[Longtitube]

Whether the lights shrink in a linear manner is impossible to tell from Tom’s images, since there is no distance information with them. How far from the photographer is the nearest light and what is the distance between each light? Only then can anyone build a case for non-linear shrinking, where a light twice a set distance from the photographer should halve in diameter compared to one at the set distance.

It still doesn’t answer the anomaly of an annular eclipse. The moon is still smaller in actual diameter than the sun and can completely obscure the sun when close enough to the viewer to cover it, like a nickel can hide a silver dollar if close enough to the viewer.

[Tom Bishop]

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

Well you've deliberately picked pictures with a lot of glare, but I've helpfully gone through and annotated your pictures with the number of pixels of each light. I've just measured the width of the actual light, not the "halo" around each one. Here you go:



Oh dear, that's not good, is it? I don't know if it's linear but it's certainly a very clear shrinking in each one.
Something not observed with the sun even when viewed through a filter.

Oh dear, you forgot to read the link again. It says that it happens to the lights in the far field and not the near field. If you put a light two inches from your eye ball, it is course going to be larger than the lights in the far field. The lights in the far field are the ones which tend to stay a consistent size.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So, once again, you guys are verifying the FE Theory by posting these examples and failing to read the material which describes what will occur.

[AATW]

The lights in the far field are the ones which tend to stay a consistent size.

Not according to the pictures you've posted which all consistently show decreasing size with distance. How embarrassing
You're an Occam's Razor kind of guy. What is the simplest explanation for a consistent angular size?
Is it...
a) A consistent distance
b) A huge variation in distance but some magic effect existing which maintains a consistent angular size regardless of distance?

[GreatATuin]

Anyway, even if that did explain the Sun's nearly constant angular size, it still wouldn't explain the Moon's nearly constant angular size. A new moon is dark, but during an eclipse we can see its angular size is sometimes slightly smaller and sometimes slightly larger than the Sun's, and not different from the angular size of a full moon.

[stack]

Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.

Time-lapse was made with a Canon 1DX Mk2 - fitted with a 70 - 200 lens and a Thousand Oaks Solar filter. Sydney, Australia. No glare, no shrinkage, which means it's really big and really far away. I'm not aware of a magical law of perspective that disregards luminous objects. Is this documented somewhere? (Other than your wiki)

[JSS]

Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.

Time-lapse was made with a Canon 1DX Mk2 - fitted with a 70 - 200 lens and a Thousand Oaks Solar filter. Sydney, Australia. No glare, no shrinkage, which means it's really big and really far away. I'm not aware of a magical law of perspective that disregards luminous objects. Is this documented somewhere? (Other than your wiki)

I've taken hundreds of pictures of the Sun with filters to get nice, sharp edges and sunspots.  From all around the world, at all times of day.  High in the sky, low in the sky.

Always the same size. Every time.

Luminous objects absolutely follow the laws of perspective.

What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

[Tom Bishop]

What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Polarized Lens Example

It is often asserted that the above effects are caused by glare, and that if one were to view the scene through a polarized lens the glare would be reversed. This assertion invokes an apparent absurdity: to explain the observation of consistent sizes an enlarging glare would need to seemingly intellegintly adjust itself in size, in accordance to the shrinking with perspective and distance to the observer, in order to make the bodies the same size into the distance.

If glare at is making a body 2x its size at position A, for example, a body 8x smaller at 8 times distance from position A would be required to have a glare of 16x to match the glare at position A, which is eight fold increase of the initial ratio. It is questionable how 'glare' could know where the observer is, in order to cause bodies to maintain their sizes into the distance.

With polarized lenses the 'glare' does not shrink. Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark.

We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:



Now when he applies the polarized lens -- the headlights still overlap:



Continue watching the video to verify that the object in question is indeed a car.

From the video description:

  “ ✔ Polarized 100% UV 400 anti-glare lenses protect your eyes and ensure clarity and control by transforming distorted and distracting light into a crystal clear view ”
—Bluepond Knight Visor

A member of our forum, Thork, says:

  “ I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses. ...You hold them out over a body of water, for me a small stream. Then turn them 90 degrees. When you do this, suddenly you can't see through the water any more because of the reflection. They are 100% polarised. ”

Polarized Lens Example II

Another example similar to the above is shown in the following video at the 3:06 mark:

HD Night Vision Glasses With Polarized Lenses for Men and Woman By Soxick

On the left hand approaching lane there is a car in the distance with headlights which overlap each other. The headlight of the approaching car are magnified and overlap, both when seen through the polarized lens and without the lens.

[stack]

What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Polarized Lens Example

It is often asserted that the above effects are caused by glare, and that if one were to view the scene through a polarized lens the glare would be reversed. This assertion invokes an apparent absurdity: to explain the observation of consistent sizes an enlarging glare would need to seemingly intellegintly adjust itself in size, in accordance to the shrinking with perspective and distance to the observer, in order to make the bodies the same size into the distance.

If glare at is making a body 2x its size at position A, for example, a body 8x smaller at 8 times distance from position A would be required to have a glare of 16x to match the glare at position A, which is eight fold increase of the initial ratio. It is questionable how 'glare' could know where the observer is, in order to cause bodies to maintain their sizes into the distance.

With polarized lenses the 'glare' does not shrink. Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark.

We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:



Now when he applies the polarized lens -- the headlights still overlap:



Continue watching the video to verify that the object in question is indeed a car.

From the video description:

  “ ✔ Polarized 100% UV 400 anti-glare lenses protect your eyes and ensure clarity and control by transforming distorted and distracting light into a crystal clear view ”
—Bluepond Knight Visor

A member of our forum, Thork, says:

  “ I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses. ...You hold them out over a body of water, for me a small stream. Then turn them 90 degrees. When you do this, suddenly you can't see through the water any more because of the reflection. They are 100% polarised. ”

Polarized Lens Example II

Another example similar to the above is shown in the following video at the 3:06 mark:

HD Night Vision Glasses With Polarized Lenses for Men and Woman By Soxick

On the left hand approaching lane there is a car in the distance with headlights which overlap each other. The headlight of the approaching car are magnified and overlap, both when seen through the polarized lens and without the lens.

What do polarizing filters have to do with anything? They have little to no impact on nighttime glare. Why are you even mentioning them?

[Tom Bishop]

Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

[JSS]

What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I didn't say use a polarized filter.  A polarized filter isn't going to help on over exposed image, that's the wrong filter in this situation so of course it does nothing.  You need to use an ND filter or simply adjust the camera's exposure settings.

Here, I just took a picture of a floodlamp on the side of the building with two different camera settings.



See how the light is 'larger' when over exposed, and is the correct size once you crank up the shutter speed?

No polarized filter needed, just setting the exposure to capture the actual light and not a huge over-exposed blob. This is what is causing the images of far away lights to look large, it's just an over exposes sensor, and easily corrected.

[Tom Bishop]

No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

There is an example of that with the Sun in the wiki link:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

[stack]

Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

Polarizing filters have nothing to do with this. Any self respecting photographer will know that a polarizing filter isn't going to do much to reduce the starburst effect on, for example, nighttime streetlights, especially depending upon aperture and exposure duration. They are great for shooting through glass and diminishing reflection or teasing out a blue sky on a high contrast day, but the instances you are trying to apply them to are neither here nor there.

[Tom Bishop]

Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

Polarizing filters have nothing to do with this. Any self respecting photographer will know that a polarizing filter isn't going to do much to reduce the starburst effect on, for example, nighttime streetlights, especially depending upon aperture and exposure duration. They are great for shooting through glass and diminishing reflection or teasing out a blue sky on a high contrast day, but the instances you are trying to apply them to are neither here nor there.

The author of that video, as well as many easily found sources, state that polarized filters are used to reduce glare. You are incorrect that they have nothing to do with reducing glare.

Quoting yourself as authority, and providing zero sources to back yourself up. Funny and typical.

[stack]

No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

There is an example of that with the Sun in the wiki link:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

If you want to simulate a polarizing effect, it's not just brightness and contrast. That's a silly comparison.

"Understanding how this polarizing effect works"
https://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/

[Tom Bishop]

If you want to simulate a polarizing effect, it's not just brightness and contrast. That's a silly comparison.

"Understanding how this polarizing effect works"
https://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/

We are not trying to simulate a polarizing effect. The person I responded to conceded on that issue and says that we need to adjust the exposure instead.

[stack]

Research more. Polarized filters are used to reduce glare.

Polarizing filters have nothing to do with this. Any self respecting photographer will know that a polarizing filter isn't going to do much to reduce the starburst effect on, for example, nighttime streetlights, especially depending upon aperture and exposure duration. They are great for shooting through glass and diminishing reflection or teasing out a blue sky on a high contrast day, but the instances you are trying to apply them to are neither here nor there.

The author of that video, as well as many easily found sources, state that polarized filters are used to reduce glare. You are incorrect that they have nothing to do with reducing glare.

Quoting yourself as authority, and providing zero sources to back yourself up. Funny and typical.

Sure, it can reduce glare, minimally, very minimally, very, very minimally in nighttime photography. But that is not their purpose.

I didn't claim to be an authority, just that those who are and know anything about the myriad filters and their specific usage in photography know that a polarizing filter is not going to wipe out the starburst from nighttime streetlight shots. Polarizing filters have literally no relevance to your argument. You wasted a lot of time throwing all that into the wiki when it means nothing.

[JSS]

No, adjusting the exposure settings is equivalent to adjusting the brightness and contrast settings in an image editor. Your assertion would only have merit if the sun was impervious to exposure or contrast adjustments, which it is not impervious.

There is an example of that with the Sun in the wiki link:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

No, this is demonstrably wrong.  Adjusting the exposure settings of a camera is NOT the same as adjusting the captured image in Photoshop.  Photoshop can not restore detail the camera never captured, and an over exposed image has lost data, that's why it's just a white blob, the sensor is maxed out over that entire circle.

This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.

If it were daytime I could use the Sun as an example, perhaps I'll take some pictures tomorrow to demonstrate when the Sun is back overhead.

[Pete Svarrior]

This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.

Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.

[JSS]

This is easy to see for yourself. Load my sample image into Photoshop or Paint and try and use contrast and brightness to make either side look like that other.  You can't because it is NOT THE SAME as a cameras exposure settings.

Well, yes, you'd probably want to use Lightroom's exposure setting to more accurately mimic a real camera's exposure.

Lightroom won't work either, you are welcome to try it for yourself.  It's not a matter of what program you use or how good it is at modeling a camera, a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.

I really suggest trying with my sample image.  You won't be able to extract the shape of the light from the over exposed image, and you can't make a matching white circle from the correctly exposed image.

[stack]

If you want to simulate a polarizing effect, it's not just brightness and contrast. That's a silly comparison.

"Understanding how this polarizing effect works"
https://www.photoshoptutorials.ws/other-tutorials/photography-tutorials/polarizing-filter/

We are not trying to simulate a polarizing effect. The person I responded to conceded on that issue and says that we need to adjust the exposure instead.

Huh? This is so bizarre. You manufactured this whole thing about how luminous objects are somehow immune to the laws of perspective. Then have this whole other weird strawman thing about polarizing filters which is completely irrelevant. Fact of the matter, things appear to get smaller as they move further away due to perspective. And just look at things that don't have starburst glare and they get smaller as they move away. It's as simple as that. The sun just plain doesn't get smaller as it dips below the horizon. That is an observable fact as well. Here's how perspective would work  with a close sun, or in this example, an equally close and small moon: