Starship Asterisk*

Benbrilling wrote:The reflection of the moon in the water looks out of whack. Shouldn't the moon be centered over the reflection?

http://palomablancastudio.com/mechanism.htm wrote:
<<Aurora is now known to be caused by electrons of typical energy of 1-15 keV. The light is produced when they collide with atoms of the upper atmosphere, typically at altitudes of 80-150 km. It tends to be dominated by emissions of atomic oxygen--the greenish line at 5577 A and (especially with electrons of lower energy and higher altitude) the dark-red line at 6300 A. Both these represent "forbidden" transitions of atomic oxygen from energy levels which (in absence of collisions) persist for a long time, accounting for the slow brightening and fading of auroral rays. Many other lines can also be observed, especially those of molecular nitrogen, and these vary much faster, revealing the true dynamic nature of the aurora.
Aurora can also be observed in the ultra-violet (UV) light, a very good way of observing it from space (but not from ground--the atmosphere absorbs UV). The "Polar" spacecraft even observed it in X-rays.>>

geckzilla wrote:Sometimes you have to do perspective adjustments to transition the photos together smoothly. That particular area of the picture could have some curved perspective. If you know how a fisheye lens curves things, what I'm thinking is a similar effect. Or it could have been on the far side of a wide angle shot. It does look odd though because the rest of the lights are nicely vertical.

Lasse H wrote:

geckzilla wrote:Sometimes you have to do perspective adjustments to transition the photos together smoothly. That particular area of the picture could have some curved perspective. If you know how a fisheye lens curves things, what I'm thinking is a similar effect. Or it could have been on the far side of a wide angle shot. It does look odd though because the rest of the lights are nicely vertical.

The moon reflection is leaning, but so is the house or boat or whatever is on the far left, so it fits. Same slant towards the right. So maybe en effect from the lens as suggested by geckzilla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowknife wrote:
<<Yellowknife is the capital of the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada. It is located on the north shore of Great Slave Lake, approximately 400 km (250 mi) south of the Arctic Circle, on the west side of Yellowknife Bay near the outlet of the Yellowknife River. Yellowknife and its surrounding water bodies were named after the local Yellowknives Dene First Nation, who made tools from regional copper deposits.

• -------------------------------------
  Yellowknife, NWT : 62.44° N, 114.4° W
  North Magnetic Pole ~ 82.7°N, 114.4° W
  -------------------------------------

Yellowknife was first settled in 1935, after gold had been found in the area; Yellowknife soon became the centre of economic activity in the NWT, and became the capital of the Northwest Territories in 1967. As gold production began to wane, Yellowknife shifted from being a mining town to being a centre of government services in the 1980s. However, with the discovery of diamonds north of Yellowknife in 1991, this shift has begun to reverse.>>

geckzilla wrote:Are the trees all growing at a slant too, Art?

geckzilla wrote:...But yeah, there's some definite shenanigans going on in the collage. Too hard to tell where the photo seams are though so it's hard to make it make sense. It was probably done on purpose to make sure you guys were paying attention!

geckzilla wrote:I dunno, Art, I think tree trunks are more influenced by gravity than they are the sun. I'd be interested in seeing a forest full of trees which all slant at the same angle because I've never seen it before.

neufer wrote:

geckzilla wrote:I dunno, Art, I think tree trunks are more influenced by gravity than they are the sun. I'd be interested in seeing a forest full of trees which all slant at the same angle because I've never seen it before.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071114.html