|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Wire wrote: > He wrote 70K lux (70,000) Sorry, didn't see the "k". In which case, it would be at least three or four times brighter than direct sunlight(?). Perhaps they use a system of reflectors and lenses to obtain this value. I wonder if they have a problem with heat. There has been very little published by Wilhelm, or Epson, or others about the exact methodology for extrapolating short, intense exposures into predictions of life, in years. There are many factors, such as reciprocity law failure, which could skew these measurements. Another area to question would be the use of florescent lighting for these tests. Florescents have a discontinuous spectrum and are very seldom used for illumination in galleries or museums. The most common sources are daylight(through skylights, etc.) or tungsten (including halogen), which may not correlate with florescent. Tony Karp, TLC Systems Corp firstname.lastname@example.org Visit our web sites: Techno-Impressionist Museum: http://www.techno-impressionist.com TLC Systems: http://www.tlc-systems.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users