{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018623737373737372, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00726010101010101, 'mean_word_length': 5.141472868217054, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Response to Correspondence: Investigation of Evalglare software, daylight glare probability and high dynamic range imaging for daylight glare analysis

The authors appreciate that Jan Wienold took the time to share his correspondence on the paper ‘Investigation of Evalglare software, daylight glare probability and high dynamic range imaging for daylight glare analysis’ and the corrigendum. The authors believe that it is important to clarify the questions asked in the correspondence. The large deviation between the measured and calculated vertical illuminance values was in fact a reason to raise the question towards the accuracy of the Evalglare calculation. When the original paper was written in 2012, Evalglare was not fully validated and more validation studies were required. However, the authors agree that Evalglare software has been well validated for its calculation accuracy by many researchers including the authors for the past several years. In the end, the findings do not question the ability of Evalglare to calculate the various indices correctly. The paper points out the disagreements between the indices and, in some cases, the discrepancy between some of the calculated values and a limited number of empirical tests. Even though it is clearly documented in the original paper, the authors should clarify that there were two separate studies performed using different methodologies. The first study ‘HDR photographs of USC Watt Hall 3rd floor for one entire day’ utilised a limited range of EV-stops ( 2) as Jan Wienold pointed out. And, vertical illuminance values were not captured while taking high dynamic range (HDR) images due to the research setting and methodology. No vertical illuminance value comparison was made here. The second study ‘HDR photographs inside an office using fisheye and normal lenses’ utilised a wider range of EV-stops ( 5). In this study, the authors measured vertical illuminance values while the HDR images were captured and compared them to calculated illuminance values in Evalglare. The authors believe that the exposure ranges used in the second study were wide enough to capture luminance ranges of the daylight conditions, except the one with the visible sun in the field of view. Other studies indicate a difficulty with the metrics when the sun is in the field of view. Indeed, several metrics have specifically stated that they do not cover that condition. To reveal some other primary cause of the large deviation, the authors could re-examine all of the equipment and software tools utilised in the original study including a camera, fisheye lens, luminance meter, illuminance sensor, HDR software Photosphere and Evalglare. But the authors do not contend that the software was wrong. The discrepancies between the metrics would remain, even if there were a problem found which affected all the metrics equally. Inconsistent evaluations between the different glare metrics were discussed by Jakubiec and Reinhart in 2012. A more recent study also confirmed that there is a significant inconsistency issue between evaluations reported by the five different Lighting Res. Technol. 2018; 50: 331–332