On Sun, 17 Dec 2017 07:46:26 +1100, James
wrote:

I doubt they would go to the extent of all that fakery.

We'll just have to ignore the Photoshop record in the EXIF tag on the
photo. Sure, they need to add the distance markers and clean up their
test photos with Photoshop. However, once the editing starts, how far
should they go?

Much easier to
set up the lights and take a photo.

Yep. They also need to clean floor, remove any skid marks, pile the
boxes so they look nice and neat, and hide anything that might be
deemed "unsightly" on the ceiling.

I think you're trying to pick holes
for the hell of it.

Yep. It's my idea of fun. However, I'm burning too much time and
have some things that need to be done today. I'll be back probably
tomorrow or Monday.

Meanwhile, here's the best I can do with ImageJ2 and false coloring:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/bicycles/Cygo-Premium/80%20Lux%20-%20Ausleuchtung%20IQ-Premium%20-%20false%20color.jpg
I may also have been wrong about the light distribution at the base of
the columns. In false color, it looks mostly right.

But regardless of all that suspicion, the photos are there to illustrate
the difference between many of their lights. They show the beam shapes,
illumination on a road-like surface, and expected range.

If the bed sheet hadn't been hung at 45 meters, the reflection off the
road would have shown zero reflected light.

If it didn't reach about 45m, don't you think there would be an
outpouring of criticism and such on the internet?

Dunno. I ride rather slowly and am therefore only interested in
obstacles perhaps 8 meters in front of me. My guess(tm) is that about
90% of the discussions in RBT involve some form of criticism. Not to
worry. I'm used to it.

More later.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558