Starship Asterisk*

Lasse H wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:39 am Why is there a small dark spot in the middle of the sun (that isn't there to see)? I have seen this curious phenomenon in some of my own amateur photos (taken during other eclipses).

Lasse H wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:27 am Yes, that is a possible explanation, but I wonder if there could be something else at play here, namely the camera itself. If I enlarge your second photo (by Thanakrit), the dark lunar disk is significally smaller than the sun disk, as displayed before or after the eclipse.

Lasse H wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:45 pm The dark spot is too small.
At the time of the eclipse, the angular distance between Venus and Jupiter was about 45 degrees.
I enlarged the photo on my screen until the distance was 45 centimeters. At that scale the sun/moon disk should be half a centimeter in diameter (5 millimeters), but the dark spot was only about 2 millimeters wide!

My tentative explanation is that the bright corona light "eats up" some part of the rim of the dark disk somehow. What I mean is that this happens in the camera optics or on the optoelectronic chip itself. Alternatively because you cannot keep the camera completely still during the exposure.

wilddouglascounty wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:54 pm This conversation about digital processing and imagery differences shrinking or enlarging high contrast components of an image brings to mind my experience of the eclipse only a few miles away from where this photo was taken.

The eye, occipital lobe visual processing part of the brain and other processing centers do a much more refined image generation than digital imaging is capable of doing, and viewing an eclipse really brings out these differences. The brain is incredible in creating a continuum of brightness, for instance, compared to digital images. The orange-yellow prominence located at the 5 o'clock position during totality, for instance, was hugely more prominent in person than any digital image that I've seen, due to the eye being able to process the incredible difference between the dark disk of the moon, the surrounding dark sky, and the brightness of the prominence, much better than digital processing, which just maxed it out as a depiction of white over-exposure or dimmed everything else down to where you could see the colors of the prominence.

As the moon approached totality, the eye also depicted the moon as having more of a 3 dimensionality to the moon; an illusion of course, but nevertheless a palpable sensation that is lost in all digital imagery. Finally, when the moon was exiting the sun's disk and the Bailey's bead/diamond ring spread to a wider, brighter arc, the beam of light that shone down through the darkness of the surrounding darkened landscape was like a giant spotlight shooting down from the sun to the ground. Perhaps it was the same artifact that created super sharp shadows around totality, but once again, the firsthand experience of this super-focused beam of light shooting down to the ground in the surrounding darkness was something that no digital depiction that I've seen has come close to capturing.

Cameras shooting images of the milky way make me wish I could see the clouds and dust lanes as clearly as they do, but then I see the eclipse and realize that the eye and brain still have way more processing power than that little CCD behind the lens.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:00 pm

wilddouglascounty wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:54 pm This conversation about digital processing and imagery differences shrinking or enlarging high contrast components of an image brings to mind my experience of the eclipse only a few miles away from where this photo was taken.

The eye, occipital lobe visual processing part of the brain and other processing centers do a much more refined image generation than digital imaging is capable of doing, and viewing an eclipse really brings out these differences. The brain is incredible in creating a continuum of brightness, for instance, compared to digital images. The orange-yellow prominence located at the 5 o'clock position during totality, for instance, was hugely more prominent in person than any digital image that I've seen, due to the eye being able to process the incredible difference between the dark disk of the moon, the surrounding dark sky, and the brightness of the prominence, much better than digital processing, which just maxed it out as a depiction of white over-exposure or dimmed everything else down to where you could see the colors of the prominence.

As the moon approached totality, the eye also depicted the moon as having more of a 3 dimensionality to the moon; an illusion of course, but nevertheless a palpable sensation that is lost in all digital imagery. Finally, when the moon was exiting the sun's disk and the Bailey's bead/diamond ring spread to a wider, brighter arc, the beam of light that shone down through the darkness of the surrounding darkened landscape was like a giant spotlight shooting down from the sun to the ground. Perhaps it was the same artifact that created super sharp shadows around totality, but once again, the firsthand experience of this super-focused beam of light shooting down to the ground in the surrounding darkness was something that no digital depiction that I've seen has come close to capturing.

Cameras shooting images of the milky way make me wish I could see the clouds and dust lanes as clearly as they do, but then I see the eclipse and realize that the eye and brain still have way more processing power than that little CCD behind the lens.

I disagree. I've seen a number of eclipses, and while images can't capture the overall ambience and awe that go with that experience, they blow away the human eye and brain for capturing detail and dynamic range. A good camera, good optics, and good processing far, far exceed what our senses are capable of seeing. Much greater dynamic range, much higher resolution. Our visual system is pretty pathetic compared with digital imaging and processing.

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 4:19 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:00 pm

wilddouglascounty wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:54 pm This conversation about digital processing and imagery differences shrinking or enlarging high contrast components of an image brings to mind my experience of the eclipse only a few miles away from where this photo was taken.

The eye, occipital lobe visual processing part of the brain and other processing centers do a much more refined image generation than digital imaging is capable of doing, and viewing an eclipse really brings out these differences. The brain is incredible in creating a continuum of brightness, for instance, compared to digital images. The orange-yellow prominence located at the 5 o'clock position during totality, for instance, was hugely more prominent in person than any digital image that I've seen, due to the eye being able to process the incredible difference between the dark disk of the moon, the surrounding dark sky, and the brightness of the prominence, much better than digital processing, which just maxed it out as a depiction of white over-exposure or dimmed everything else down to where you could see the colors of the prominence.

As the moon approached totality, the eye also depicted the moon as having more of a 3 dimensionality to the moon; an illusion of course, but nevertheless a palpable sensation that is lost in all digital imagery. Finally, when the moon was exiting the sun's disk and the Bailey's bead/diamond ring spread to a wider, brighter arc, the beam of light that shone down through the darkness of the surrounding darkened landscape was like a giant spotlight shooting down from the sun to the ground. Perhaps it was the same artifact that created super sharp shadows around totality, but once again, the firsthand experience of this super-focused beam of light shooting down to the ground in the surrounding darkness was something that no digital depiction that I've seen has come close to capturing.

Cameras shooting images of the milky way make me wish I could see the clouds and dust lanes as clearly as they do, but then I see the eclipse and realize that the eye and brain still have way more processing power than that little CCD behind the lens.

I disagree. I've seen a number of eclipses, and while images can't capture the overall ambience and awe that go with that experience, they blow away the human eye and brain for capturing detail and dynamic range. A good camera, good optics, and good processing far, far exceed what our senses are capable of seeing. Much greater dynamic range, much higher resolution. Our visual system is pretty pathetic compared with digital imaging and processing.

Aw, Chris - always the reality-based party pooper.

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 4:44 pm

johnnydeep wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 4:19 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 2:00 pm

I disagree. I've seen a number of eclipses, and while images can't capture the overall ambience and awe that go with that experience, they blow away the human eye and brain for capturing detail and dynamic range. A good camera, good optics, and good processing far, far exceed what our senses are capable of seeing. Much greater dynamic range, much higher resolution. Our visual system is pretty pathetic compared with digital imaging and processing.

Aw, Chris - always the reality-based party pooper.

But the other side of the coin... we have a great big brain that lets us dramatically extend our senses with complex technology.