My colleague Tony Esposito and I will be giving a new TM-30 seminar and demonstration at ArchLIGHT Summit 2021 in Dallas on September 21st and 22nd. We’re working on a new, and we hope more attendee friendly, presentation and an all new set of demonstrations to explain TM-30s Annex E specifications. The demo will include, for the first time, live models of different ethnicities so attendees can evaluate the impact of of the specifications on skin tone. I hope to see you there!
Many of us on the IES Color Committee, myself included, have written and spoken about TM-30 and how to use it. I’ve written posts on this blog (click on the color rendering tag to see them all), authored articles, spoken at IES Annual Conferences, given webinars to architects and lighting designers, and assisted manufacturers in adding TM-30 data to their cut sheets. Despite our efforts, and those of others, TM-30 is still not as well understood and broadly implemented as it could be.
A recent issue of Leukos featured an excellent tutorial by Michael Royer of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. In it, he describes the development of TM-30, color rendering fundamentals, the workings of the TM-30 calculation framework, TM-30 measures and their meaning, and more. That article is now available on the US Department of Energy’s website here. Anyone who’s unsure about TM-30 will find it immensely useful.
On a related note, many members of the IES Color Committee, myself included, can make themselves available to answer questions or present webinars to architects, interior designers, lighting designers, electrical engineers, sales reps, and manufacturers. If you’re interested, use the Contact Jason Livingston link above to send me a message. If I’m not available or the right person for your organization I’ll find someone who is.
You may recall that in 2019 the Trump administration blocked a rule intended to phase out incandescent lamps and encourage a conversation to more energy efficient models, namely LEDs. If you don’t remember the New York Times and NPR both had articles, among many others.
Last week, the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center, along with 24 other groups across the country, urged the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Granholm to implement the efficiency standard for household lighting products mandated by Congress as soon as is practicable. They claim that “Each month of delay costs American consumers nearly $300 million in lost utility savings and results in another 800,000 tons of climate changing CO2 emissions over the lifetimes of the incandescent bulbs sold in that month.”
You can read the entire press release at Consumerfed.org
Last week I was in Boston and wanted to visit the USS Constitution. The ship was closed but the visitors center was open. When I went inside and tried to read the exhibit signage, here’s what I saw:
Track lights were positioned right over the semi-gloss signs, creating terrible reflected glare. The thing is, this is so easy to avoid. In fact, someone almost has to try to create lighting this bad. Here’s how to avoid it.
Nearly all lamps found in residential and commercial spaces are included in the ban, which goes into effect in September. It seems that stage and studio lamps are exempt for now.
Source: Halogen lightbulb sales to be banned in UK under climate change plans – BBC News
Over the past few months I’ve had a manufacturer, a sales rep, and a lighting designer all tell me they think CRI compares a light source to daylight. When I tried to correct one of them the reply was an acknowledgment that an incandescent source is normally used, but daylight can be used, too. Given that the lighting industry has been using CRI since 1965, all three should have known better. On the assumption that they’re not alone in their misunderstanding, let’s talk about reference light sources.
The International Commission on Illumination (CIE for Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage) and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) both define color rendering as, “The effect of an illuminant on the color appearance of objects by conscious or subconscious comparison with their color appearance under a reference illuminant.” In other words, we evaluate the color rendering of a given light source by comparing it to another light source. The other light source is called the reference illuminant.
In 1965 the CIE published CIE 13 Method of Measuring and Specifying Colour Rendering Properties of Light Sources. The current version is CIE 13.3-1995. Its General Color Rendering Index, Ra, is usually referred to as CRI. CIE 13.3 says, “the reference illuminant for light sources with correlated colour temperatures below 5000 K shall be a Planckian radiator, and from 5000 K one of a series of spectral power distributions of phases of daylight.”
So, the reference illuminant must have the same color temperature or correlated color temperature (CCT) as the light source being tested. For all light sources with a CCT below 5000 K we use the spectrum of a Plankian, or blackbody, radiator. For all light sources with a CCT of 5000 K or above we use a CIE model of daylight, again at the same CCT as the light source we’re testing.
Regular readers of this blog know that I’m not a fan of CRI, greatly preferring the increased accuracy and depth of information provided by ANSI/IES TM-30 IES Method for Evaluating Light Source Color Rendition. What about TM-30’s reference light source? It’s nearly the same. For CCTs of 4000 K and below it’s a Plankian radiator. For CCTs of 5000 K and above, it’s the CIE model of daylight. TM-30 avoids CRI’s sudden jump between reference illuminants by using a graduated blend of Plankian radiator and daylight over the range of 4001 to 4999 K.
CIE 224 Color Fidelity Index for Accurate Scientific Use is identical to TM-30’s Fidelity Index (Rf) and uses the same reference light sources.
On April 21, 2021, DOE issued a preliminary determination that Standard 90.1-2019 will achieve greater energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code. DOE estimates national savings in commercial buildings of approximately:
If the DOE makes a final affirmative determination, and it likely will, states will have two years to certify that they have reviewed the provisions of their commercial building code regarding energy efficiency, and, as necessary, updated their codes to meet or exceed the updated edition of Standard 90.1.
Since 1992, 42 U.S.C. 6833 has required the DOE to evaluate new versions of ASHRAE 90.1 or its successor to determine if adopting the new version as a nationwide minimum standard would improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. If it does, “each State shall, not later than 2 years after the date of the publication of such determination, certify that it has reviewed and updated the provisions of its commercial building code regarding energy efficiency in accordance with the revised standard for which such determination was made. Such certification shall include a demonstration that the provisions of such State’s commercial building code regarding energy efficiency meet or exceed such revised standard.”
Recently, a well-known lighting designer gave a presentation at a well-known lighting conference. During the Q&A he was asked his opinion of TM-30 and replied that it was too hard so he just specified CRI>90. At the risk of sounding like a jerk I have to say that maybe it was too hard for him, but it’s not too hard for most of us. Here is a brief list of new things lighting designers have had to learn over the years.
There is a ton of TM-30 educational material available, including posts on this blog here, here, here, here, here, and here. There’s this article on the IES’s FIRES Forum, and this page on the Department of Energy web site. Manufacturers are also providing education including DMF Lighting, Soraa, Premier Lighting, Alphabet, and Lighting Services Inc. Then there are the articles in trade magazines and sites such as Lux Review and Architect Magazine, not to mention many articles in Lighting Design and Application and Leukos (no links because they’re behind the IES login). In addition, there have been presentations at other conferences (some given by me) at the IES Annual Conference, LightFair, and LEDucation.
If that’s not enough for you, let me know. I have a presentation approved for one AIA HSW LU, so if you’re architectural firm wants to learn more let’s set up a presentation. Ditto for lighting design firms and teachers of lighting. If I’m not available there are a half dozen others on the IES Color Committee who regularly give TM-30 presentations. You can learn TM-30. I’m here to help.
The pandemic has certainly distracted me from regular posting here. I’m probably not back to posting weekly, or even monthly, but I do have a new topic and a few things to say about it. The topic is color science as it applies to lighting.
No doubt you’ve seen something like Figure 1 before. It’s the CIE 1931 (x, y) chromaticity diagram and is the most common graphic for showing the range of tunable white luminaires and LED colors and their color mixing possibilities.
The thing is, we keep using this diagram even though it has problems and has been replaced twice. The problem is that it isn’t perceptually uniform, which means that the distance between any two color points doesn’t correspond to the perceptual difference between those two colors. This was famously demonstrated in 1942 by David MacAdam. Using 25 chromaticities he had a trained observer, using a device that allowed for the color adjustment of light, attempt to create a side-by side match from different starting points – for example match a yellow sample starting from green, then match it again starting from red, etc. When he plotted the results in CIE 1931 (x, y) the area where color differences could not be detected formed an ellipse as shown in Figure 2. This demonstrated that the color space was not perceptually uniform. If it was the ellipses would have been circles.
These “MacAdam ellipses” have become the default way manufacturers talk about color consistency of their products. You’ll often see statements on cut sheets saying that the LEDs for a particular product line all fall within an X-step MacAdam ellipse (2-step, 3-step, etc.). Want to hear something crazy? In 2014, the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), which sets the standards for most things related to color and light, recommended ending the use of MacAdam ellipses. Why? Look at Figure 2 again. The size of MacAdam ellipses changes as we move around the chromaticity diagram. So does anything related to them, such as Standard Deviation Color Matching (SDCM) another, although less common, measure.
The first attempt to address the uniformity problem resulted in the CIE 1960 (u, v) uniform chromaticity scale (USC) diagram (Figure 3). Correlated color temperature was originally calculated in the CIE 1960 (u, v) UCS.
It was later discovered that the CIE 1960 (u, v) USC diagram also was not uniform. To improve uniformity the v-axis was scaled by 1.5, resulting in the CIE 1976 (u’, v’) UCS diagram shown in Figure 4. As the most uniform UCS diagram, CIE 1976 (u’, v’) is the one recommended for use when calculating or evaluating color differences, not CIE 1931 (x, y).
Correlated color temperature was originally calculated in CIE 1960 (u, v). However, since that diagram is no longer recommended for any purpose by the CIE, we use CIE 1976 (u’, v’) but scale it back to CIE 1960 (u, v). This is described as CIE 1976 (u’, 2/3 v’).
The CIE’s 2014 recommendation mentioned earlier replaced MacAdam ellipses with a circle in the CIE 1976 (u’, v’) UCS. A rough rule of thumb is that one MacAdam ellipse corresponds to a circle with a radius of 0.0011. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that any manufacturers have made this transition.
So, our industry is in a situation where we commonly use a 90 year old first generation diagram that was replaced 61 years ago. We calculate CCT in a third generation chromaticity diagram that is 45 years old but tweek the math to refer back to a second generation 61 year old diagram. It’s crazy! No other industry uses a system this convoluted.
Why am I mentioning this? I was recently reminded of a paper that was presented at last August’s IES Annual Conference. Presented by Michael Royer of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, it proposed using the latest color science to make a fresh start with a single new chromaticity diagram that is very similar to CIE 1976 (u’, v’) where we would calculate CCT, the color temperature bins for LEDs, color differences and the rest. IES members can access the archived presentation after logging in to the IES website.
Full disclosure, I’m on the IES Task Group that is developing this new system. The Task Group is made up of people in academia, design, manufacturing and research from three countries. We’ve refined our work since August and expect to publish these refinements soon. I encourage all of you to look for and learn about this proposal, to attend seminars when available, and to weigh in on this topic. Would our industry benefit from moving to a unified chromaticity system? Is this the right one? How do we educate specifiers and manufacturers? How do we phase in a new system? We can all have a voice in bringing the science we rely on into the 21st Century.
References
CIE. (2014). TN 001:2014 Chromaticity Difference Specification for Light Sources. Vienna: International Commission on Illumination.
CIE. (2018). CIE 015:2018 Colorimetry, 4th Edition. Vienna: International Commission on Illumination.
MacAdam, D. (1942). Visual Sensitivities to Color Differences in Daylight. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 32(5), 247-274.
Royer, M. et. al. (2020). Improved System for Evaluating and Specifying the Chromaticity of Light Sources. In: Illuminating Engineering Society Annual Conference 2020.
The Illuminating Engineering Society’s Recommended Practice 16 Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating Engineering (aka RP-16) has long been one of the two reference sources for the definition of lighting related words and phrases – the other being the CIE International Lighting Vocabulary (ILV).
As part of the IES converting all of their publications to an online library format, some publications have been given a new designation. RP-16 is now Lighting Science 1 (LS-1) and is at this link. Bookmark it now!