Yeah, old school .gif) Measurements involved getting it all aligned with each other as well, truly mind-boggling. Can't wait to see what else they will look for now. |
Outer space and related interests
•
Page 22
-
DJCopa 2,577 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years ago -
Zerobob 3,017 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoI felt like they were doing things on a relatively "shoestring" budget, and if they'd had the backing of a tech giant things would have been a fair bit easier for the team.
I felt annoyed that they were trying to solve such fundamental issues as cooling their drives due to overheating, scrapping around using basic PC fans and fashioning pieces of metal to direct airflow.
I also felt that when the final team were "workshopping" trying to visually interpret the data they were really just flying blind trying to get consistent results. When more research is done into how to visually process the masses of data I think we'll get some truly crisp and spectacular images. -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoIf you think about it, they go from petabytes if data to a picture that has a resolution of what looks to me as 320x240, weighing in at a couple of kilobytes. -
DJCopa 2,577 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 15 years agoThat last bit did confuse me a little, regards how they 'created' the image but guess it's just my understanding is limited. Run a variety of calculations until one continually fits what you are looking for, seemed to be the gist.
And yes, the show string budget (in relative terms) was highlighted by the heating issue. That is what made it all the more amazing, in my eyes - a group of observatories pulling together for a common aim, with no immediate financial gain. -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoApparently, the further the telescopes are spaced out, the better the resolution is. Which makes me think we should probably get one of those dishes on the moon. -
RyanDS 14,073 posts
Seen 19 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoAs an amateur astronomer I do the following to create the following image:
Around an hour of set up per night.
Around 50 photos of 60 second exposure each.
50 black photos of 60 second exposure each with the lens cap on. (To remove electrical charge from the processed photo)
Around 30 flat photos (of a white screen) to identify differences in luminosity across the image.
Then stacking of files, layering, processing etc can be a weeks work. And that is just to get a pretty crappy image. Extrapolating the work I do for that to the work involved in getting the black hole picture genuinely leaves me astounded.
https://imgur.com/a/JwgUFDX -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoShut up that looks absolutely amazing Ryan.
I have wanted a telescope for ages, but we have so much light pollution here in Belgium that I would have to drive to the Ardennes to see anything. -
grey_matters 5,507 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 15 years agoRyanDS wrote:
Nice image!
As an amateur astronomer I do the following to create the following image:
Around an hour of set up per night.
Around 50 photos of 60 second exposure each.
50 black photos of 60 second exposure each with the lens cap on. (To remove electrical charge from the processed photo)
Around 30 flat photos (of a white screen) to identify differences in luminosity across the image.
Then stacking of files, layering, processing etc can be a weeks work. And that is just to get a pretty crappy image. Extrapolating the work I do for that to the work involved in getting the black hole picture genuinely leaves me astounded.
https://imgur.com/a/JwgUFDX
Why 50 with the cap on? Does the sensor sensitivity vary spatially over time? Do you have to do a cool down period?
Edited by grey_matters at 16:08:03 11-04-2019 -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 12 years agohttp://thismustbebelgium.com/belgium-spotted-space/
I find it totally ironic that we are called “bright belgium” btw. -
RyanDS 14,073 posts
Seen 19 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoEven with the light pollution you can still see some wonderful stuff. I took all of mine in London just by Gatwick airport. I am proud of them, but am aware that compared to the serious stuff they lack.
Even if you stick to planets and the moon there is so much great stuff to see even with a cheap telescope. My pics were with £2000 of kit, but a telescope like this is great for visual viewing...https://www.amazon.co.uk/Celestron-31045-AstroMaster-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B000MLL6RS/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=1KU748RHX3BSL&keywords=celestron+astromaster+130eq&qid=1554996054&s=gateway&sprefix=celestron+%2Caps%2C398&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1
Also some more of my pics... https://ryandsimmons6.imgur.com/all/ -
RyanDS 14,073 posts
Seen 19 hours ago
Registered 13 years agogrey_matters wrote:
In some detail. You need flats, biases and darks. (And actual images.)
RyanDS wrote:
Nice image!
As an amateur astronomer I do the following to create the following image:
Around an hour of set up per night.
Around 50 photos of 60 second exposure each.
50 black photos of 60 second exposure each with the lens cap on. (To remove electrical charge from the processed photo)
Around 30 flat photos (of a white screen) to identify differences in luminosity across the image.
Then stacking of files, layering, processing etc can be a weeks work. And that is just to get a pretty crappy image. Extrapolating the work I do for that to the work involved in getting the black hole picture genuinely leaves me astounded.
https://imgur.com/a/JwgUFDX
Why 50 with the cap on? Does the sensor sensitivity vary spatially over time? Do you have to do a cool down period?
After spending an hour getting tracking working (the sky moves FAST. If you don't have a motor lined up correctly tracking the stars you have maybe 10 seconds max exposure.)
You take normal pics. (Many so you can stack them.)
Darks are taken exactly the same as the normal pics, but with the lens on. Same orientation, temperature etc. Using software you can then see what is in the dark images (static, misfiring pixels etc) and remove those from your actual images. This is extremely important as noise can be 5% of your image, and at the same time really faint stars or nebula are maybe 5% as well. So you need to have the darks to see what is real. (5% is made up, but you get the point.)
Flats are taken of a plain white screen. This is purely to see camera light distribution Usually your telescope will reflect light brighter to some areas so you need to flatten out the luminosity. (See https://images.app.goo.gl/TbMmNZ5dqopiWWym8 as an example.) By combining flats with raw data you now have a smoothed out image.
You then take bias frames, hundreds of these, as fast as your camera allows. I can't remember the reason... Static again?
Finally you combine everything and end up something like this. (Well this hasn't been flattened, you can see the one side is too bright, but is an example.) https://imgur.com/gallery/qbzmkR2
Then you edit the shit out of it. Reduce brightness in the middle (so show detail) while adding brightness on the edge (to show stars.) Sharpen stars, use algorithems to make stars round etc.
No astronomy picture is "true" unless just stars. Anything with a nebula or such will at the minimum have the brightness fucked around with insanely. To see a nebula you need loooong exposures. But that means any bright stars will look like the sun. So you darken the stars to make them look natural, bring out the nebula and generally play around with the light curves for ages. -
grey_matters 5,507 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 15 years ago@RyanDS
Thanks! Again, nice work. -
wobbly_Bob 5,162 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 15 years ago@RyanDS
Fantastic photo! That looks amazing. Great work. -
wobbly_Bob 5,162 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 15 years agoSpace X launching it's falcon heavy tonight. It's the first commercial launch. They are gong for a triple booster landing. -
KRadiation 1,743 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 13 years agohttps://youtu.be/DPfHHls50-w
just caught the tail end of a live launch and landing of SpaceX a few minute ago. currently counting down to another launch now. 8 minutes off.
Edited by KRadiation at 10:29:47 02-05-2019 -
up_the_ante 1,574 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoI was just thinking that the new series of Cosmos should have surfaced by now. Googled it to find out when it was coming and found this
https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/cosmos-season-2-premiere-date-neil-degrasse-tyson-1203141146/
FFS! If this gets canned because he wanted to see if Pluto was on her tattoo... -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 13 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoWow.
Apollo 11 tapes bought for $218 may sell for millions after nearly being lost
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jun/28/apollo-11-tapes-moon-landing-sale-value-nearly-lost -
up_the_ante 1,574 posts
Seen 9 hours ago
Registered 14 years ago@Dougs Did they not auction a bag used to bring moon rock back by mistake? Went for some ridiculously low price and still had moon dust inside -
wobbly_Bob 5,162 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 15 years agoDragonfly drone to explore Titan. Very, very exciting. The only thing that would be more exciting that we could do with out existing technology is exploring Europa's oceans.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/nasa-is-going-back-to-titan-looking-for-signs-of-life -
Dirtbox 92,595 posts
Seen 14 hours ago
Registered 19 years agoWorth a giggle. Israel accidentally created a colony on the moon.
https://www.wired.com/story/a-crashed-israeli-lunar-lander-spilled-tardigrades-on-the-moon/ -
ChocNut 2,471 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years ago@Dirtbox cool -
TechnoHippy 19,245 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 18 years agoBritish spider moon rover announced - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/plans-for-first-uk-rover-to-the-moon/ -
Decks 31,013 posts
Seen 10 hours ago
Registered 6 years agoThe fools. You never go to the spider moon. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoTechnoHippy wrote:
Will this blow up at launch or crash on landing?
British spider moon rover announced - https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/plans-for-first-uk-rover-to-the-moon/ -
Decks wrote:
That's no moon!
The fools. You never go to the spider moon. -
Fake_Blood 11,093 posts
Seen 18 hours ago
Registered 12 years agoMeanwhile Mars Insight mission is having a little setback because the mole they've been trying to get into the ground has kind of jumped halfway back out of the hole.
- https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1188523020718985216?s=20 -
Nexus_6 6,168 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 17 years agoFake_Blood wrote:
Dis they get the mole a little spacesuit as well?
Meanwhile Mars Insight mission is having a little setback because the mole they've been trying to get into the ground has kind of jumped halfway back out of the hole.
- https://twitter.com/NASAInSight/status/1188523020718985216?s=20 -
WHY ARE WE ANGERING MARS
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
