🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <mcampbel.725383855@eola.cs.ucf.edu>, mcampbel@cs.ucf.edu (Mike Campbell ) writes:
=carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick) writes:
=
=>In article <schumach.725151168@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
=>>Or, empty space. Once when it was necessary to have a very
=>>dark background for some high-speed flash photography, we
=>>waited until night and used an open window as the background.
=>>It worked great. Of course, it's necessary that there be no
=>>light sources or nearby objects (anything is a potential 
=>>reflector) visible through the window; what constitutes a 
=>>source or "nearby" will depend on your application.
=
=>I'm afraid that "empty space" is anything but.  Were your claim even close to
=>accurate, there'd be a lot of astronomers out of business.
=
=Why?

Well, the original question dealt with what a perfectly black object would look
like.  Now, though for a photographer the view out an open window might look
"black," to an astronomer (remember, these guys deal with exposures on the
order of HOURS), there's LOTS of light out there.  Hell, even for combat troops
with passive night-vision goggles, there's lots of light out there.

And that's not even considering the infrared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.