NIGHTHAWK vs. SILVERSTAR 4079

I will readily admit to no expertise on "Lights". However, much of the discussion of "what's better" seems to focus on laboratory measures of light that may or may not translate into an "I can see better with these" end point. Does measuring the light *received* by a photo sensor that has some particular range of sensitivity necessarily translate into what you SEE when the light is used to illuminate something you want to see in the real world? If you put infrared emitters in place of your headlights and then measure the light from them with a receiver you will find some IR emitters are "brighter" then others, yet they will all be useless in helping you see a deer on the road. Similarly, is "blue" light, or "whiter" light, even if "dimmer" on some lab test equipment reading, necessarily less effective in terms of how well it illuminates something in the REAL world and makes it visible to you? Sure, the bulb coating may be cutting down that part of the emitted spectrum, but it is actually a loss from a HUMAN visual perspective? That is, does it translate, all other things equal, into a human having a reduced range of perception of the things they actually want to see, or does it just translate into a reduced reading on a machine that measures not only the *useful" light, but perhaps also the "useless" light and there by giving a total reading that's higher, but meaningless to human perception.

I've seen several "studies" including ones that show pictures of what you "see" but that's not really what a human see's, it's what the film is sensitive to. The films response curve is most likely NOT the same as the human eyes response curve so what you see on a photo taken at night is not necessarily what you see if you are there in person. And this doesn't even address the potential difference in CONTRAST between objects that might occur with different kinds of lights, contrast that might make some objects be perceived sooner with one "color" of light then they would by another "color". And it may not be a given that a wider light spectrum produces the most USEFUL contrast, it could be that a "blue" light produces a more useful contrast that provides a perceptual benefit that outweighs the loss of raw lumens as measured by a lab receiving device, if there even is such a loss.

-- New service to compete with paypal Get $25 pre-registration bonus by following this link www.greenzap.com-25smackers4u