[stack]

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.

First rule in photography is to always slightly underexpose. As we all know, no matter the sophistication of out post processing software, we can't bring in data that wasn't captured in the first place.

[JSS]

I thought I would take a picture that was similar to the ones Tom posted.

Here are two pictures of the same location at night, one at the top with a long exposure time, and the bottom with a short exposure time.

You can clearly see with the over-exposed image on top the lights LOOK bigger.

But with the shorter exposure you can now see the actual shape and size of the lamps.

This is what is going on with the pictures Tom posted, the camera is over-exposing the streetlights and car headlights. So the picture isn't in fact showing the lights, it's just the camera sensor being maxed out.

Just to make things clear, when a picture is over-exposed you are not seeing real objects, those are just areas of the sensor that have been maxed out by too much light.

You also can not use Lightroom to take the top picture and get the correct lamp shape with contrast and brightness sliders. I encourage everyone to try it and see what happens, using software of your own choosing. It's simply not possible.

[Tom Bishop]

The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings. And there is no reason for why over-exposure should cause lights to stay the same size in the distance.

The picture you provided does not show the constant sizing effect, and is therefore irrelevant. You are are spuriously suggesting that the effect seen was this effect, but have not provided sufficient evidence of this.

- You have no pictures of the constant sizing effect
- You have not shown that the sun is impervious to over-exposure adjustments

The pictures you do provide all have different sizes of blots, which correlate with the different sizes of the bulbs.

[JSS]

The pictures I provided on the previous page was with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings. And there is no reason for why over-exposure should cause lights to stay the same size in the distance.

Look at the car headlights in the bottom left, that is overexposed, unless the headlights really are larger than the entire car.  Does it also mean that X shape is the real shape of the headlight?  Clearly we are not seeing the actual headlight here. We are seeing a washed out portion of the camera sensor.

I'm not sure what you mean by the lights being the same size, the orange streetlight at the top is clearly larger than the streetlights at the bottom.

The picture you provided does not show the constant sizing effect, and is therefore irrelevant. You are are spuriously suggesting that the effect seen was this effect, but have not provided sufficient evidence of this.

What constant sizing effect?  My photo was to show how overexposing an image makes the lights take on a false shape and size, exactly what is happening in your pictures. Your pictures are not showing the true size of the lights just as my top one is not.

How do my images not prove that overexposing a light changes it's apparent shape?  It shows exactly that.

Are you claiming that if we take stack's daytime picture of the lights which did shrink to perspective, that if we overexpose it that the lights in the far field will be the same size? Nonsense.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort.  What I am claiming is if he took that picture at night you wouldn't be able to tell the true shape and size of the lights. Just like in my top picture, and just like in your pictures. The actual shape will depend on the lighting, camera settings, lens used and sensor sensitivity.

To sum up, what I am saying is when you overexpose a light source, you no longer can use it to measure it's true size or shape.  The lights on top are NOT the real shap, just as the lights in Tom's images are not their real shape or size.

[GreatATuin]

Tom, if that's the explanation for the Sun's almost constant angular size, then what's the explanation for the Moon's almost constant angular size, even when it's not luminous at all (eg during an eclipse) or a very thin crescent?

[Longtitube]

The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings.

Of course you didn’t over-expose the lights. The camera in your Pixel3 did.

[Pete Svarrior]

a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.

The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

First rule in photography is to always slightly underexpose. As we all know, no matter the sophistication of out post processing software, we can't bring in data that wasn't captured in the first place.

Yes.

[JSS]

a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.

The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.

[AATW]

The pictures I provided were with a Pixel3 camera on default settings. I did not over-expose the settings. And there is no reason for why over-exposure should cause lights to stay the same size in the distance.

That isn’t what your images show. I have already shown that, the lights in all 3 pictures get smaller as the row of lights get further away.
Because of the angle you took them at the furthest lights are an overlapping mess, you can’t really tell how big they are.

You really haven’t presented anything of note in this thread. You’ve posted some pictures which don’t show what you claim. Then you’ve talked about polarising filters which don’t do what you think they do. Even if they do reduce glare, “reduce” does not mean the same as “eliminate”.

You’ve ignored questions about why the moon’s angular size stays (approximately) same during and eclipse or at new moon - when it is not bright. And you’ve ignored the point about Occam’s razor. What is the simplest explanation for the sun to remain a constant angular size?

[Pete Svarrior]

I never said it did.

Oh, so you were wasting our time. Again.

Please don't do that.

The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

You know, claiming to be able to see cars and streetlights on the Sun's surface might just be a new low for you.

[Tom Bishop]

That isn’t what your images show. I have already shown that, the lights in all 3 pictures get smaller as the row of lights get further away.

Actually, your pictures confirm that the lights are not consistently shrinking into the distance. The first four lights nearest to the camera shrink more than the last four lights in the scene, as you labeled yourself in pixels.

[JSS]

The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

You know, claiming to be able to see cars and streetlights on the Sun's surface might just be a new low for you.

When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?  I even included the part of the photograph I was talking about just to be clear, as quoted below.  I never mentioned the Sun in that reply.

My point is you can't accurately measure the size of lights on a picture that is overexposed.  That picture Tom presented of a street is overexposing the car and streetlights.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.

[AATW]

Actually, your pictures confirm that the lights are not consistently shrinking into the distance.

I never said consistently.
There seems to be a fair amount of glare, there’s no way of knowing the distances involved and pixels on an image that size is a very crude measure.

The point you keep ignoring is that the lights are shrinking with distance, as all objects do. The sun does not. Occam’s razor surely tells you that is because the distance to it remains constant.

[Pete Svarrior]

When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?

Well, let's see. As always, context is key. I don't trust you to get it right, so I'll spell it out and provide links. My post quotes a post of yours, which in turn quotes a post by Tom.

That last post includes an image:



There can be no doubt that this is the picture you're critiquing. After all, it clearly illustrates someone using the contrast slider in Photoshop, and our conversation directly references that slider in multiple places.

Please, could you point towards the cars and street lights present in the picture you're currently critiquing? Personally, I can't see any, and I have a sneaking suspicion that neither can you. It seems likely to me that your claims are just a cheap attempt at distraction.

[JSS]

When did I say you can see cars on the Sun?

Well, let's see. As always, context is key. I don't trust you to get it right, so I'll spell it out and provide links. My post quotes a post of yours, which in turn quotes a post by Tom.

That last post includes an image:



There can be no doubt that this is the picture you're critiquing. After all, it clearly illustrates someone using the contrast slider in Photoshop, and our conversation directly references that slider in multiple places.

Please, could you point towards the cars and street lights present in the picture you're currently critiquing? Personally, I can't see any, and I have a sneaking suspicion that neither can you. It seems likely to me that your claims are just a cheap attempt at distraction.

You said I was saying you could see cars on the Sun in this post which referenced my post which included the actual picture I was talking about.  Cars on the street, not the Sun.

To make sure there are no understandings, the post quoted below is what you replied to, and you can clearly see the picture I included that has cars and streetlights. I did the same with the full image in this post earlier in the discussion, so I thought it was clear what picture I was talking about.

There are several images being discussed in this thread, which is why I included the one I was critiquing, to try and avoid any confusion. If I got confused over which one you were referring to at some point, then that is my mistake.
 

a whiteout means the cameras sensor maxed out and there simply is no data to recover.

The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

I never said it did.  The car headlights and the streetlights are whited out as can easily be seen, those parts of the image are overexposed, just as I stated.

Which is the point, you can't measure overexposed lights and assume that's how big the actual lights are.  His photos are not showing lights that don't obey the laws of perspective, they simply have overexposed light sources in them.

[Pete Svarrior]

You said I was saying you could see cars on the Sun in this post

I didn't. I very specifically addressed only one of your posts. You were dishonest in trying to shift the goalposts, and apparently you chose to ignore my attempts at pointing out just how far off-base you were. It's not that I'm surprised, but I have to enforce some standards here. Don't try that again. Trolling this obvious will not be allowed here.

[Tumeni]

The image Tom presented clearly doesn't exhibit whiteout throughout.

Yes, that's the point.

The lights are overexposed because the scene is predominantly dark, the default setting that Tom used makes an exposure based on the average brightness of the scene, and the lights, which form a small percentage of the total scene, are overexposed.

[stack]

You said I was saying you could see cars on the Sun in this post

I didn't. I very specifically addressed only one of your posts. You were dishonest in trying to shift the goalposts, and apparently you chose to ignore my attempts at pointing out just how far off-base you were. It's not that I'm surprised, but I have to enforce some standards here. Don't try that again. Trolling this obvious will not be allowed here.

I'm confused. We've been using streetlights, car lights and the sun as examples of glare, why it happens, can it be corrected for, etc. I don't see any goalposts moving about. The point is that glare (where that light source portion of the image is overexposed upon the sensor) hides the true size and shape to some degree of the luminous object in question. And that messing around with polarizing filters and post production tweaks in LR or PS or the like aren't going to reveal something that was blownout and not captured in the first place.

So all that being the case, we still see these luminous objects (streetlight, headlight examples) getting smaller as they move further away even with some glare. And as for the Sun itself, we don't observe it getting smaller as it sets (In FE, moving further away). Which all could lead one to believe the Sun is very large and very far away as its observable angular size does not change throughout the day. That's what all I think we're talking about here. Did I miss something?

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm confused.

[...]

Did I miss something?

Yes. You seemingly missed the part where JSS chose to discuss an image of the Sun by rambling about street lights. I understand that it's a cornerstone of RE desperation to pretend that context doesn't exist, but, again, that won't be tolerated here - we have to maintain a modicum of decency here, and pretending that the Sun is the same as the headlights of a car simply won't do. If you choose to criticise an argument regarding photographs of the Sun, please make sure you're not arguing about street lights or cars. Those are unlikely to be found on the Sun. I hope this helps resolve your confusion.

Yes, that's the point.

The lights are overexposed

Tumeni, forgive me for bringing up your track record here, but you are extremely unlikely to know what "the point" is. Case in point: you claim that a photograph of nothing but the Sun has "lights" (plural) in it, or that any of them are overexposed.

We've long established that you either can't read or are incapable of presenting an honest thought. It's probably time for you to move on.

[stack]

I'm confused.

[...]

Did I miss something?

Yes. You seemingly missed the part where JSS chose to discuss an image of the Sun by rambling about street lights. I understand that it's a cornerstone of RE desperation to pretend that context doesn't exist, but, again, that won't be tolerated here - we have to maintain a modicum of decency here, and pretending that the Sun is the same as the headlights of a car simply won't do. If you choose to criticise an argument regarding photographs of the Sun, please make sure you're not arguing about street lights or cars. Those are unlikely to be found on the Sun. I hope this helps resolve your confusion.

Actually, I think you are the one who is mistaken and may have missed a bit earlier on in the thread. Tom was the one who switched us over to streetlights way back on the first page, response #9, when he went from the Sun to:

"Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.”

And posted a wiki link and a few pictures of street lights to make his point.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17059.msg222694#msg222694

So, ostensibly, Tom is the one who put street lights on the Sun, as it were. And yes, I agree, they are unlikely to be found there. Additionally, for some odd reason, he went on to convey the truth in advertising, or lack thereof, when it comes to anti-glare nighttime polarized glasses. So there’s that.

So yeah, we’ve been going back and forth between the Sun/Eclipses, headlights, street lights, and spectacles that don’t do what they claim to do. All of which trying to tease out whether luminous objects shrink in observable size as they get farther away. And again, they do shrink unless they are massive and really far away, like the Sun.