Starship Asterisk*

Beth3711 wrote:It's beautiful, sort of Vincent van Gogh meets M. C. Escher.

I really agree with you on Vincent Van Gogh .. its the first thing I that came to my mind !

Very nice work Robert.

I wish I had visited this spot in WY when last there. An awesome sight to capture. it does seem surreal-like.

I suppose it engages people, but is it the nicest thing for the APOD editors to invite people to try to pick out processing errors? This strikes me as artwork (very nice, I might add) and perhaps every single pixel is where it is because the artist wanted it to be that way.

"Everyone's a critic."

-Noel

NoelC wrote:I suppose it engages people, but is it the nicest thing for the APOD editors to invite people to try to pick out processing errors? This strikes me as artwork (very nice, I might add) and perhaps every single pixel is where it is because the artist wanted it to be that way.

"Artifacts" are not "errors". The method by which the image was produced naturally introduced artifacts; identifying those artifacts and their causes allows us to learn something about the imaging technique. Some of these artifacts show up in professional astronomical images as well- images made from the surface of Mars by scanning cameras, images made of moons during flybys. Catching these kinds of artifacts is an excellent exercise.

NoelC wrote:"Everyone's a critic."

What's that you say?

You know that if the unreality hadn't been acknowledged, people would have had something to say about it anyway, and you might have been one of those wondering "aloud" about the location of Scorpius and/or Vega! It doesn't take away from the image -- which is artwork, as you say -- to acknowledge that though it is built with images of fact, it is not, as it stands, accurate in the way people assume APODs are (unless told otherwise).

bystander, thanks for posting that!

Tim Burton meets the astronomer

Orion appears twice.

The problem of perspective may well be just in the eyes of the beholder. To those with "better" or "different" vision, the Ornth may always look just like this.

You can see Apollo just to our right of the milky way, looking down from ? The sky? Mt. Olympus? The Green Monster?

Lola
(too much rain in New England)

summerstargazer wrote:Right off the bat, I noted that the "Big Dipper" (Canis Major) is rather topsy-turvy; as is the "North Star." The outer two stars of the dipper cup point to the North Star which is almost parallel to the horizon instead of higher in the sky toward the North.

Isn't the Big Dipper Ursa Major?

I've never seen a Lunar halo and corona simultaneously. A halo is an artifact of an extremely thin layer of upper atmosphere ice crystals, whereas a corona is an artifact of a thin layer of tiny tropospheric water droplets.

Also, a bright full Moon in the same sky as a well defined faint Milky Way's center is somehow much more disconcerting, as the memories of both extremely bright and extremely dark skies are fighting each other in the mind's eye. The effect is eerie and disconcerting.

Bubbaray wrote:I've never seen a Lunar halo and corona simultaneously. A halo is an artifact of an extremely thin layer of upper atmosphere ice crystals, whereas a corona is an artifact of a thin layer of tiny tropospheric water droplets.

Also, a bright full Moon in the same sky as a well defined faint Milky Way's center is somehow much more disconcerting, as the memories of both extremely bright and extremely dark skies are fighting each other in the mind's eye. The effect is eerie and disconcerting.

The Moon was only first quarter when this image was taken, which makes it considerably less bright than a full Moon, and only produces moderate interference with the Milky Way if the skies are clear.

FWIW, I see halos and coronas together fairly often at certain times of the year.

Chris Peterson wrote:"Artifacts" are not "errors".

And "Chris" may not be up on his "marketing speak".

I have to admit, getting people to think about how an image is made is an interesting approach to getting them to enjoy art in the digital age.

-Noel

NoelC wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:"Artifacts" are not "errors".

And "Chris" may not be up on his "marketing speak".

I just want to be clear that most of the artifacts in this image are a consequence of the methodology used to collect the data, and cannot reasonably be considered "processing errors". There would be no reasonable processing techniques that could be used to eliminate these artifacts.

We've seen similar geometric artifacts on other images here- professional images that were not produced with any artistic or aesthetic intent.

Some digital replication (cut-paste) is found throughout the image. Start near Mr. Arn's signature and along the right-side horizon; to hide or mask perhaps an imperfection. The last fence-post on the right and left appears strangely thin, unlike its neighboring fence-post several feet farther away. The left-side paraselene might actually have characteristics of the 22º lunar halo and alpha Hydrae or Alphard combined. The Constellation Leo graces the sky above and the right of this lunar. Mr. Robert Arn unknowingly captures several geosynchronous satellites across the very top. There are so many other artifacts a keen could find and uncover. Thanks you APOD and Mr. ARN.

also the moon is not round but kind of egg shaped. you can see this in the large image, there is definaltly a stitch mark close to the lineup of the moon.

Wow! This image has seen to spark a nice thread. If I can, let me try to address some of the comments that have been posted:

1) The large post on the left looks to be larger than the other posts. There are a couple reasons for this. One is because that post was physically larger. If you look closely there is a sign on top of it that is not on the other posts. Second is becuase that post was closer to my camera than another of the others.

2) The same post has a much larger shadow because, again, it was a larger post, but also, becuase it was in a direct line of sight between the moon (my light source) and my camera. So we are seeing the shadow straight on.

3) The shadow that is underneath the monument is not a continuation of the shadow from the post, but rather it is a shadow from my tripod.

4) The stars appear to trail in all different directions. This is not caused so much by the rotation of the Earth (as we are used) but rather, the effects of a fisheye lens. I posted the image details on my website that bystander linked to. The pano was created by stitching together 8 seperate frames. For each frame, stars that were on the left side are trailed in one direction, while stars on the opposite side are trailed in a different direction. Same for the top.

5) All the data was collected within a 5 hour time span starting around 10:30pm. So we are not seeing the sun rising (or setting). The lights behind the monument are from city lights ~20 miles away.

6) There really was no wildlife that I could see that evening...I am not sure if that is unusual for the area or not?

7) The aspect ratio is "correct". The reason it may appear to have streched vertically is, once again, becuase I used a fisheye lens. When stitching the images together there was some horizontal compression. But that is the nature of the beast.

8) I captured the data for the landscape while the moon was still up. With a camera and a long exposure the ground was properly illumated. I then did a bit of HDR work with it to really enhance the colors and give the "fantasy" appearance.

9) The dirt road is not actually Monument Road - that is on the other side of the structure. The road in the image wraps around the entire monument so you can drive (over many bumps/potholes) around the thing.

10) It is very true that there are alot of artifacts in the image. But as Chris pointed out most of the artifacts in this image are a result of how the data was collected and the steps that were needed to combine all the shots. I freely admit there is scientific inaccurate (like Scorpius being on the wrong side of the Milky Way, or Vega being in the Milky Way). But there are alot of people out there that make wonderful images while trying to stay "true" to either what is seen or what the camera can capture. My goal was different. It was to create an image that connected the Earth to the night sky in a way that leaves the viewer with a sense of awe and wonder. I treat this image (and others like it) as a hybrid of digital art and photography so I am more than willing to sacfrice a little bit of accuracy for a "pretty picture". Plus, I find it fun to try and take dozens of individual images and combine them into a final product!

Well this has been fun, reading everything that has been posted here. There are some artifact that have been posted that I did not even realize until now as well as different perceptions of various elements. Thank you all for your comments!

Cheers,
Robert Arn
http://www.AstroArn.com

Nicely done, Robert!

Thank you Alice!

You can't see the Milky Way in L.A., but I seem to recall it stretches across the whole sky ...

Is that Melotte 111 on the left hand side of the image?

Who cares whether it is the shadows, the unnatural colurs, the curve of the Milky Way, the line of the road or whatever, it's still a wonderful piece of artwork, and worthy of hanging on my wall, or that of any highly-regarded gallery. Superb rendition!