> So what's wrong with this analysis? I'm sure that assumption
> #1 is pretty close to correct. If anything it may be 0.1%
> reflectivity rather than 0.5%. Are #2 and #3 simply bad
> assumptions?
Well, having the sun present in the picture accounts to a visual
dynamic range of in excess of 20,000% That'll overwhelm that
0.5% pretty easily.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|