harsh of an exception to because I believe pics tell a lot of the story for comparison sake; and the article, yes I agree, color could be off depending on the many variables you describe, but again the comparisions do offer useful info.
btw, I have seen the article on three different computer screens which are all about the same result to my eyes and I am surprised how accurate his 20k xm pictures are compared to my real life tank.
When
more often than not in my experience and observations, pictures of 20k tanks look so much bluer than in real life - something I have not figured out - to get my 20k tank pics to what I see with my eyes, to my screen - I have to really work (manipulate) the images - maybe he describes this in the article - need to go actually read it.
I agree, in the final anlaysis, one is taking a risk in buying a certain light without seeing what it does in person.
thanks
=&postid=9661702#post9661702 target=_blank>Originally I said they are useless for the purposes of determining color and how a bulb will look and how colors will be rendered under that bulb.
color on ANY of them. [/B][/QUOTE]
btw, I have seen the article on three different computer screens which are all about the same result to my eyes and I am surprised how accurate his 20k xm pictures are compared to my real life tank.
When
more often than not in my experience and observations, pictures of 20k tanks look so much bluer than in real life - something I have not figured out - to get my 20k tank pics to what I see with my eyes, to my screen - I have to really work (manipulate) the images - maybe he describes this in the article - need to go actually read it.
I agree, in the final anlaysis, one is taking a risk in buying a certain light without seeing what it does in person.
thanks
=&postid=9661702#post9661702 target=_blank>Originally I said they are useless for the purposes of determining color and how a bulb will look and how colors will be rendered under that bulb.
color on ANY of them. [/B][/QUOTE]
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I agree, in the final anlaysis, one is taking a risk in buying a certain light without seeing what it does in person.
That is my basic point. Photos are wonderful things, but you need to use your own eyes anytime "it counts".
That is my basic point. Photos are wonderful things, but you need to use your own eyes anytime "it counts".
Does anybody really beleive the average reefkeeper is that picky? Yes you should see it in person, but it will give you a idea of its potential. As with the power usage back 40 or so pages, picky analisis is great for a scientific journal, but exceeds what I care to read thru. My power bill is down dramaticly and my house is a lot cooler, AC cycles less. Reef sees less then two degrees heat gain during the day and that is due to the pump on my protein skimmer. House is at 78 and tank is set at 79(heater on)-80(heater off) on Aqua III and gets to 80.4or5
plancton
Active member
I talked to the LFS guy here in Guadalajara Mexico, He is exhibiting one at the store's reef. The light didn't seem as strong as MH, it looked like T5. Also I wondered why most LEDs looked atinic.
However the corals looked superhealhy and superflouresence-colorful, it made me buy a frag of superorange zoos, but When I brought it home, it only looks that much fluorescent with atinics only and more redish than orange, very different than under solaris.
And after watching the grow on these pics, I am surprised, seems like solaris is not as bright as MH but at the end the effect on coral health, growth and color seems superior.
Thus brighter isn't better.
However the corals looked superhealhy and superflouresence-colorful, it made me buy a frag of superorange zoos, but When I brought it home, it only looks that much fluorescent with atinics only and more redish than orange, very different than under solaris.
And after watching the grow on these pics, I am surprised, seems like solaris is not as bright as MH but at the end the effect on coral health, growth and color seems superior.
Thus brighter isn't better.
Similar threads
