best of Hubble images

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-.TakeThisOut@-edgehill.net> wrote
>> Isn't that the result of terrestrial versus space based observing?
>
> They are a pastiche of IR and visible images, taken with very narrow
> band filters, false colored, hand-masked with lots of local contrast
> adjustment, and then reassembled.

Oh well, I suppose it's rationalized as enhancing for better scientific
inspection. They do look cool

> They have a technique that makes wisps of hydrogen gas
> look like a solid cloud...
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

"Paul Furman" <paul- DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote
> Oh well, I suppose it's rationalized as enhancing for better scientific
> inspection.

Why do things have to be 'scientifically rationalized'?

Apart from being an oxymoron.

The purpose of 'science' is to explain what already is, without making
any judgement of value.

That it provide better bread and circus is the only
justification needed.

Painting in V838 makes for better circus, and better circus gets
congress to give NASA more bread. That colorizing job doesn't
contribute to understanding any more than solarizing a nude
study would bring.


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

In message <13s6rc21iedgcf1 DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>, Nicholas O. Lindan
<see DeleteThis @sig.com> writes
>There seems to be lot of 'illumination' in these pictures
>(i.e. - an awful lot of photoshopping).

There has to be some work done to generate an image that will work on
the conventional printed page starting from the huge dynamic range of
the original scientific data. The illumination comes from stars in the
nebulae.
>
>You wouldn't think the Triffid shown here
>http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/hubble/NO10_350x301.jpg

The Triffid is a very large nebula. The image above is one very tiny
part of it that you can see in the wide field view below. The dark
molecular cloud is casting a shadow against the bright yellow blob just
to right of centre.

They are two images of the same object but at very different scales. The
detailed one is something like 10x enlargement of the central patch.
>
>Has much in common with these other Triffids -
>http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_photos/astronomy/trifid_nebula_nasa1.jpg
>http://www.cuyastro.org/images/cukras-triffid-full.jpg
>
>At least the sombrero retains a bit of resemblance to its 'before' image:
>Before:
>http://photos.crosscountryadventures.us/albums/astrophotography/astropag
>e/sombrero360425es.jpg
>After: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/hubble/NO1_350x175.jpg

If you insist on choosing a really poxy photo as your comparison then no
wonder you are convinced that they are all fabrications. A more
realistic amateur image with decent kit is online at:

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/image_of_day_040331.html

Plenty of others if you look arounf on the S&T site or Astronomy Now.
>
>After a while I am not sure at all what these things really look like.
>http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/v838monharris.jpg
>http://www.therealuniverse.com/V838MONOCEROTIS.jpg
>http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/skywatch/db/72/images/large.jpg
>http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/199918main_rs_image_feature_784_946x710.jpg
>http://picasaweb.google.com/LyndaMilo/EmailArt/photo#5121571450265059634

You seem to have a problem with understanding that photographs of very
large objects using Hubble have to concentrate on interesting small
regions. There is some photoshopping going on - their workflow suggests
two marginally incompatible versions each adding their own thumbnail to
NASA images, but they are doing little more than making the image
suitable for the printed page.

Astronomical objects are pretty peculiar things especially the emission
nebulae lit up by UV from young stars. Their light is essentially at a
very few wavelengths (and some of them where old traditional colour film
was insensitive). It wasn't until the mid 1970's that we had any full
colour images of what the sky would look like with more sensitive human
eyes.

I don't especially like some of the hyper spectral false colour stuff
but they have to do something to visualise the data. It would be no use
to anybody printed in IR or UV inks.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Troy Piggins" <usenet-0802.RemoveThis@piggo.com> wrote
>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=450144
>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=450156
>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=419180
>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=451640
>
> Not bad. All taken with a 500mm f8 Apo-doublet:
> http://www.adorama.com/TKTSK9001.html?sid=12039901721249430
>

Why would it be f/8 instead of f/5.6?


> When used for birds ...
> http://www.anacortestelescope.com/gallery/photos/14316.jpg
>
> In full regalia:
> http://www.anacortestelescope.com/product.asp?pid=1980
>
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> There seems to be lot of 'illumination' in these pictures
> (i.e. - an awful lot of photoshopping).
>
> You wouldn't think the Triffid shown here
> http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/hubble/NO10_350x301.jpg
>
> Has much in common with these other Triffids -
> http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_photos/astronomy/trifid_nebula_nasa1.jpg
> http://www.cuyastro.org/images/cukras-triffid-full.jpg
>
> At least the sombrero retains a bit of resemblance to its 'before' image:
> Before:
> http://photos.crosscountryadventures.us/albums/astrophotography/astrop.../sombre
> After: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/hubble/NO1_350x175.jpg

I doubt NASA uses anything as mundane as Photoshop for the Hubble images.

What you're seeing is the difference in the resolving power of different
telescopes and the camera's attached to them.

Hubble vs. large ground based observatory (e.g. Hale or Keck ...) vs.
amateur astronomer w/DSLR.
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

In article <13s81hikffourf8.RemoveThis@corp.supernews.com>, see.RemoveThis@sig.com says...
> "Paul Furman" <paul-.RemoveThis@-edgehill.net> wrote
> > Isn't that the result of terrestrial versus space based observing?
>
> They are a pastiche of IR and visible images, taken with very narrow
> band filters, false colored, hand-masked with lots of local contrast
> adjustment, and then reassembled.
>
> They have a technique that makes wisps of hydrogen gas
> look like a solid cloud reflecting starlight from some off-camera
> source. There is no off-camera source and the brightest parts
> of the cloud in the manipulated image are the dim outer bits
> in a more realistic view.
>
> NASA has made V838 Monocerotis, where the gas is 'illuminated'
> (the light source that makes it glow) is inside the ball
> ... http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/v838monharris.jpg
> in real life ... look like a red (and just where did that shade of red come
> from?) star peaking out from a rupturing solid sphere.
> http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/199918main_rs_image_feature_784_946x710.jpg
> where the 'surrounding' stars are brightly lighting up the sphere. There
> are no surrounding stars.
>
> Naw, it's the other end of the horse that fits this image.
>
> But the heavy handed manipulation does wonders for funding. Who
> wants to look at another dim purple wisp?
>
I think that is a little unfair. If you compare the two V838 Monocerotis images, it is clear that the nasa one is
showing features that are completely invisible in the noao image. The "bright" part of the cloud in the lower
resolution image has been supressed in the high res image to reveal structure closer to the central star. The structure
has not been 'invented' by a graphics artist - it is there and is real and the details provide useful information on
the dynamics of the system to astronomers and astrophysicists.

To claim the manipulation is heavy-handed is absurd. It would be equivalent to claiming that the false-colour
microwave-background-of-the-universe images are bogus because "Like, we can't see microwaves so the image should be
black, Dude". The nasa view is a 'map', showing the distribution of specific elements in specific electronic and
thermal states and as such is a useful tool. Incidentally, it is also an attractive image to my eye.

Mike
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

In article <13s8vl47a6iuk33 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>, see RemoveThis @sig.com says...
> "Paul Furman" <paul- RemoveThis @-edgehill.net> wrote
> > Oh well, I suppose it's rationalized as enhancing for better scientific
> > inspection.
>
> Why do things have to be 'scientifically rationalized'?
>
> Apart from being an oxymoron.
>
> The purpose of 'science' is to explain what already is, without making
> any judgement of value.
>
> That it provide better bread and circus is the only
> justification needed.
>
> Painting in V838 makes for better circus, and better circus gets
> congress to give NASA more bread. That colorizing job doesn't
> contribute to understanding any more than solarizing a nude
> study would bring.
>
To reiterate, the image you complained of, was showing structure invisible in the original. By way of comparison, look
at the difference between the previous two images and http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040305.html which is closer to a
simple 'optical enhancement' of the low res image.

Mike
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

Mike wrote:
> To claim the manipulation is heavy-handed is absurd. It would be
> equivalent to claiming that the false-colour microwave-background-
> of-the-universe images are bogus because "Like, we can't see microwaves
> so the image should be black, Dude". The nasa view is a 'map', showing
> the distribution of specific elements in specific electronic and
> thermal states and as such is a useful tool. Incidentally, it is also
> an attractive image to my eye.
>
> Mike


By that standard, IR photography (either film or digital) would also be
"bogus", because we don't see IR.

Yet we *can* photograph it.
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

"Mike" <m.fee DeleteThis @iirrll..ccrrii..nnzz> wrote

> To reiterate, the image you complained of

Mike, you seem to be the only one 'complaining'. If
you find my viewpoint reprehensible just drop my in your
kill file.

Try stating your _own_ viewpoint with out reference to
someone else's. Neither I, nor I imagine any other
readers, are interested in this sort of banter - especially
so when it is 'reiterated'.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

Craig wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 06:34:47 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>> * Ron Hunter :
>>>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>>>> * Paul Furman :
>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/galleries/index.html?in_gallery_id=91...in_page
>>>>> Not Hubble images, but check out some of this guy's photos. He
>>>>> attaches his 20D to a telescope mount.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=450144
>>>>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=450156
>>>>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=419180
>>>>> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=451640
>>>>>
>>>>> Amazing.
>>>> Nice images. Would like to know what kind of telescope he was using.
>>> I think he usually posts details of what he took them with just
>>> above the images. Doesn't he?
>>>
>> Only the camera information.
>
> No, he also posts the Scope and Mount. He is using a 90mm Takahashi
> Refractor on a Losmandy G-11 mount. he scope is around $2k and the mount
> around $3200.

Thanks. For exposures of the length he mentions, a good mount would be
essential. Really pretty impressive pictures considering the equipment
used.
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

On Feb 27, 3:31 am, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <s... RemoveThis @sig.com> wrote:

> Neither I, nor I imagine any other
> readers, are interested in this sort of banter - especially
> so when it is 'reiterated'.

I, for one, found his posts in this thread to be well-thought out,
reasonable, informed and on topic, and also quite interesting.
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:17:28 -0500, Pudentame wrote:

> Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
>> There seems to be lot of 'illumination' in these pictures
>> (i.e. - an awful lot of photoshopping).
>>
>> You wouldn't think the Triffid shown here
>> http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/hubble/NO10_350x301.jpg
>>
>> Has much in common with these other Triffids -
>> http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_photos/astronomy/trifid_nebula_nasa1.jpg
>> http://www.cuyastro.org/images/cukras-triffid-full.jpg
>>
>> At least the sombrero retains a bit of resemblance to its 'before' image:
>> Before:
>> http://photos.crosscountryadventures.us/albums/astrophotography/astrop.../sombre
>> After: http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/hubble/NO1_350x175.jpg
>
> I doubt NASA uses anything as mundane as Photoshop for the Hubble images.
>
> What you're seeing is the difference in the resolving power of different
> telescopes and the camera's attached to them.
>
> Hubble vs. large ground based observatory (e.g. Hale or Keck ...) vs.
> amateur astronomer w/DSLR.

Actually no. NASA uses PS as wellas a lot of custom image processing SW. As
for showing the differences, I'm going to point you to some hubble vs
Amateur mars shots for comparison. Also the 60yr old Hale telescope
recently (last year) produced the sharpest astro photo ever (besting Hubble
and Keck etc...) through the use of Adaptive optics.

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/mars/2007-12-Mars_Hubble-pbl.jpg

http://www.news.com/Lucky-camera-boosts-telescope/2100-11397_3-6205940.html

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-33247391_ITM
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images 

On Feb 27, 1:56 pm, Paul Furman <pa... DeleteThis @-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Craig wrote:
> > Also the 60yr old Hale telescope
> > recently (last year) produced the sharpest astro photo ever (besting Hubble
> > and Keck etc...) through the use of Adaptive optics.
>
> Couldn't they use the same technology on hubble & do even better?

The main purpose of adaptive optics is to cancel out atmospheric
disturbances. Since Hubble is outside the atmosphere to begin with,
adaptive optics wouldn't help much.

Hubble's primary mirror is 2.4 meters, which is fairly small by
current land based standards. What you want to do is put a 6 to 10
meter telescope in orbit. Then you'll get some images to write home
about.
 >> Stay informed about: best of Hubble images