Hacker News Reader

Comment by wyager | Hacker News Reader

Even if it's perfectly centered on a nice blackbody point, if the spectral distribution is spiky, it will still look bad in real-world usage

View on HN

Looking bad isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for many applications, not even for decorative ones. Just look at the piercing bluish white LED Christmas lights that many people have put up, rather than the somewhat more expensive "warm" colored ones.

It's is usually a deal breaker if used for room lighting, rather than display lighting. Especially where food is involved. Try swapping you dining room lights for RGB.

Not sure why this is downvoted. It's simple color theory, and the whole reason the CRI measure exists.

Unfortunately, CRI or Ra, agreed upon in 1974, is more of a "how well do eight pastels look when illuminated by this light spectrum?"

CIE's R96a (1999) remains stuck in a disagreement between scientists and manufacturers. This means that lights currently specified with a CRI value are advertising an inaccurate measure of their ability to reveal the color of objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index

Knowing even only the 1974 CRI of a light source is much better than knowing nothing about it.

A very good CRI does not guarantee a very good color reproduction, but a poor CRI guarantees a bad color reproduction.

I've seen many very new comments start out grey until someone votes for it. No idea why that is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com