APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
I’m glad to finally have the mystery of Boomer12k’s :---[===] * explained. An appropriate signature for this forum indeed.Boomer12k wrote:Great Pic!!!
:---[===] *
I find it interesting that I no longer have a RANK....but my telescope SIGNATURE.....
BDanielMayfield wrote:I’m glad to finally have the mystery of Boomer12k’s :---[===] * explained.Boomer12k wrote:
:---[===] *
I find it interesting that I no longer have a RANK....but my telescope SIGNATURE.....
An appropriate signature for this forum indeed.
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=32210Weatherman wrote:Sorry, but I thought it was pretty disgusting for whoever to go in and intentionally remove the website. If you don't want to update it every day because you can't do it on your off time at home fine, but to take the time and MONEY to cut the link? Time for tar and feathers with government idiots.
Well that's a bit strange (to me anyway), the comet color seems about the same in both photos, even though the Mars and Regulus colors are different in both photos. How comeAnn wrote:An interesting "comment" on today's APOD is this image of Mars, Regulus and Comet ISON by Nuitsacrees. As you can see, the color balance of Nuitsacrees' image is quite different from the color balance of the APOD. Comet ISON is again very faint and can be seen at about 1 o'clock.
Ann
Actually the color of the comet isn't the same. ISON looks quite blue in today's APOD, but decidedly green in Nuitsacrees' image.Beyond wrote:Well that's a bit strange (to me anyway), the comet color seems about the same in both photos, even though the Mars and Regulus colors are different in both photos. How comeAnn wrote:An interesting "comment" on today's APOD is this image of Mars, Regulus and Comet ISON by Nuitsacrees. As you can see, the color balance of Nuitsacrees' image is quite different from the color balance of the APOD. Comet ISON is again very faint and can be seen at about 1 o'clock.
Ann
I see the smudge very easily. If you don't, your monitor needs adjusting. It is certainly obvious enough that without explanation, we'd have people inquiring here what it is.DavidLeodis wrote:In the explanation to the image it states "Just above Regulus, the very faint smudge of light is actually the Leo I dwarf galaxy, 800,000 light-years away and almost lost in the glare of the bluish hued bright star.". It must be very faint as I cannot make it out, so I wonder if anybody else is having trouble spotting the "very faint smudge"? I wonder if those who claim they see it would have noticed it if it had not been mentioned in the explanation? Unless it definitely needed doing I think mentioning such a very faint thing was unnecessary.
It does look like a lens reflection, but given its location and size, I think it actually is Leo I. Also, the image was made with a simple telescope which doesn't offer many surfaces that could produce internal reflections. There is a good deal of scatter (possibly from a dirty primary), but that's all. Internal reflections are typically seen in camera lenses, which have many air gaps between elements.BMAONE23 wrote:It is about 4 times the span of the visually brightest part of the star above it and about the same size, so to me it appears to resemble a lens reflection
That's a very good image. Reflective optics offer many advantages, but imaging objects like this isn't one of them. Most telescope mirrors have a degree of surface roughness that creates a halo around bright, overexposed stars. And most reflective optics aren't cleaned very often (because it is so easy to damage the surfaces), which further increases scattered light. The image you link above was produced with a good quality refractor, which will generally do a much better job when you have a dim object very close to a bright one. Of course, that advantage comes with the disadvantage of a small aperture, and therefore a longer required exposure time.Ann wrote:This is a good picture of bright star Regulus and dwarf galaxy Leo 1. The colors seem believable, too.
Given the brightness of Leo and the faintness of the galaxy, it must be very hard to photograph these two objects in a way that does both of them justice.
I think it may be worth noting that some monitors might not be capable of seeing Leo I, for instance, at work I have a monitor used in conjunction with a laptop, and the monitor can't see it no matter how much I fiddle with the brightness/contrast/color, but the laptop screen shows it just fine. For especially colorful images I always have to drag my APOD window over to my laptop to get full enjoyment, the difference is astounding sometimes.Chris Peterson wrote:I see the smudge very easily. If you don't, your monitor needs adjusting. It is certainly obvious enough that without explanation, we'd have people inquiring here what it is.DavidLeodis wrote:In the explanation to the image it states "Just above Regulus, the very faint smudge of light is actually the Leo I dwarf galaxy, 800,000 light-years away and almost lost in the glare of the bluish hued bright star.". It must be very faint as I cannot make it out, so I wonder if anybody else is having trouble spotting the "very faint smudge"? I wonder if those who claim they see it would have noticed it if it had not been mentioned in the explanation? Unless it definitely needed doing I think mentioning such a very faint thing was unnecessary.
That said, I'm skeptical we are seeing it with anything like the natural brightness is should exhibit. The fact that it is the same color as the light from Regulus reveals that it has been enhanced by some sort of stretching operation that emphasized the blue channel. It is in the right place, and I'm sure we are really seeing the galaxy, but it isn't a good representation. But this APOD has some serious color problems (the image that Ann referred to earlier is much more accurate- and while showing similar limiting magnitude, doesn't show the dwarf galaxy). I'm not sure why the blue is so elevated in Pete's image- even Mars is magenta! And Regulus is far too blue, as is the comet (again, the other image shows a much more accurate greenish color, typical of cyanogen, in the comet tail).
The actual screen on a laptop is likely to be inferior to that of a standalone monitor. That said, adjusting the brightness and contrast on a monitor- especially a LCD monitor- is only of limited value. What is important is having the right color profile installed on your computer. Using the one supplied with the monitor (but often left uninstalled) is a good start, although using a hardware calibrator is best.StarCuriousAero wrote:I think it may be worth noting that some monitors might not be capable of seeing Leo I, for instance, at work I have a monitor used in conjunction with a laptop, and the monitor can't see it no matter how much I fiddle with the brightness/contrast/color, but the laptop screen shows it just fine. For especially colorful images I always have to drag my APOD window over to my laptop to get full enjoyment, the difference is astounding sometimes.
