# Talk:Audience scanning

## Unbalanced?

On 21 February, Nmnogueira tagged this article as unbalanced. The article is in need of copy editing to fix typos and syntax errors, and some improvement in organization would also help. It certainly needs to cite additional sources. But I don't see a significant lack of balance. Would those who do please tell us where they see it? Pzavon 03:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

## Incorrect Mathematical Arguments

This article cites the ILSC as using this mathematical argument:

"the total pupil area of 100 persons in a nightclub (scanfield of 10 x 10 meters) is roughly 1/25000 of the total area scanned by the laser. Thus, any randomly positioned beam would have only a 1/25000 chance of directly hitting a pupil."

But, what matters is the linear length, not the area. An illustration of this (hypothetically) would be if one had a row of 100 pupils stacked vertically (100 pupils because there are 100 people and we'll say just say the person's other pupil is aligned horizonally across the other pupil, so it would technically be two rows of pupils 100 pupils high) The pupils have a diameter of 5 mm (from the article), so these rows of pupils are 50 cm high. With a scan field area of 10m x 10m and a beam is run across the field horizontally, there would be a 1/20 chance of striking a pupil, as opposed to the assertion that it is a 1/25000 chance.

The model suggested would be accurate for a dart-throwing model, that is if the beam randomly struck in the area, but the beam sweeps across the area, and therefore depends on how the pupils are aligned to its path of travel. At the very minimum, where there is only one pupil in the whole field, a horizontal beam has a 5mm/10m = 1/2000 chance of striking the pupil in a sweep. I'm not sure how to correct this article, because of how it is cited. It needs to be thrown out because it is a false argument.

REPLY: The calculation is completely accurate. Note that the quoted paragraph explicitly refers to "cases of accidents or poor design where a powerful static beam may stay fixed for many seconds". In other words, the stated paragraph gives a possible reason that, even in the worst-case of accident or scanner failure, that there have been few or no injuries.
This means that the quoted statement is correct and is relevant to its stated conditions (accident/scan failure). Pmurph5 (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

## Laser scanning and digital cameras

There should be a section on digital cameras, as laser irradiation may cause permanent or intermittent damage to sensors resulting in bad pixels.

I don't have any verifiable sources at hand, only hearsay.

Sashman (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider http://petapixel.com/2013/07/13/video-20k-cameras-image-sensor-fried-by-a-concert-laser-in-just-seconds/ ? 129.22.162.133 (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

## External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Audience scanning. 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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template `{{sourcecheck}}` (last update: 15 July 2018).

• 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 07:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)