Talk:Heiligenschein

message: The translation of "Heiligenschein" that is in parentehesed is definitely "halo". The book you quote is wrong. "Holy light" would mean "heiliger Schein" which is grammaticaly different. "Heiligenschein" has a differnt meaning. (I'm German so you can really trust me on this.)
--unsigned by 129.143.9.84 (talk) at 19:35, 14 October 2006
: Oh!  Sorry, I edited the article first and read this afterwards.  Feel free to revert my edit of the translation.  BTW, there is a German article on :de:Heiligenschein which is linked to aureole.
: / Mats Halldin (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say that the literal translation of "Heiligenschein" is saint's light, but aureole is correct by meaning -- Diogenes von Wien (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the pseudo-translation "holy/saintly appearance". In the first place, Heiligenschein is the standard German word for 'halo' as any dictionary will confirm (e.g. http://www.dict.cc/?s=Heiligenschein), and breaking it down into its constituent parts is not helpful here. But secondly, if you really do want to take this German compound noun apart und understand how it is built, you have to do it right. The first element is a noun, Heiligen, the plural of Heiliger meaning 'saint'. Of course, it in turn derives from the adjective heilig, 'holy', but it is the noun we see here. The second element, Schein is exactly equivalent to the English noun shine, meaning the glow of some kind of light. It is true that in some contexts the root -schein- can mean 'seem' or 'appear' (Scheinasylant etc), but here it clearly refers to the shining of light, as in Sonnenschein (sunshine). So if you really do want to do a rather patronising baby-translation to give the impression that German doesn't use real words, you would translate it as "Saints' shine". But let's just not. So I'm deleting that from the article. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone is really interested, I should add that Heiligen could also be genitive singular, so it might only imply one saint. Rather more relevant here, you might check out Gegenschein, which is constructed in much the same way. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: reduction in the proportion of shadows viewed at angles close to the backscatter direction — I find this quite uncomprehensible. Can't someone provide a more legible explanation? Maybe using two sentences? --BjKa (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: The page on Opposition effect uses the exact same photograph of the lunar landing, and attributes the bright spot to "opposition effect". It makes no mention of the Heiligenschein phenomenon. Either one of the captions is wrong, or the Heiligenschein is caused by opposition surge. If that is true, then it ought to say something about it in both articles, or they should simply be merged..45Colt 16:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It seemed to be the case that Heiligenschein is about the dewdrop mechanism and Opposition surge is about the astronomically-relevant mechanisms. That seems pretty reasonable to me, and I edited both articles to make that clearer. --Steve (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Opposition effect? 

message: When flying hang gliders or other ultralight aircraft with a good view straight to the ground, one always sees this bright halo around their shadow on the ground even in mid afternoon when there is absolutely no dew on the ground.  It can even be seen at high altitude when the shadow of the aircraft is too small to clearly see. I have always considered it to be the same mechanism as a glory, but with no cloud or fog droplets to create rainbows colors.  I'm inclined to think that "heiligenschein" and "opposition surge" are exactly the same phenomenon and this "dew drop effect" is simply not correct or not important.
:The effect is stronger when dew is present, but dew is not required. I have added a citation needed tag to the explanation given in the article, because the one source that we have for this article describes a different process. It is not quite retroreflection. NHammen (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the problem that I had, but not the one that you had. Personally, I would say that heiligenschein is a type of opposition surge. But that would be original research, because every scientific paper I see about opposition surge only mentions shadow hiding and coherent backscatter. NHammen (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Dew Required? 

message: "Hotspot" corresponds to any albedo variation in aerial or dawn/dusk photographies in the antisolar direction.
Several physical phenomena can cause this.
The most known in photogrammetry corresponds to the opposition effect: correlation between visibility from light source and observer, that can occur in photos of forests, fields, but even sand, gravel, rocks (indeed, any pattern casting shadows). 
Water droplets having a strong backscatter in their BRDF, they can also cause a hotspot as emerging effect on fields, which is the case mentioned in this page. But the explanation wrongly assumes that all hotspots are these.
→ maybe we would need a "hotspot" page, pointing to the different effects, + to rewrite the paragraph here to avoid the confusion.
Fabrice.Neyret (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying confusion in this article