[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The third image in #153 shows both "sparkles" and "general glow", so nothing to do with the resolution of the imaging system.

It's visibly zoomed in. Which makes an area of the moon surface will fall into larger area on the sensor. This reduces the sparkling effect.
The curvature of water surface is quite randomly distributed from concave, flat and convex plane. When it's a little bit concave, the focal point can be quite far away from the surface, and even get closer to the sensor. It can produce an effect like zooming in.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not at the level shown in your images. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish individual leaves on a whole tree photographed with a 56k camera but the blobs in your images are a lot bigger, and in any case the question is about quantisation of the radiation, not the image receptor!

The radiation power follows inverse square law of distance. And the effect from quantization of distance is insignificant in this case.

[Origin]

We know for sure that electronic sensors are spatially quantized, although it isn't necessarily true that every pixel has the same size or sensitivity.
Do you think it has no observable effect?

I think that the sparkling of water is not quantized.  I also think that once you get an idea in your head no amount of evidence or logic can convince you otherwise.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We know for sure that electronic sensors are spatially quantized, although it isn't necessarily true that every pixel has the same size or sensitivity.
Do you think it has no observable effect?

I think that the sparkling of water is not quantized.  I also think that once you get an idea in your head no amount of evidence or logic can convince you otherwise.

The same applies to you too. You're already convinced that texture of reflecting surface alone is enough to produce sparkling effects as shown in the videos, which I've also observed myself with my own eyes.

[Origin]

The same applies to you too.

And everyone else.  You seem to be the only one that thinks there is some sort of magical thing going on when it is pretty obvious we are just looking at reflections off of the water.

So are you going to acknowledge that the 'sparkling water' is not an example of quantization?  I think there is a possibility that if we pursue this for a couple of posts it could be resolved. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This one shows Sun Reflection on Pacific Ocean from Space.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This one is in swimming pool.

[alancalverd]

Thus demonstrating the overriding and practically incalculable importance of water in determining the temperature of the surface of the planet, but nothing else.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The same applies to you too.

And everyone else.  You seem to be the only one that thinks there is some sort of magical thing going on when it is pretty obvious we are just looking at reflections off of the water.

So are you going to acknowledge that the 'sparkling water' is not an example of quantization?  I think there is a possibility that if we pursue this for a couple of posts it could be resolved. 

My hypothesis can be falsified easily by showing the same reflection of the sun by rippling water surface using cameras with different resolution, or pin hole cameras with different sizes.
What would it take to falsify your conviction?

[alancalverd]

Measurement of the energy of a solar photon (about 3eV) and the energy radiated from any  individual reflection that you have photographed.

[Bored chemist]

This sun sparkling water looks like a quantization of sunlight,

In what way?

Are you saying the intensity is quantised or the wavelength or what?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This sun sparkling water looks like a quantization of sunlight,

In what way?

Are you saying the intensity is quantised or the wavelength or what?

The sparkles look bright and then suddenly disappear instead of fade away.

[Bored chemist]

This sun sparkling water looks like a quantization of sunlight,

In what way?

Are you saying the intensity is quantised or the wavelength or what?

The sparkles look bright and then suddenly disappear instead of fade away.

I guess you can call a video frame rate some sort of "quantisation", but it's a weird use of the idea.

[alancalverd]

Quantisation, sampling, digitisation and scintillation are not the same thing.

Light consists of quanta. Reflected light may scintillate. Any camera samples light. Some digitise the intensity of the sample.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I guess you can call a video frame rate some sort of "quantisation", but it's a weird use of the idea.

Do you have a better terminology?

Quantisation, sampling, digitisation and scintillation are not the same thing.

[Origin]

This is so tedious, I'm out.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:33:51
I guess you can call a video frame rate some sort of "quantisation", but it's a weird use of the idea.
Do you have a better terminology?

Read the second sentence of reply 173, which is explicit. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's make a list of things that affect the sparkle.
Brightness of the light source.
Contrast with the background.
Visual size of the light source.
Size of the ripple on reflecting surface.

Angle of reflection doesn't seem to affect much, since the sparkling effect can be seen in both low and high angles.

The effects from pixel size of the sensor is yet to be determined.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Read the second sentence of reply 173, which is explicit. 

Do you mean it's the same phenomenon as scintillation?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The effects from pixel size of the sensor is yet to be determined.

I just recorded a video of reflected sunlight on a rippling water surface. It looks sparkling when seen using naked eyes. But my phone camera doesn't show that sparkling, either from further or closer distance. Approximately 3 meters vs 1 meters from water surface.  My main camera has 50 MP resolution.