Naw, that'll just burn a hole through the sensor. I think the analysys
that was presented assumed a bright spot on or very near the optical
axis such that the reflection was fired straight back in.
Seems there is fruit for experimentation here if anyone is intrigued
enough to gather some empirical evidence.
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
>>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
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|