Re: Lux

From: Bjorn Gimle (b.gimle@chello.se)
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 05:41:01 EST

Next message: Harro Zimmer: "Scout RB decayed"

Previous message: Bjorn Gimle: "Re: Lux"
Maybe in reply to: Tom Wagner: "Lux"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This does not compare to the sensitivity of the video (you cannot shoot a
landscape illuminated by a single star !)

If you shoot the stars directly, you get "all the light onto one pixel", so
generally a high (optical) zoom gives you more light in the same camera.

I have shot eight or more Pleiades stars on 10* zoom with a 0.5 lux Sony.

----- Original Message -----
...
> éclairement E exprimé en lux au moyen de la relation suivante: log E(lux)
> = -0,4×(m + 14,2).
>
> I believe the Sun is -26.7; this gives exactly 100000 lux.
>
> > Anybody know of a way of mathematically comparing visible magnitude with
> the
> > lux, a unit that is used to describe the minimum amount light that video
> > cameras are sensitive to?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
http://www.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html

Next message: Harro Zimmer: "Scout RB decayed"
Previous message: Bjorn Gimle: "Re: Lux"
Maybe in reply to: Tom Wagner: "Lux"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 05:42:06 EST