4 ms·

> You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Go

> You'll find various explanations, but the most compelling to me is "because you probably can't see what's behind the lit-up deer when you shoot very well". Good way to risk hitting something/someone. Seems... dubious. If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. Presumably the eyeshine of other animals, or the reflective clothing / panicked shouts of another person behind the deer, would all stand out more in bright lighting. > It was here, it seems. Are you sure about that? There was no law per se against using drones to recover deer, so they had to cobble together 4 vaguely relevant statutes. And even the judge reprimanded the legislature for having such confusing, ambiguous laws on the books. I believe this is still under appeal, so it may ultimately resolve in favor of the drone operator...

ceejayoz 3y ago
> If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. > Are you sure about that? That's a reply to "It's [spotlighting] also not illegal everywhere." Yes, I'm certain, given the charges.
- solardev 3y ago
  OK, I think we're bikeshedding a little bit now, but if you're OK continuing this just a little longer... mostly just because it's interesting to think about, I hope :) > You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. I don't hunt, but I do go outside at night with a hiking headlight, and it's never been my experience that I could see something better, further away, without lighting. Even when there's something closer to me reflecting much of the light (like a tree), some of the light will go around it and light up what it's behind it. In the absolute worst case (like when I accidentally point the light at a retroreflective street sign), yes, there'll a huge blindingly bright spot, but still much of the light will spill around it, and aiming just a few degrees left or right will then illuminate the stuff behind it. Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case? > Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. That's not really the same thing. Cameras have limited dynamic range to begin with, and in that case, both the reflected moonlight and the ambient starlight are facing the photographer... with the reflected moonlight being several orders of magnitude brighter. That's more like having someone shining a bright flashlight in your face from a foot away while there's some old dim string lights in the background. It's not the same as two objects reflecting light from the same light source pointed away from the observer, held by the observer. Unless there's some big difference in reflectance between those objects, presumably their apparent brightness would mostly be a function of their distance.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case? Yes, I've looked at lit-up objects at night and not been able to see very well behind them. If you need a light to see the deer, you need a light to see the stuff that's potentially dozens or hundreds of feet behind it too. Humans have better dynamic range than a camera, but not unlimitedly so.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> If you can't see behind the deer while it's lit up, you certainly can't see what's behind it in pitch darkness. You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. > Are you sure about that? That's a reply to "It's [spotlighting] also not illegal everywhere." Yes, I'm certain, given the charges.

solardev 3y ago
OK, I think we're bikeshedding a little bit now, but if you're OK continuing this just a little longer... mostly just because it's interesting to think about, I hope :) > You can demonstrate this pretty easily at night in your backyard. Have someone shine a flashlight at something. I don't hunt, but I do go outside at night with a hiking headlight, and it's never been my experience that I could see something better, further away, without lighting. Even when there's something closer to me reflecting much of the light (like a tree), some of the light will go around it and light up what it's behind it. In the absolute worst case (like when I accidentally point the light at a retroreflective street sign), yes, there'll a huge blindingly bright spot, but still much of the light will spill around it, and aiming just a few degrees left or right will then illuminate the stuff behind it. Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case? > Same reason photos of the moon don't show the stars in the sky; they get washed out by the brighter object. That's not really the same thing. Cameras have limited dynamic range to begin with, and in that case, both the reflected moonlight and the ambient starlight are facing the photographer... with the reflected moonlight being several orders of magnitude brighter. That's more like having someone shining a bright flashlight in your face from a foot away while there's some old dim string lights in the background. It's not the same as two objects reflecting light from the same light source pointed away from the observer, held by the observer. Unless there's some big difference in reflectance between those objects, presumably their apparent brightness would mostly be a function of their distance.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > Have you had different experiences, or can you think of a specific scenario where this wouldn't be the case? Yes, I've looked at lit-up objects at night and not been able to see very well behind them. If you need a light to see the deer, you need a light to see the stuff that's potentially dozens or hundreds of feet behind it too. Humans have better dynamic range than a camera, but not unlimitedly so.