"Fishface" <invalid@ddress.ok?> wrote in message news:1059s0q6iap1p48@corp.supernews.com...

> David Ruether wrote:

> > For time-lapse (particularly in a rough environment), I'd

> > consider a cheap digital still camera (probably relatively

> > low-resolution), though many of these still cameras also

> > have poor low-light performance...

> Her Husband was asking about correcting brightness

> variation in a similar video recently:

> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Xns947949D349CADherhusband%40216.168.3.50

> I'm afraid I wasn't much help. I have seen videos of this

> kind, and didn't notice more than a gradual change, but

> I suppose passing clouds could be a fly in the soup.

> Perhaps you missed the post. Know of any way to

> normalize something like this? Can you think of a way

> to ward-off such a potential problem? There's got to

> be some filter or a way to batch process the photos...

I did not see this, and it is an interesting question - though

one would hope that a camera with a good exposure

system would minimize this problem. The time-lapse gear

I recommended for the radio-telescope project was

film gear, and using color negatives and making prints can

minimize these problems - though so, too, should use of

a good digital camera with moderate contrast and good

auto exposure control...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com