Talk:Illuminance

Emphasise parallels between units?

Hi folks. I'd like to suggest updating this article slightly to emphasise the parallels between the radiometric units and photometric units. I have my own 'cheat sheet' which is very similar to the tables here in the "Illuminance" and "Irradiance" articles, but with the related terms side by side (e.g. irradiance next to illuminance, radiant intensity next to luminous intensity etc.) I find this helpful in remembering and understanding the terminology. Thoughts anyone?

Regards. Trustmeimanengineer (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That table arrangement is useful, but this probably isn't the right article for it. The articles on photometry and radiometry might be a better place for a summary of how all the units relate to one another. Another editor has done something similar at Light intensity.--Srleffler (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brightness

Regarding this edit, and the reason given: "Brightness usually meant luminance, not Illuminance."—that's exactly right, which is exactly why the also-common use of the term brightness to refer to illuminance led to confusion, as stated in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have struggled with this before. Thanks for your earlier contributions to the article. I added luminance, and took out the citation needed. I hope I have improved the article. Wikfr (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating illuminance at a point

I propose removing File:Illuminance.svg, because it does not relate to the article, and is not discussed in the article. The illustration contains many complicated symbols, which are not defined, and are above the level of an average encyclopedia reader. Illuminance is usually about the average light over an area, not at a point. Wikfr (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image and its caption, as they are, are not a good contribution to the article. Deleting them would be one solution. Another would be to move the math from the caption to the body of the article and explain it fully.--Srleffler (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting image replacement?

Is there a way to flag the second image to ask that it be re-done or replaced? While it gets the point across, it took me a minute to figure out that the person was being sprayed by a shower head. Myoglobin (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Illuminance. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 02:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminance Levels in Table

I believe that the levels in the Illuminance table are incorrect. While they match the source, they do not match more authoritative sources, like ^[1] and ^[2]. I propose they be reviewed and updated.Fredjikrang (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these illuminance levels look suspect. The full daylight value of 10,000 lux is off by a factor of 10 compared to most tables I have found, including Wikipedia itself. The Sunlight page confirms 100,000 lux. Update: tracking it down, the referenced page pointed to by the Autodesk page gives an additional row: Sunlight, at 100,000 lux. This is different than "Full Daylight" (whatever that means). Adding this row to the chart will make it consistent with other pages. I am doing this. Erich666 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight and sunlight are not the same thing. Adding a row for direct sunlight might be helpful.--Srleffler (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the article sunlight states (without clearly referring to a source) that 'the atmospheric extinction brings the number of lux down to around 100,000 lux', the article daylight states that 'Daylight is the combination of all direct and indirect sunlight during the daytime.' If in our table, 'sunlight' means the direct sunlight after atmospheric extinction, and 'full daylight' is supposed to additionally include the straylight received from the blue sky and perhaps some objects, how can 'full daylight' have a lower value than 'sunlight'? Something is very wrong with one or both of the values. We should look for a more scientific source for the table values. --194.39.218.16 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Daylight", as envisioned in the table, is the light from the blue sky in a location that is not exposed to direct sunlight. If so, the usage of the term is not consistent with that in the daylight article, but it is not an uncommon usage. The values are consistent with the sources cited above. One of the sources describes it more clearly as "diffuse skylight".--Srleffler (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://www.velux.com/deic/daylight/daylight-calculations-and-measurements

[2] ttps://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/light-level-rooms-d_708.html

[1]

[2]