LEDRider LED Floods and Spots - ST.n discount

[Justin]

I finally got a decent camera to use for a few months and I'm still learning to use it. What I've found is that even with a good camera, it's hard to get a picture to come out exactly as what you see in real life. I've been playing with different aperture and shutter settings in manual mode, and I think I'm getting close. Hopefully these pictures look good on your monitors.
 
Bike was in turnout on right side of road on center stand. Camera was on tripod on the left side of road. 1st tree is at 750 feet, second tree is at 1000 feet. I reset the GPS at the farthest tree and drove up and turned around where I took the pictures: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-c-tgnYwIsB8/UndK8_eavnI/AAAAAAAACnc/pfYmP4xFgpA/s912/IMG_20131102_235944.jpg
 
Note: you can click on the pictures on drop box to zoom in to full size.
 
First shot is stock low beams with +80 Halogens:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6u9bfo4i5q9ohd6/1low.jpg
 
This is stock highbeams, +80% halogens:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kkdv8k420lwq46d/2high.jpg
 
This is low beams plus 2 LR4 floods:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/55exx1h6o4fhgc9/3LR4.jpg
 
And just for fun, this is low beams + LR4 floods + LR62 spots:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vp8b5g4kwiurtzi/4LR4%2BLR62.jpg
 
The more I use the LR4, the more I like it. Unfortunately, when you adjust the camera settings to show the distance of the lights, the close in light looks a lot brighter than it is. Unlike other quad cree XM-L lights on the market, the LR4 doesn't have nearly as much close-in glare, and a farther light throw. If I could only have one aux light on my bike, I think the LR4 is the clear winner.

For those of you that have Gen2 FJR's, Dave at WynPro has designed some awesome mounts for the LR4's

http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u535/Winstar333/WynPro/100_0962_zpsd08c4589.jpg

http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/u535/Winstar333/WynPro/100_0960_zps50aab4b9.jpg

More info on his FJR Forum thread.

On another note, we are working on developing a quality, low cost, rotary dimmer that can be used with our LED lights (and just about any other LED that does not have it's own built in dimming circuitry). We opted for the rotary design as it's simple, and does not require the use of a RF dongle that can be lost or have a dead battery. There will be a high beam over-ride on the dimmed setting. At first it will be available in a single 7 amp channel. Once we are happy with the results, we'll expand to a dual channel as well, with independent over-rides, to control multiple lights with their own settings (for example, you could set your left light to 0% with low beams, and your right to 20% - or control multiple sets of lights). I'll post up more details as they become available.

[Sport-Touring]

[loadedmind]

It's hard to depict any sort of lights' effectiveness unless you have a better-than-average camera I've found.  

I'd like to suggest that you grab a GoPro or something comparable and do a video at night - preferably a road with curves.  I think this might go a long way in helping folks see how effective your lights are.

[GRN]

It's hard to depict any sort of lights' effectiveness unless you have a better-than-average camera I've found.  

I'd like to suggest that you grab a GoPro or something comparable and do a video at night - preferably a road with curves.  I think this might go a long way in helping folks see how effective your lights are.

You don't need something sophisticated, you need a camera with full manual exposure capability. Auto exposure will try to average the reflected light in the scene, which will result in different exposures depending on the amount of light, not apples to apples comparisons between frames. A fixed exposure is needed to really compare the output differences.

[Dutch]

Buy or borrow a GoPro. An on-bike video would be nice.

[Justin]

You don't need something sophisticated, you need a camera with full manual exposure capability. Auto exposure will try to average the reflected light in the scene, which will result in different exposures depending on the amount of light, not apples to apples comparisons between frames. A fixed exposure is needed to really compare the output differences.

The pictures linked above were done with manual settings on a Canon Rebel DSLR. I have to get out and do some more one of these days. Since the high for the next 5 days is 21, it'll have to wait.

[GRN]

The pictures linked above were done with manual settings on a Canon Rebel DSLR. I have to get out and do some more one of these days. Since the high for the next 5 days is 21, it'll have to wait.

Right on... that's as good as you can do without digging into the differences between device sensitivities and calculating compensation - the 'average' human eye vs. that specific CCD. It's more difficult with digital because of the significant differences in dynamic range between the eye and typical CCD's and processing algorithms. Conventional (now historic) mid speed color negative film had much more 'natural' dynamic range.