Then what do you mean?
Then what do you mean?
@xpatUSA has written:I know of no radiation measurement device that "would have response with zero exposure". Please don't explain, it should make no sense to anyone
If light is measured in lux, then you can get finite sensor response with zero light, if the camera's spectral sensitivity is sufficiently different from CIE Y. Consider a camera with the hot mirror removed in the presence of narrowband 1000 nm radiation.
Ah ,zero light - not "zero exposure" ... now we are saying the same thing.
Ah ,zero light - not "zero exposure"
If exposure is defined in terms of lux, then it would be zero exposure for the 1000nm narrowband light source.
@xpatUSA has written: @JimKasson has written: @xpatUSA has written:As Danno says, "hitting the sensor", so I'll agree with him and say that different CFAs and different hot mirrors will cause different exposures all else being equal.
So you're saying that the sensor in the definition is only the silicon part? Does that mean that for the purpose of exposure calculation, you would like to apply the CIE Y spectral sensitivity curve to the energy that passes through the CFA and hot mirror?
No.
Then what do you mean?
You said:
"In your way of thinking, does the CFA spectral response affect the exposure? Does the hot mirror affect the exposure?"
Since "the exposure" can mean almost anything these days - here's what meant:
If Hm is constant upon a sensor then a) replacing the existing CFA with a different one will affect the photo-sensor's response or b) if the UV/IR filter is removed, will affect the photo-sensor's response.
Where Hm=0.65Lt/N^2 and L and t/N^2 are constant
@bobn2 has written: @xpatUSA has written: @bobn2 has written:Trying to find a continuous wave model for something that is a quantum phenomenon is always going to be problematic. Remember that exposure was formalised before the development of QM. More interestingly, studying the effect of very low light levels on photographic plates was part of the process that settled that QM applies to light.
So light meters can not be calibrated to the CIE luminous efficacy curve, it would appear.
They certainly can.
How about they certainly are?
As you like.
Quoted message:The problem is, how do they react to sources that don't conform the the CIE efficacy curve? There's no reason that all meters calibrated to the curve will behave the same under different conditions.
No, there's no reason that they should. Don't make me insult you by claiming that a source of blue light, nay UV light, would make the light meter recommend more exposure or make a lux-meter say "nope, not much light there" ...
I'm unaware of putting any compulsion on you to insult me. Consider this, the CIE efficacy curve is a perceptual one, not a physical one. The physical ones are the standard illuminants. A really well designed exposure meter should be weighting its response according to the luminosity curve, but very few do. I know of no camera's response that does either. So you might calibrate the meter using a light source (best use the appropriate standard illuminant), which the meter will weight appropriately. Take a photo setting the exposure according to this meter. Now use a different light source with a different spectral distribution. Again meter for the same exposure. Because the camera's sensor response is not the same as the meter's then the apparent exposure for the camera will be different.
Quoted message:Most problematic, you can devise light sources that would provide the same set of colours to the standard observer, but would meter quite differently.
That is a Straw Man, sorry
Just how is it a straw man?
@xpatUSA has written: @bobn2 has written: @xpatUSA has written: @bobn2 has written:Trying to find a continuous wave model for something that is a quantum phenomenon is always going to be problematic. Remember that exposure was formalised before the development of QM. More interestingly, studying the effect of very low light levels on photographic plates was part of the process that settled that QM applies to light.
So light meters can not be calibrated to the CIE luminous efficacy curve, it would appear.
They certainly can.
How about they certainly are?
As you like.
@xpatUSA has written: Quoted message:The problem is, how do they react to sources that don't conform the the CIE efficacy curve? There's no reason that all meters calibrated to the curve will behave the same under different conditions.
No, there's no reason that they should. Don't make me insult you by claiming that a source of blue light, nay UV light, would make the light meter recommend more exposure or make a lux-meter say "nope, not much light there" ...
I'm unaware of putting any compulsion on you to insult me. Consider this, the CIE efficacy curve is a perceptual one, not a physical one. The physical ones are the standard illuminants. A really well designed exposure meter should be weighting its response according to the luminosity curve, but very few do. I know of no camera's response that does either. So you might calibrate the meter using a light source (best use the appropriate standard illuminant), which the meter will weight appropriately. Take a photo setting the exposure according to this meter. Now use a different light source with a different spectral distribution. Again meter for the same exposure. Because the camera's sensor response is not the same as the meter's then the apparent exposure for the camera will be different.
@xpatUSA has written: Quoted message:Most problematic, you can devise light sources that would provide the same set of colours to the standard observer, but would meter quite differently.
That is a Straw Man, sorry
Just how is it a straw man?
No comment.
@xpatUSA has written:Ah ,zero light - not "zero exposure"
If exposure is defined in terms of lux, then it would be zero exposure for the 1000nm narrowband light source.
No comment.
You said:
"In your way of thinking, does the CFA spectral response affect the exposure? Does the hot mirror affect the exposure?"Since "the exposure" can mean almost anything these days - here's what meant:
If Hm is constant upon a sensor then a) replacing the existing CFA with a different one will affect the photo-sensor's response or b) if the UV/IR filter is removed, will affect the photo-sensor's response.
Where Hm=0.65Lt/N^2 and L and t/N^2 are constant
It sounds like you are taking the "sensor" to be the combination of silicon chip, CFA, microlenses, and the rest of the sensor stack. Right?
@xpatUSA has written:You said:
"In your way of thinking, does the CFA spectral response affect the exposure? Does the hot mirror affect the exposure?"Since "the exposure" can mean almost anything these days - here's what meant:
If Hm is constant upon a sensor then a) replacing the existing CFA with a different one will affect the photo-sensor's response or b) if the UV/IR filter is removed, will affect the photo-sensor's response.
Where Hm=0.65Lt/N^2 and L and t/N^2 are constant
It sounds like you are taking the "sensor" to be the combination of silicon chip, CFA, microlenses, and the rest of the sensor stack. Right?
No comment.
@JimKasson has written:It sounds like you are taking the "sensor" to be the combination of silicon chip, CFA, microlenses, and the rest of the sensor stack. Right?
No comment.
Hard to have a discussion with no agreement on definitions...
It's whatever exposure that I prefer, on an individual image. It holds the proper "key" for the subject and mood of light, with ample detail in both shadows and highlights. An old Fuji EXR camera gets it right for me most of the time from a jpeg. When not, I shoot again after a minor adjustment to EV.