Talk:Candela per square metre

Misc

Need to add the nit-rating range for cell phone displays and for digital cameras that have displays, especially real-time displays - most are unreadable under direct sunlight, but the manufacturer literature never gives a nit rating.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.135.160 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 October 2009

I'm not sure that material is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not for product reviews or ratings.--Srleffler (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Spec for Daylight readable

The article states that 800 nits is daylight readable. Others cite 500 nits as daylight readable. eg [Clear Sunlight.pdf]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.29.2 (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is deprecating "nit"?

The introduction of the article states that the term nit is deprecated. It should be added who is deprecating it. --93.223.19.248 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know the answer. In some sense, all non-SI units are "deprecated" by international standards bodies, but perhaps something more specific is implied here.--Srleffler (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Invalid units conversions ?

I don't see how one can apply a dimensionless constant to convert both to Lamberts and also to Foot-Lamberts ! There must be an implicit "at a distance of one foot", surely !

Percieved brightness must also take into account the size and position (angle + distance) of the observer's eye. Only a fraction of the light emitted will reach the eye. If the light is 'focussed' into a beam, it can appear brighter (or use less power), within a narrower range of viewing angles.

I basically distrust this article, and also manufacturers' claims.

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Candela per square metre, lamberts, and Foot-lamberts all have the same physical dimensions, so the constants to convert between them are naturally dimensionless. Luminance always has dimensions of luminous intensity per unit area.

You're exactly correct that perceived brightness must take into account the size and position of the observer's eye, and it does: the angular spread of the light enters through the candela, which is luminous flux (in lumens) per unit solid angle. If you focus the light into a narrower beam, the luminance does not increase, because the decrease in diameter of the beam is exactly compensated for by the decrease in solid angle subtended. In fact, in an ideal optical system where no light is lost, luminance is conserved.

The total luminous flux from an object that reaches an observer's eye is equal to the object's luminance, integrated over the surface area of the object and over the solid angle the eye's pupil subtends at the location of the object. (This gets complicated if the object is not flat or the luminance is not uniform. I'm glossing over some details here.)--Srleffler (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert

I disagree with this revert by User:Jasonanaggie. The material that I removed is not sufficiently relevant to the topic of this article. A few general examples of common types of equipment are useful, to give the reader a sense of how bright one candela is. Listing the candela outputs of specific products serves no purpose within this article. The luminance of an Apple watch Series 2 is not relevant to the topic "Candela per square metre".--Srleffler (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Since there was no response, I reverted the revert.--Srleffler (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Candela per square metre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120912080047/http://www.optics.arizona.edu/palmer/rpfaq/rpfaq.htm to http://www.optics.arizona.edu/Palmer/rpfaq/rpfaq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)