The reality of LEDs replacing tungsten bulbs is very real and, as photographers of any persuasion (digital or film) we must understand what we are up against and adapt.
I placed this in the hybrid section as it applies to all forms of photography and it's pretty useful in general for choosing luminaries for everyday living.
Now before some breathless individual informs me that this is not a cinema site, I would like to point out that if you can't extrapolate the information into something potentially useful for their still photographic pursuits, then you should just move on and let others draw what they can from the article.
Well it is true that we don't have a lot of discussion here about "moving pictures", there is no reason that there can't be more!
Thanks for the interesting link.
It was interesting to see what a meter would read about color rendition accuracy would reflect what I generally have found in shooting a MacBeth Colorchecker under a variety of uncontrolled LED sources...generally speaking I find colors to reproduce nicely under even randomly selected LED. That article showed on two of the samples exhibited significant deviation from classic rendition, either under Tungsten or under Daylight.
It's probably more critical for Digital imaging to have a smooth, continuous color spectrum than film, which has discreet layers with their own spectral sensitivity.
There are small, natural "gaps" or "dip" in sensitivity where film color layers overlap, but the sensors expect continuous emissions and are more sensitive to their absence.
This, of course, is a rank generalization, so YMMV...