Web Analytics

MediaLight Bias Lighting

MediaLight vs. Lumadoodle: Key Differences

Dear MediaLight:

I just found your website. I'm coming from a Lumadoodle that I damaged when I moved to a new apartment. Is there a reason why your lights cost more? Like can you show me actual data?

Amrit S.

Hi Amrit.

Thanks for your message and please forgive the delayed response. We get that question a lot. 

First, I just want to say that if you are looking to make a more appropriate comparison, I’d compare MediaLight to the brand new LX1 Bias Lighting. LX1 is a separate brand that was created by part of the MediaLight team with a focus on creating value lighting.

Unlike the Lumadoodle, the LX1 still has ultra-high CRI (95 instead of 98 for MediaLight, but still way higher than 76). The pricing is no more than $5 above any Lumadoodle and the light quality is much better. Higher CRI LEDs cost more to make, but CRI 95 costs much less than CRI 98, even though it’s still about 10x higher than CRI 80. 

But, back to your question. I wanted to be able to send an exhaustive response with actual data, so I just ordered a new Lumadoodle unit and measured it under a Sekonic C7000.

First, let's take the strips out of their respective packaging and look at the Lumadoodle next to a MediaLight. The first thing you will notice is that MediaLight has more LEDs. A 5m Lumadoodle strip has 90 LEDs.  A MediaLight of the same length has 150 LEDs.  There are 66.66% more LEDs on the MediaLight per meter. 

Comparing Lumadoodle and MediaLight 
LED Density

 

The chips in MediaLight would cost 66% more based on LED quantity alone even if lower-yield, higher accuracy SMD chips didn't cost more to manufacture. Fact is, they cost at least 20 times more per LED. 

Comparing bias light LED Quality

First, let me just say that this is not a fair comparison.

MediaLight is designed by imaging science professionals and Lumadoodle isn't. MediaLight contains custom Colorgrade Mk2 chips and Lumadoodle doesn't.

I tested a Lumadoodle a few years ago and assumed, as with a lot of technology, that there would have been incremental improvements since then. In actuality, the CRI (color rendering index) is still very low even though LED technology has advanced significantly over the last 5 years.

Lumadoodle Color Rendering Index (CRI) = 76.3 Ra (deficient)
MediaLight Color Rendering Index (CRI) ≥ 98 Ra 

For contrast, the first (post-beta test) MediaLight sold in 2015 featured a CRI of 91 (now 98-99 Ra). But, even the MediaLight of 2015 had a far higher CRI than the Lumadoodle of today.

The new strip measured warmer than the previous strip, for which you can still see my measurements here from 2017, but still reasonably close to their advertised CCT of 6000K (versus the 6500K reference standard). 

What do I mean reasonably close?

The world of bias lighting is the Wild West. There are very strict industry standards, but few seem to follow them.

We submit our products for independent certification by ISF, while most companies simply print "6500K" on the package, or "pure white", or "true white."  I once bought one to test that said "happy white" on the package. 😁

Two of the worst offenders, though were Vansky and Antec. They were so bad that they actually hurt to look at them. 

Vansky Bias Lights claimed a color temperature of 6500K on their website but measured at nearly 20,000K

Antec Bias Lighting said that their lights were "precisely calibrated to 6500K" on their website but they measured at 54,000K.  They would probably be a good gift for somebody you don't like. 

Rounding out this introduction, Zabiki and Halo Bias Lighting were also very crappy in their own right, but, fortunately, they already went out of business, so I don't have review them anymore.

So, the short answer is that it costs more to build MediaLight due to there being more LEDs, which are themselves of higher quality - built to exacting "reference standards," plus a bunch of other components that you need to make an LED strip a fully-functional bias light:

I promise that I'm going to get into the raw photometric data soon. But before I do, there is, one confounding part of Lumadoodle branding that causes a lot of confusion, and which results in a lot of emails and web chats to me. 

I didn't test the Lumadoodle Pro because if they are happy to publish a spec that's even worse than their white lights, that's good enough for me. Anyway, if you learn only one thing from this email : "color changing bias lights and color acuity don't mix.

All MediaLight strips are simulated D65 white. They don't change colors. 

Therefore, our comparison is between the MediaLight Mk2 and the white Lumadoodle.

Here is the raw data in .csv format for measurements from both light strips taken with a Sekonic C7000 off of an 18% gray card in a room painted with Munsell N8 paint. (You might have seen our integrating sphere on other pages. We use that to test individual LEDs, bulbs and lamp heads, not assembled strips). 

MediaLight Mk2 (.csv)
Lumadoodle (.csv)

The measurements above were taken with 1m lengths of LED strips. 

Comparing MediaLight and Lumadoodle Features

Lighting Characteristics

Objectively speaking, higher CRI lights are more accurate than low CRI lights, and 76 is below the threshold for accurate image reproduction.  

Spectral Power Distribution and CRI of MediaLight Mk2

Spectral Power Distribution and CRI of Lumadoodle

It can be a challenge to visualize the difference between the spectral power distributions of two light sources, so we will overlap the graphs. The spectral power distribution for the Lumadoodle is superimposed in front of the MediaLight Mk2.  The Lumadoodle appears as translucent white with a black border and the MediaLight Mk2 appears in color. 

We see that Lumadoodle creates white by combining yellow phosphors (phosphors with a peak wavelength of 580 nm) with a blue emitter. There is no red or green peak in the Lumadoodle sample (you can make low CRI white light by combining two colors of light -- yellow and blue).  

You can see the separate green and red peaks for the MediaLight Mk2 and the colors that look boldest on the graph represent the colors missing from the Lumadoodle spectrum.  The white "mountaintop" represents the peak energy level of the yellow phosphors in the Lumadoodle.  

The MediaLight does not contain a yellow peak as a combination of wide and narrow-band red and green phosphors are combined with the blue emitter to give the MediaLight Mk2 SPD a shape that is closer to D65, or "simulated D65."

Conclusions

While this comparison is coming from their competitor, unlike some products on the market, Lumadoodle does not claim to be designed for accuracy, and the price is lower than the price of MediaLight, although it is not necessarily lower than similar commodity LED strips. Contrast this with companies who promise more than they deliver. They are promising CRI of 76 and that's what you get.

Cost is certainly a factor and even the best bias lights won't save a bad TV with the wrong settings.

We prefer to not sell to people who don't need or want accuracy. There are many more people using TVs directly out of the box than there are people who calibrate their displays. 

We hope, however, that we've shown why our products cost more to manufacture so that you can decide which product is right for you.

Here are the founders of Lumadoodle talking about their bias lighting products and how they have a different focus. This isn't unusual. Most LEDs sold as bias lights are commodity LED strips that are designed for multiple purposes, such as tent lights.

Our lights would make terrible tent lights, but they are exceptional bias lights. However, there are situations where accuracy doesn't matter much, and paying for accuracy isn't worth the additional cost. You should never buy something that costs more than you want to pay for for features that you don't need. 

If you calibrate your TV, inaccurate lights effectively uncalibrate it from the viewer's perspective. The perceptual differences between the chromaticity and color rendering of the MediaLight and Lumadoodle is, in most cases, far more extreme than the tweaks you'll make to your display, and since the lights provide the visual white point reference, perceived shifts in color temperature and tint will correspond to that difference. 

If the ambient light in a viewing environment is too warm and has a Δuv that is too high, it will look greener and warmer than simulated D65 light. As a result, a TV will look more magenta and cooler than D65, even when it has been calibrated. 

And even without the accuracy difference, there are other things that you'd want to add to the Lumadoodle to make it an apples-to-apples comparison based on price, These items include a remote control, a dimmer (bias lights are supposed to be set to 10% of the maximum brightness of the display, so you need a dimmer) AC adapter, an extension cord, higher LED density and a vastly longer warranty period. Adding accessories closes the price gap considerably. 

The key trade-off is one of cost versus accuracy. If you don't get the accuracy that you need, you are probably paying too much, despite a lower price. And, if you don't need accuracy, you might be better off with a cheaper product, rather than either of the products reviewed on this page.

That was an interesting comparison. Which lights would you like to see measured next? 

x