Check the number contained within the URL to the store to make sure it is the correct one.
It should contain 330416.
AR coatings are not tint. If they were, then I would not be able to tolerate the Endura EZ coating on the backside of most of my eyeglass lenses that reflect green but actually don't make things look more green. AR coatings are to raise transmissivity and allow >99% of the light from your emitters to pass through the lens instead of only ~92%. The purple you see is a result of the manufacturing process, and the tint is often an indicator of the thickness of the coating.
If you want more detail, go to a decent (preferably boutique instead of chain) optical shop and ask an experienced LDO about AR coatings if you're really concerned. Or you can just take my word that the light that passes through Endura EX (green reflections) is not notably different from light that passes through Crizal Sapphire (purple reflections) to a degree that matters to anyone who replaced polycarbonate lenses every year or so due to a slight yellowing that even experienced opticians won't notice without instruments.
Or you could simply not worry about it.
the Endura EZ coating on the backside of most of my eyeglass lenses that reflect green but actually don't make things look more green.
If they reflect green, they should make things look less green and not more?
The purple you see is a result of the manufacturing process, and the tint is often an indicator of the thickness of the coating.
Wouldn't those things be an indication of different type of AR coating used?
Or you can just take my word that the light that passes through Endura EX (green reflections) is not notably different from light that passes through Crizal Sapphire (purple reflections) to a degree that matters to anyone who replaced polycarbonate lenses every year or so due to a slight yellowing that even experienced opticians won't notice without instruments.
It seems that the color of the AR coating used in flashlights (light reflected) do affect the tint (Duv) noticeably.
I edited my comment to add more information.
my collection of historically significant LEDs
You can't just offhandedly drop the fact you have a collection of historically significant LEDs!
I would love to know more.
has anyone posted a runtime chart or something showing its actually buck? ive seen this mentioned before but no evidence of it, and afaik there are no 14500/aa lights that are buck driven on 14500
so it is fet ok. I was going to ask why it started being stable at such a high voltage, but it looks like thats because they are initializing turbo at various thresholds, not letting it run like the linechart would make you think.
Thanks for this. I dont get why nobody uses a buck boost chip since they already have to use a boost chip, are they that expensive?
I’m not sure, but it’s probably some combination of cost, complexity, and political will.
Link to Osram W1 Green LED review
Should be about the same. (PC Green)
Yeah, a higher burst is fine, but what I'm referring to is crazy output claims for very short bursts where brands have now more recently been dismissing ANSI/FL1 and stating "max output", even if it's 10 sec. The Acebeam X75 is a good example of 80K only being a couple of seconds despite advertising in their specs chart they followed the FL1 standard, yeah, everything but turbo.
I was one of the first to review the X75 and tried speaking out about it not meeting the FL1 standard claims and they tried to silence me by threats of it damaging my relationship with them and possibly other brands.
"Acebeam has a history of 10 years, and we cannot survive until now if we just rely on false advertising lumen value"
"...no matter how good your photography works, it will have a negative impact on you or us or even other flashlight brands"
I was one of the first to review the X75 and tried speaking out about it not meeting the FL1 standard claims and they tried to silence me by threats of it damaging my relationship with them and possibly other brands.
“Acebeam has a history of 10 years, and we cannot survive until now if we just rely on false advertising lumen value”
“…no matter how good your photography works, it will have a negative impact on you or us or even other flashlight brands”
Damn, that’s pretty scummy of them.
Is this your current spec?
If so, have you tried using the hardware encoder on your GPU? (NVENC)
Yeah I have, and the cpu still gets overloaded. I also notice a decrease in frames while streaming. I usually play on low settings while streaming. Everything else is good while I don’t stream
Interesting, that is pretty wack.
Have you confirmed that NVENC is being used through task manager?
I’m spitballing here but if I had the same issue, I would look at clean installing the display driver (using DDU) and uninstalling and reinstalling OBS and reconfiguring it. (And other troubleshooting stuff like windows updates and maybe even BIOS updates)
ETA: You could potentially look at using HWinfo and log what is happening when streaming and not streaming and see if any differences are present.
Good luck!
You misunderstand, When working with a tele f8 depth of field but still an actual brightness of f4 is a massive advantage.
All else being equal the 300/4 would have a higher keep rate just from having more depth of field. Not to mention the photo itself would look sharper.
The only reason people use fast tele primes is so they can have fast shutter speeds at low ISO not for the bokeh.
This is not how it works.
The reason why the same settings on different sized sensor (ISO, Aperture, Shutter speed) give the same exposure is because it gives the same intensity of light per sensor area.
This means that larger formats (given that the sensors have similar technology) has an advantage in low light if (and only if) narrower depth of field can be used to take the picture.
All else being equal the 300/4 would have a higher keep rate just from having more depth of field. Not to mention the photo itself would look sharper.
Note that given the same number of pixels on the sensor and the same lens, images from APS-C or Full-frame will have higher resolution because the lower density of pixels means that it is less demanding on the lens to resolve it.
Equivalence is real. However, it doesn’t tell you which format is the best because they all have their trade offs. I still like my 20/1.7 because it is small and good.
Here’s some links that go into more detail and explain it better than I can.
ETA: I forgot to add this comparison to show that same ISO ≠ same result
Karma
Cake day
Trophy Case (2)
Two-Year Club
