# T5HO 54W (48") K comparisons



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

These are 12" away from my white textured wall. I will add photos of each light on my 12" tall tank when the sun goes down tonight .

List of bulbs (in order as they appear in the first picture):
Sylvania 3500 K - FP54/835/HO
Sylvania 4100 K - FP54/841/HO/ECO
Sylvania 6000 K - FP54/860/HO/ECO
Katana 10000 K (white) - T5'54W/W10000K
Katana 10000 K (blue/actinic) - T5'54W/B10000K










3500 K









4100 K









6000 K









10000 K (white)









10000 K (blue) - Actinic


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

I plan to show each one on the tank individually and have the capability to show a combination of 3 together at one time.

Is there a particular combination you would like to see?

I have 1 of each tube except the 4100 K which I have two.


----------



## t0p_sh0tta (Jan 24, 2008)

Cool comparison. In for the update, and thanks for the info.


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Good idea... Interestingly the 4100 and 10000 white look pretty much identical on my monitor. 6000 lucks yuck green, reminds me of the GE Starcoat one. Did you lock the white balance on your camera? If not, the camera will adjust somewhat and the results become difficult to interpret.

I would like to see a shot of all lit bulbs, side by side. :icon_cool 

I know this is hard to do with only one fixture.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Wasserpest said:


> Good idea... Interestingly the 4100 and 10000 white look pretty much identical on my monitor. 6000 lucks yuck green, reminds me of the GE Starcoat one.


Well one other problem with comparing tubes is the fact that different manufactures label colors differently. What one calls 5000 K another might call 6500 K ect.



Wasserpest said:


> Did you lock the white balance on your camera? If not, the camera will adjust somewhat and the results become difficult to interpret.


I know there are like 10,000 settings on my camera, so if there is an "auto correction" it's probably applied.

If anyone can give me some insight on how to adjust my camera to get the best "true" colors it would be greatly appreciated.

Reference: Canon PowerShot Pro1



Wasserpest said:


> I would like to see a shot of all lit bulbs, side by side. :icon_cool
> 
> I know this is hard to do with only one fixture.


:icon_cool How's this?









_____3500 K__________4100 K___________6000 K__________10000 K__________Actinic_____


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Ok after a little more reading up I have these WB options:

AWB (auto white balance), Day Light, Cloudy, Tungsten (incandescents/halogen), Fluorescent, Fluorescent H (H = ???), Flash, Custom 1 and Custom 2.

Which would be the best to use? Fluorescent or Fluorescent H would be my guess.


----------



## evercl92 (Aug 15, 2006)

AndrewH said:


> Which would be the best to use? Fluorescent or Fluorescent H would be my guess.


I get the trueest color from my camera with a similar setting when viewing my T5's.


----------



## t0p_sh0tta (Jan 24, 2008)

Ideally you'd want to use the custom setting. Take a picture of a pure white object under the desired lighting to get the most accurate color. The procedure for setting custom white balance is different depending on the manufacturer.

BTW, here is a good read on setting WB.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

evercl92 said:


> I get the trueest color from my camera with a similar setting when viewing my T5's.


Thanks for the feedback!



t0p_sh0tta said:


> Ideally you'd want to use the custom setting. Take a picture of a pure white object under the desired lighting to get the most accurate color. The procedure for setting custom white balance is different depending on the manufacturer.
> 
> BTW, here is a good read on setting WB.


Dang, thank you for that link . I'll read up some more, but I just used the "Fluorescent" setting for the following pictures . I think after I read that link you provided (which is exactly what I needed, thanks again) I might retake some of the pictures in this thread...








3500 K








4100 K








6000 K








10000 K








Actinic








6000 K & 10000 K








3500 K & Actinic








10000 K & Actinic


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Any setting apart from the AWB would work. Some will look weird though.

What you could do is to use the custom setting, use the light that you think is the whitest, and lock in the setting. Now take all other shots using that same setting.

If you could repeat your original shots using this method that would be great. :thumbsup:


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Ok, I have 2 custom settings so I'll set custom one at the whitest one (10000 K) and the custom two with the next whitest (6000 K) and then redo the picture from post #5 .

Give me a couple of hours (I have to wait til the rugrats go to bed or they'll be right in the middle of every picture )


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

FWIW, when I do comparisons I lock the white balance onto the "sunlight" setting. Ideally our lighting would be replicating that 'feel' over any other.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

I'll definitely try that one too , thanks for the tip.


----------



## CmLaracy (Jan 7, 2007)

Wasserpest said:


> Good idea... Interestingly the 4100 and 10000 white look pretty much identical on my monitor. 6000 lucks yuck green, reminds me of the GE Starcoat one. Did you lock the white balance on your camera? If not, the camera will adjust somewhat and the results become difficult to interpret.
> 
> I would like to see a shot of all lit bulbs, side by side. :icon_cool
> 
> I know this is hard to do with only one fixture.


I found this very interesting as well, such a different color temp but they look exactly the same.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

One thing I was reading on the link t0p_sh0tta provided stated that the "Fluorescent" WB setting on my camer actually takes out the "green" from the fluorescents sources so all of the pictures (excluding the actinic of course) of the lights on my tank look almost the same.

Very interesting concept since the plants can't see green/yellow anyway.

Another thing that catches my attention, the 10,000 K and the Actinic are both labeled as 10,000 K. One is W(hite) and the other is B(lue). Now that does not jive since 10,000 K is 10,000 K not white or blue (though it should appear quite blue); so I'm not exactly sure what this manufacturer is comparing their lights to, to give it a K rating. If they're calling a white looking light and a very blue looking light both 10,000 K then something's not right with their K scale.

Reference:


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Day Light - WB setting
_____3500 K__________4100 K___________6000 K__________10000 K__________Actinic_____









Auto - WB setting
_____3500 K__________4100 K___________6000 K__________10000 K__________Actinic_____









Fluorescent H - WB setting
_____3500 K__________4100 K___________6000 K__________10000 K__________Actinic_____









Custom/6000 K set as White - WB setting
_____3500 K__________4100 K___________6000 K__________10000 K__________Actinic_____









Custom/10000 K set as White - WB setting
_____3500 K__________4100 K___________6000 K__________10000 K__________Actinic_____


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Going off a true Kelvin scale and what I actually see when I look at the lights the Custom/6000 K set as White is the most accurate.

What do you think?


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

Wow, they look like paint swatches.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Yeah pretty crazy how a different tube can change the color so drastically.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

On to the "meat and potatoes" - right-hand text indicate WB (White Balance) setting


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)




----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)




----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Lets see if this works... (trying to make it easier to compare)






































BTW... I have the full size individuals of all these photos if you'd like to see better details (you can see the snails winking) let me know and I'll e-mail them to you.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Which K rating makes the Red Tiger Lotus in the middle really "pop"?

Which K rating makes the dark drift wood on the left "stand out"?

Which K rating makes the bright green Hygro leaves on the right "come alive"?


----------



## Wasserpest (Jun 12, 2003)

Thanks for redoing the shots. See, it is amazing how the camera compensates in AWB mode, making the 4100 and 10000K look exactly the same. The 6000K mode seems to be what I would expect them to look like more or less.

Of course, human eyes are amazing things, able to adjust to anything.

In my tanks, I try to use a 6500K bulb in front, to make light green groundcover (Wisteria, Sags, Marsilea) look green. A 10000K bulb in the middle as it works great with darker tones. And a pink plant grow bulb in the back to accentuate reddish background plants like Sunset Hygro, Ambulia, Alternanthera and such. Looks the best to me, but everyone is different.

Using a mixture of only 6500 and 10000 is too green for me, that's where the pink bulb helps out.

That leaves us with the question what to do with tanks that only use a single row of bulbs. I recently switched my 10gal tank from AHS 6700K 13W bulbs to a single pink GE/AGA bulb. It is slightly overdriven (22 vs 15W nominal), so it appears a tad whiter than normally. First the tank looked really red, but it is growing on me, and now I don't want to go back to the yellow/green.


----------



## AaronT (Apr 11, 2004)

Great comparrison pics Andrew. Can I ask what your source is for all of those different bulbs? I'm looking for cheaper T5 bulbs to use in my emersed setups.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Wasserpest said:


> Thanks for redoing the shots. See, it is amazing how the camera compensates in AWB mode, making the 4100 and 10000K look exactly the same. The 6000K mode seems to be what I would expect them to look like more or less.
> 
> Of course, human eyes are amazing things, able to adjust to anything.
> 
> ...


You're very welcome.

There are definitely still more unanswered questions than answered ones. Like regarding PAR & what the fish see and what's best for the fish at different times (like mating, when sick or healing, etc.), but maybe this thread will help get a starting point for future experiments.

Plus like you said, a lot of it is user preference as to which color looks best on their own tanks. And persoanlly, I tend to lean towards a mix like you stated you did on your tank vs. one bulb color/K rating.



AaronT said:


> Great comparrison pics Andrew. Can I ask what your source is for all of those different bulbs? I'm looking for cheaper T5 bulbs to use in my emersed setups.


Thank you for the compliment.

You sure can (though the answer might not be what you're actually looking for ). I work in the light industry (I'm an electrical designer - design and specify all of the electrical systems in commercial buildings including the lighting) and received all of those lamps as "testing samples" except two of them which were included with the last T5HO fixture I purchased.

I do plan to get some different T5HO tubes in the near future to test the color differences between manufacturers vs. the same K rating (example: side by side comparison of a 5000 K tube from two+ different manufacturers to see how close they are to one another, which I'll post the results). _I also plan to purchase PAR (a.k.a. Quantum meter)_ _ and light meters in the near future ._

I assume you're looking for a link or a national store where you can by T5 and T5HO lamps? If so, I would highly recommend starting a new thread so that it would benefit others looking for the same thing (instead of being berried in this thread), plus more people might see your request and respond (of course I'll add the links that I've come across over the years ).


----------



## tacks (Jun 19, 2006)

Andrew great job and nice of you to share with everone. thanks Ed


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Thank you very much!

It was my pleasure.


----------



## tylercrawford (Feb 1, 2008)

AndrewH said:


> Reference:


 
Nice chart!

I could see some people go crazy over simulating sunrise and sunsets with the lower k range lights on at the beginning/end of phototropic period.

That coupled with flash bulbs for lightning and misters for rain! :biggrin:


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

That's sort of why I run my 9325K lamps first and last in my lighting cycle, it's more like sunset and sunrise than if I was running my dual daylight lamps during the same period.

If the average person takes away nothing else from all these examples, I hope they'll see the actinic photos and realize just how nasty it looks with plants.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

tylercrawford said:


> Nice chart!
> 
> I could see some people go crazy over simulating sunrise and sunsets with the lower k range lights on at the beginning/end of phototropic period.
> 
> That coupled with flash bulbs for lightning and misters for rain! :biggrin:


I though it was pretty interesting as well.

Lookup the "robo tank" .



indiboi said:


> That's sort of why I run my 9325K lamps first and last in my lighting cycle, it's more like sunset and sunrise than if I was running my dual daylight lamps during the same period.
> 
> If the average person takes away nothing else from all these examples, I hope they'll see the actinic photos and realize just how nasty it looks with plants.


Even the Actinic and 10,000 K together don't look that good to me, my $0.02 worth.


----------



## Madhun67 (Feb 19, 2008)

i think you should get paid for doing this,thanks much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great job
Dave


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Awesome job Drew, very tedious im sure but also very insightful!


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

Madhun67 said:


> i think you should get paid for doing this,thanks much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> great job
> Dave





bsmith782 said:


> Awesome job Drew, very tedious im sure but also very insightful!


 
I really appreciate the feedback. Let's me know it wasn't for nothing.

Doing this actually helps me do my job better . When I know first hand what a 3500 K and a 4100 K light source look like, I can know better which to specify when designing a project. Not to mention me posting 'em up will help everyone else who might not have a clue what's the difference between them.

I plan to use this as a baseline (creating a standard) in which to test future bulbs I get. Plus I plan to start PAR testing and experiments to add to the thread hopefully providing info not available anywhere else on the net  (at least not in one place).

I figured - I have the knowledge, experience, and curiosity to where I'm going to be testing my own equipment, heck I might as well post my findings on the forums to possibly help someone else too.


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

I need some feedback regarding the pictures in post #16.

Use the Kelvin scale above, in post #15, and judge which WB setting makes the colors look most like their K rating.

I need to create a standard so I don't have to photo new tubes/bulbs 15 times .

The custom/6000 K set as White looks the closest to me, but that would be kinna hard to reset as a custom every time I change out my battery in my camera. Which one outta the "standard" settings I have available looks the closest. Fluorescent H gets my vote. Maybe I'll get lucky and the camera will store the 6000 K custom even if the battery is taken out.


----------



## bsmith (Jan 8, 2007)

Double post..:icon_redf


----------



## rolloffhill (Jan 18, 2008)

Madhun67 said:


> i think you should get paid for doing this,thanks much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> great job
> Dave





bsmith782 said:


> Awesome job Drew, very tedious im sure but also very insightful!



I agree, great asset to any community!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## imeridian (Jan 19, 2007)

I'd say the Fluorescent H too, when taking the Custom/6000K out of the running.


----------



## kyle3 (May 26, 2005)

a year plus later. . . thanks for this thread it's wonderful!


----------



## AquaVu (Jan 11, 2008)

I second that !


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

My pleasure!


----------



## Hilde (May 19, 2008)

This is pretty good thread but Kelvin ratings vary according to whom the manufacturer is. For example a philips 6500k bulb is not the same as a Zoo Med 6500k bulb.


----------



## kyle3 (May 26, 2005)

Hilde I'm interested in this info- can you remember what the source was on it?

cheers-K


----------



## kid creole (Dec 25, 2008)

My hat goes off to the OP. What a thread.



kyle3 said:


> Hilde I'm interested in this info- can you remember what the source was on it?
> 
> cheers-K


K ratings vary on bulbs because the K rating is for the spectrum of a black body radiator, a theoretical object that doesn't exist. The spectrum of a flourescent light is the product of variations in materials, ballasts, degradation, etc. The spectrum does not look like a normal, it has peaks and valleys all over.

Flourescent light: 









A black body:


----------



## kyle3 (May 26, 2005)

ok, then, presuming that all the manufacturers are aiming towards accuracy how big is the variation. is it that important that there are differences- are they slight or significant- maybe we should move this to a new thread. . .


----------



## AndrewH (Dec 24, 2007)

I know this is now 8 years only, but wanted to revisit some of these topics to aide with a new tank setup and add new content from LED and other sources.

Plus I know there has since been a lot of PAR information available also.


----------

