0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm working on a lighting application which requires a very even, well mixed field of light. I'm using an array of RGB LEDs to generate the light, and then using a piece of opaque plastic to diffuse and mix the colors, but I'm encountering a strange effect that resembles a vignette where the shadowed outer portion takes on a green tint. Here are some example images:

Here you can see the design of the LED grid. I was using reflective tape with the thought that it would help color mixing, but I abandoned the approach shown here because it exacerbated the vignette effect.

Here you can see the result with the reflective tape in place. Notice the strong tint of magenta on one side and green on the other.

This is a test using a white light box under the diffuser in place of the reflective tape. As you can see it's a little better, but the color tint remains.

I've also been testing with some material I removed from some old LED displays, but I haven't really been able to improve on the standard semi-opaque white plastic.

I'm wondering a few things:

  1. What causes this? My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that the LEDs in the grid all have the same orientation, so I'm seeing the layout of the emitters projected on a larger scale in some way. Alternatively, this is some sort of light polarization effect I don't understand.

  2. What is the best way to eliminate this effect? I am considering rotating the LEDs relative to each other, so that each LED in sequence is at a 90 degree angle relative to the ones on either side, but I'm wondering if there is a solution that avoid revising the PCB.

\$\endgroup\$
12
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you were using opaque plastic then you'd be getting no light through at all. The word you're probably looking for is translucent. \$\endgroup\$
    – brhans
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think where you say "opaque" and "semi-opaque" you really mean translucent? "Opaque" means "does not transmit light". "Translucent" means "transmits light but scatters or diffuses it". \$\endgroup\$
    – TimWescott
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:15
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Try a translucent layer close to the LEDs, then the one you have now further out. \$\endgroup\$
    – TimWescott
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do you have uniform voltage across the array? Voltage drop in your wiring will tend to make one end redder (due to lower Vf) and the other side greener/bluer. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:37
  • \$\begingroup\$ I considered that it might be something to do with the panel, but the effect remains the same regardless of the position or orientation of the panel, which is actually pretty interesting. \$\endgroup\$
    – flimsy
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:49

3 Answers 3

3
\$\begingroup\$

This is happening because common RGB LEDs, from a colorimetric perspective, suck.

The three elements in each LED part are positioned fairly far from each other, and they are neither equally spaced nor uniformly shaped, so you end up with strange offsets and banding through interference patterns. With a single white emitter you'll still get fringing effects (e.g. chromatic aberration) due to the varying refraction angles of the different light colours and the LED not being a point light source, but when the primary colour emitters are spaced apart the effect is even worse. This is particularly bad on your typical WS2812B in a 5050 package, because the spacing is large. The smaller 2020 package ones are better, but far less common. The problem is exacerbated by variances in the radiation characteristics (viewing angle) causing differing intensity attenuations at oblique angles. Rotating the LEDs won't work very well - you'll just create different interference patterns.

This problem isn't as bad when you're just looking at the LEDs from a distance, because diffraction, diffusion, dispersion, and defocusing effects take over and "blur" the three emitter outputs into one, but if you look carefully you can still usually see that slight off-white effect around the edges of each LED when a low saturation colour is displayed. Putting a surface very close to the LEDs breaks this illusion because the interference effects dominate at that short distance.

The quality of the "white" that you get from turning all elements to 255 is also horrible on RGB LEDs - I don't know that I've ever seen anyone calculate the CRI, but I'd bet on it being somewhere around 50-60. If you need the white to look good, e.g. for photography, you'll want to use proper white LEDs with a CRI above 80 (ideally above 90) with a known colour temperature so you can set your white balance.

One solution is to instead use RGBW LEDs, and ideally smaller LEDs. The closer the grouping of the emitters inside the package, the less of a problem you'll have in short-distance applications like this. The white LED will dominate the light output and, since it's a single emitter with a fairly broadband output, it won't exhibit the same Moire-like patterns with multiple emitters. Since the individual RGB emitters in an RGBW LED are then typically driven based on a subtraction of the minimum intensity level (i.e. the lowest RGB channel value is used as the white level, and the RGB levels have that number subtracted) the undesirable effects from emitter offsets become less pronounced.

You could also try to mask the issue by moving your translucent diffuser away from the LEDs. This causes the optical power density to even out a bit before it hits the diffuser, improving its overall effectiveness at spreading the light. Whether or not you can do this in your specific case depends on the mechanical constraints you have.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • \$\begingroup\$ So for the specific use case I have, I actually do not want a high CRI white, but rather a perceptual white composed of peaks red green and blue. They also need to be very specific wavelengths of red green and blue (660, 540, 440), which is why I'm using these 5050s, since I can get them customized affordably. You're thinking this is a diffraction issue? \$\endgroup\$
    – flimsy
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think diffraction plays a big part, but there are probably other optical effects at play like anisotropic reflections from the foil (note the lines pointing toward the camera in the first photo). The only real way to get around that is going to be to diffuse the heck out of it before it becomes a problem. \$\endgroup\$
    – Polynomial
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ I also wouldn't be surprised if you were seeing Fabry-Pérot-like effects from the transparent layer on the surface of the film. \$\endgroup\$
    – Polynomial
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:38
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah the foil was definitely making things a lot worse, though the effect persists even without it. There is a distinct magenta and green side to each emitter, and this persists at every scale. I was really hoping that rotating the emitters would result in the color tinges cancelling each other out. I'm wondering if I need to explore solutions like those employed in color enlargers, which mostly project three colors into a lightbox. Either that or attempt an edge-lit approach. \$\endgroup\$
    – flimsy
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 22:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ After some further testing, I am starting to believe that the primary issue is actually chromatic aberration, essentially the different colors are "focussed" at different distances (probably because of the clear plastic on these cheap emitters acts like a bad lens). The reason I'm coming to this conclusion is because reducing the "aperture" (by introducing a board with a hole in it) increases the focal distance and appears to eliminate the effect. This also lines up with some design approaches for enlargers, which use mixing boxes with a small hole in the side leading into a larger chamber. \$\endgroup\$
    – flimsy
    Commented Feb 7, 2023 at 0:40
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think the effect is caused by difference in sizes and orientations between the chips and lens like you said and possibly a bit of chromatic aberration. This datasheet of a RGB chip shows that green and blue have much broader angular output than red. I would try putting an aperture between the emitters and the diffusion screen to only pass the uniform-chromaticity central region.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I was considering putting a rectangular or cylindrical grid between the emitters and the diffuser so that each grid square could act like an independent lightbox, is that sort of what you're describing? Or would this be more like a opaque surface with a hole for each emitter? \$\endgroup\$
    – flimsy
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ This would be more like a piece of cardboard with a cutout smaller than the entire light field. \$\endgroup\$
    – vir
    Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 21:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ This has lead me to a potential cause, though I think for a slightly different reason than the one you described. I think the issue is essentially chromatic aberration caused by the plastic on the emitters lensing the different colors and focussing them at different distances. Adding an aperture increases the focal range and eliminates much of the aberration. \$\endgroup\$
    – flimsy
    Commented Feb 7, 2023 at 0:41
0
\$\begingroup\$

The further you get away from an array of emitters the more they look like a single, uniform emitter. If you can't put the individual diodes closer together then move the diffuser further away from them. Replace the reflective back with a diffusive one. Eventually if you put the diffuser far enough away then the entire diffuser will be uniformly illuminated.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.