by Ann » Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:02 am
MarkBour wrote:Ann wrote:It irritates me that hydrogen is mapped as blue, oxygen as green and sulfur as red. There is no logic there. Clearly the Hubble palette, where oxygen is blue, hydrogen is green and sulfur is red is a lot more logical. . . .
Ann
Ah. The suggested pallette does not suit thy palate?
Who seeks for better of thee, sauce his palate
With thy most operant poison! What is here?
Gold? yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods,
I am no idle votarist: roots, you clear heavens!
― William Shakespeare, Timon of Athens
Rosette Nebula in infrared. NASA/JPL-Caltech/WISE Team
I want mapped color to be logical! Imagine an infrared picture where blue is mid-infrared, green is near-infrared and red is far-infrared. Or imagine that while blue is near-infrared, green is far-infrared and red is mid-infrared. That would be highly confusing.
Consider the picture at left of the Rosette Nebula in infrared. In this picture, blue represents 3.4 and 4.6 microns, green 12 microns and red 22 microns. That's logical. Surprisingly (to me), mid-infrared emission dominates at the outer parts of the Rosette, while far-infrared dominates closer to the central "hole". Thanks to the logical mapped color in this image, I can immediately spot this surprising infrared temperature distribution in the Rosette Nebula and ask myself what causes it. It would seem that the red areas are fairly "empty" (of dust), while dust piles up in the green parts. Clearly that has something to do with it, although I couldn't say exactly how it works.
In mapped color images, I just want blue to represent the shortest wavelengths and red the longest ones!
Ann
[quote="MarkBour"][quote="Ann"]It irritates me that hydrogen is mapped as blue, oxygen as green and sulfur as red. There is no logic there. Clearly the Hubble palette, where oxygen is blue, hydrogen is green and sulfur is red is a lot more logical. . . .
Ann[/quote]
[b][color=#0040FF][size=110]Ah. The suggested pallette does not suit thy palate?[/size][/color][/b]
[quote]Who seeks for better of thee, sauce his palate
With thy most operant poison! What is here?
Gold? yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods,
I am no idle votarist: roots, you clear heavens!
― William Shakespeare, Timon of Athens[/quote][/quote]
[float=left][img2]https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAwNS81OTQvb3JpZ2luYWwvcm9zZXR0ZS1uZWJ1bGEtd2lzZS1waG90by0xMDA4MjctMDIuanBn[/img2][c][size=85]Rosette Nebula in infrared. NASA/JPL-Caltech/WISE Team[/size][/c][/float]I want mapped color to be logical! Imagine an infrared picture where blue is mid-infrared, green is near-infrared and red is far-infrared. Or imagine that while blue is near-infrared, green is far-infrared and red is mid-infrared. That would be highly confusing.
Consider the picture at left of the Rosette Nebula in infrared. In this picture, blue represents 3.4 and 4.6 microns, green 12 microns and red 22 microns. That's logical. Surprisingly (to me), mid-infrared emission dominates at the outer parts of the Rosette, while far-infrared dominates closer to the central "hole". Thanks to the logical mapped color in this image, I can immediately spot this surprising infrared temperature distribution in the Rosette Nebula and ask myself what causes it. It would seem that the red areas are fairly "empty" (of dust), while dust piles up in the green parts. Clearly that has something to do with it, although I couldn't say exactly how it works.
In mapped color images, I just want blue to represent the shortest wavelengths and red the longest ones!
Ann