Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse • Hacker News Board

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#151

Post by klodolph » Sun, Sep 03, 2017, 7:51 PM UTC

resoluteteeth wrote: post #93

heartbreak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, there’s no concentration of energy involved with the eclipse itself. The concentration involved is no different than setting a leaf on fire with a magnifying glass on a regular day. The sun isn’t a garden hose. Putting something in front of it doesn’t make the edges more intense.

Dingaling is talking about the light being concentrated on certain areas of the sensor. Because the total/average brightness is low, the exposure ends up being much longer then at normal conditions, causing damage to the areas where the light is concentrated. Under normal conditions, the light will be less concentrated on certain spots, so even though there is much more light in total, the camera will choose an appro…

You'd have to be incompetent to trust autoexposure during an eclipse.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#152

Post by banned1 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 12:40 AM UTC

I can almost feel the LensRental writer's pain of having to write this article without calling a bunch of dumbaxxes dumbaxxes because they are their customers. sigh

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#153

Post by mysterypie » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 2:16 AM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #139

howlgram wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"tricked into thinking it's dark" is kind of misleading, because it is in fact darker, but for some reason unknown to me there the energy from the sun harms you as much. I thought the issue with looking at its sun was its brightness, but i guess it isn't?

During a partial eclipse, part of the sun is hidden behind the moon. So the overall amount of light reaching the ground around you is indeed less, in direct proportion to the amount of sun that is eclipsed. For example, if 90% of the sun is covered by the moon, then only 10% of the usual amount of sunlight will light up the area around you. So it is quite a bit darker than usual. However, the portion of the sun that…

That's one of the best explanations I heard about why and how the eye damage can occur. I'm curious how far can you carry that reasoning: If 99.9999999% of the sun were covered during a partial eclipse (down to a single stream of photons), does it damage one single rod on my retina as opposed to a crescent-shaped region? I'm guessing that a single stream of photons from the sun doesn't have enough energy to do any damage.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#154

Post by Stratoscope » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 2:33 AM UTC

mysterypie wrote: post #153

Stratoscope wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During a partial eclipse, part of the sun is hidden behind the moon. So the overall amount of light reaching the ground around you is indeed less, in direct proportion to the amount of sun that is eclipsed. For example, if 90% of the sun is covered by the moon, then only 10% of the usual amount of sunlight will light up the area around you. So it is quite a bit darker than usual. However, the portion of the sun that…

That's one of the best explanations I heard about why and how the eye damage can occur. I'm curious how far can you carry that reasoning: If 99.9999999% of the sun were covered during a partial eclipse (down to a single stream of photons), does it damage one single rod on my retina as opposed to a crescent-shaped region? I'm guessing that a single stream of photons from the sun doesn't have enough energy to do any da…

Now that is an interesting question!

Anecdotally, I viewed the 1979 total eclipse with binoculars (and no filters), and at the end of totality I continued to look through them for a few seconds to see the diamond ring and Baily's beads.

It didn't harm my vision at all, even though there was some fair amount of direct sunlight coming through by then. But it was only a few seconds. The duration of sun exposure certainly is a factor.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#155

Post by animal531 » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 1:06 PM UTC

Stratoscope wrote: post #139

howlgram wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"tricked into thinking it's dark" is kind of misleading, because it is in fact darker, but for some reason unknown to me there the energy from the sun harms you as much. I thought the issue with looking at its sun was its brightness, but i guess it isn't?

During a partial eclipse, part of the sun is hidden behind the moon. So the overall amount of light reaching the ground around you is indeed less, in direct proportion to the amount of sun that is eclipsed. For example, if 90% of the sun is covered by the moon, then only 10% of the usual amount of sunlight will light up the area around you. So it is quite a bit darker than usual. However, the portion of the sun that…

So I could shine a flashlight into my eyes while looking at the eclipse, and I'd be ok?

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#156

Post by triggermuch » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 3:06 PM UTC

dingaling wrote: post #6

It's a shame that Lens Rentals had to suffer such material loss, but that report is absolute gold-plated first-hand evidence for my perennial debates with other photographers who insist that they don't need Solar protection for eclipses. "But I took a landscape shot at midday with the Sun in frame and it didn't melt my sensor". The difference being the length of exposure and the concentrations of energy.

hey astronomy was a wicked hard class and i still dont get it, so maybe this will be a very expensive lesson for them. sadly it probably wont be the right one but that is life. you know that there had to be a couple of smug asshats that were brought down a peg, thats pretty funny. I missed the eclipse.

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#157

Post by triggermuch » Mon, Sep 04, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #96

heartbreak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to clarify, there’s no concentration of energy involved with the eclipse itself. The concentration involved is no different than setting a leaf on fire with a magnifying glass on a regular day. The sun isn’t a garden hose. Putting something in front of it doesn’t make the edges more intense.

There kind of is, because it's darker when the sun is partially covered, so you'll use a larger aperture or longer exposure than you would normally. This is also why it's more dangerous to look at the sun during an eclipse than it is normally: your iris opens wider during an eclipse because it's not as bright.

i was always wondering how a pin hole protects you, and i mean im sure i could have looked it up but just, really wasnt important. dude that tid bit made my day - the more you know

Re: Rental camera gear destroyed by the 2017 eclipse

#158

Post by branchan » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 11:02 PM UTC

Laforet wrote: post #115

IgorPartola wrote: post #70

I wonder, did they include a solar filter with all their rentals? If not, I wonder if that would have saved everyone some trouble.

Probably not, they are expensive, fragile and have very limited utility outside a major eclipse event. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335775-REG/formatt_h...

Most people don't buy expensive screw-on types like these for a one-time event. You buy some solar filter film and fabricate yourself a lens cover out of cardboard for about $10.