Old Faithful Below A Yellowstone Sky (APOD 07 Aug 2007)
- orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
Old Faithful Below A Yellowstone Sky (APOD 07 Aug 2007)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070807.html
An awesome photo! Even the red star below Jupiter shows up nicely. I believe ti must be Antares. The Milky-way scenes are always nice. Living in a city obscures much of the night sky, making it impossible to view the Milky-way; although Jupiter and Venus usually always show up nicely.
Orin
An awesome photo! Even the red star below Jupiter shows up nicely. I believe ti must be Antares. The Milky-way scenes are always nice. Living in a city obscures much of the night sky, making it impossible to view the Milky-way; although Jupiter and Venus usually always show up nicely.
Orin
Orin
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
- orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
-
- Asternaut
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:37 pm
-
- Asternaut
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 10:37 pm
Thank you for your imput Andy.Andy Wade wrote:Starlight filter?Simple Peasant wrote:Does anyone know why Jupiter has spikes and what causes the steam to be illuminated?
Could the apparent illumination be caused by a longer exposure?
Perhaps I am just being too picky but I am getting a little tired of this digital age and all the image manipulation. The "spikes" were caused by either a 'starburst' filter or perhaps with image software.
The apparent illumination could not have been caused by a longer esposure because the steam cloud would move in a second or two.
Because I am aware of the manipulation as sighted above I can not help but wonder what else was manipulated in this picture.
Simple Peasant
- iamlucky13
- Commander
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
I think the steam acutally has moved in the picture. It looks streaked. Not to mention, you generally need at least 30 seconds exposure to get a good picture of the Milky Way. The very minor streaking of the stars also suggests this is the case.
I'm guessing the illumination comes from lights at the visitors center behind him. Notice the ground and trees are partially illuminated, too. It's also possible he used a flash or even a flashlight to briefly light up the plume. On a long exposure even subtle details are visible.
There are lens filters you can buy that create diffraction spikes on point light sources, and the brighter the source, the more defined the spikes. This seems most likely because even the moderately bright stars show a little bit of diffraction.
I'm guessing the illumination comes from lights at the visitors center behind him. Notice the ground and trees are partially illuminated, too. It's also possible he used a flash or even a flashlight to briefly light up the plume. On a long exposure even subtle details are visible.
There are lens filters you can buy that create diffraction spikes on point light sources, and the brighter the source, the more defined the spikes. This seems most likely because even the moderately bright stars show a little bit of diffraction.
"Any man whose errors take ten years to correct is quite a man." ~J. Robert Oppenheimer (speaking about Albert Einstein)
-
- Asternaut
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:47 am
- Location: Seattle, WA