I think this worked pretty well technically
Yes, I can only agree. My first two races are also very good.
but even with the wisps of cloud it's pretty boring when the moon is visible.
Yes of course. But as you can see, this is quite well so already quite complex.
I wanted to make just a couple of similar runs and only change exp_over_thresh_frac to see the effects.
Yes of course, the more interesting races are already, if clouds are in play or the moon goes through trees or buildings.
n the log it looks like there is some oscillation, but it's not really visible in the video.
The moon in your video is very small .May be you would see it when the cutting would be greater.
It stays dark and doesn't quite hit the ISO limit after the moon leaves the frame
The same in my first run, but very close...
I should have either set the base value lower, set the meter low limits higher, or not used it at all.
But it can be seen but the complexity of the whole.
Changes or one forgets only one parameter, the result is quite different.
Especially if you come from one day run into a night run, a lot of parameters have to be changed.
Also I'm not sure whether the change of a particular parameter always conceded the desired effect .
This really is very complex ...
Do you have any idea why run 3 and 4 have not properly focused ?
The log file is in all 4 races :
sd:-1 af_ok:true
So I have the runs focused :
The start I have the moon set in the center of the image.
After the start of the script, I then slightly shifted the camera.
The problem is, that can be seen only at the end of the run, if the moon was really sharp.
With manual focus I have the impression, that infinite is not really infinity at this focal length from 400mm.
(the menu value is in parts per 100k, but the actual value is per million)
That makes understanding not easier...

Update:
I 'm not sure if the overexposure must be weighted. Why not just stop or reduce the exposure, when overexposure exceed?
What would happen in the following example with 1% overexposure?
Putting a hysteresis window around overexposure maybe 20%. So the window is 0.8% to 1.2%
Increasing exposure (depending on meter window) until limits or as long overexposure < 0.8%
Between 0.8% - 1.2% no changes in exposure at all to avoid oscillation.
If overexposure > 1.2% only decreasing exposure.
Maybe that's too easy. But you can estimate fairly accurately what happened.
So I did it in the past with my script, but with the old histogram with 1 % resolution, it did not work really well ...
I have already tried to integrate the new histogram in my old script , but that was a bit too complex for me .

Why I play at all with my old script ?
My script is very simple. I change only the exposure time. The exposure time I calculate out from camera values by smoothing. I use Canon ISO settings. I look like that’s this works on G1x with higher ISO values than 320 (But fixed ISO

).