Camera exposure settings.
NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg)
That's not a real photo.Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.
That's not a real photo.Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.
Evidence!NASA does have stars in their long exposure photosThat's not a real photo.
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg)
Evidence!
And you have proof of this claim?NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg)
That's not a real photo.
That's not a real photo.And you have proof of this claim?
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARSNASA doesn't have vid because it would s
EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheoMfRxVBo
Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.
Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
That is still not proof. Saying "it is because it is" sounds quite childish.That's not a real photo.And you have proof of this claim?
It's actually a well-known fact. I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARSI'm not really seeing anything major in that video. Horizon pretty much consists of clouds, nothing really demonstrates the moon is as close as claimed, and it's so bright because the exposure is so high (which is why the stars are visible).
EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheoMfRxVBo
Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.
Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
I'm not really seeing anything major in that video. Horizon pretty much consists of clouds, nothing really demonstrates the moon is as close as claimed, and it's so bright because the exposure is so high (which is why the stars are visible).
I'd admit both side have bias, i did research why this photo is real, not why it's not. I could say it's real without cite my claim just like what you did, but if you ask for proof, why should i be the one who give you proof?That's not a real photo.And you have proof of this claim?
It's actually a well-known fact. I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.
main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.In the NASA pictures that show no stars, what is the main subject of the picture? In the commercial videos that show them, what is the main subject of the video?
LORRI images from the New Horizons spacecraft show lots of stars, "some" even visible in low exposureQuote from: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet link=topic=4809.msg92960#msg92960Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.
Can you show me some of these photos, not composites, that show stars?
LORRI images from the New Horizons spacecraft show lots of stars, "some" even visible in low exposureQuote from: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet link=topic=4809.msg92960#msg92960Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.
Can you show me some of these photos, not composites, that show stars?
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php?order=dateTaken&page=1
Stars also visible for the Martian rovers during Comet siding spring flyby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2013_A1#During_comet_flyby
And here is a legit composite that do show stars, from Martian sky
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Spirit_phobos_deimos.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/PIA17937-MarsCuriosityRover-FirstAsteroidImage-20140420.jpg
Several stars and planets (including Earth) visible on this Saturn image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/PIA17172_Saturn_eclipse_mosaic_bright_crop.jpg
Several of DSCOVR's image like this one contains some star when zoomed in
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Blue_marble_2015.jpg/800px-Blue_marble_2015.jpg
it's very easy to accept whatever garbage you're given.This is what i get instead of appreciation for taking my time to search and compile that list?
Looks like 100x100pxNope of all the pictures in the list, the smallest resolution is 256x256
black boxes with white specks.Have you seen what the moonless clear night sky looks like?
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARSI finally took my time to watch the video, i noticed the surface feature of the Moon is not visible, meanwhile most NASA pictures do show surface/atmosphere features of the planets/moons. Most ground picture of the full Moon showing surface feature also doesn't show stars.
EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheoMfRxVBo
Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.
Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
Does ANY of that even look real to you? Or even testable or verifiable? Looks like 100x100px black boxes with white specks.
I'd admit both side have bias, i did research why this photo is real, not why it's not. I could say it's real without cite my claim just like what you did, but if you ask for proof, why should i be the one who give you proof?That's not a real photo.And you have proof of this claim?
It's actually a well-known fact. I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.In the NASA pictures that show no stars, what is the main subject of the picture? In the commercial videos that show them, what is the main subject of the video?
I finally took my time to watch the video, i noticed the surface feature of the Moon is not visible, meanwhile most NASA pictures do show surface/atmosphere features of the planets/moons. Most ground picture of the full Moon showing surface feature also doesn't show stars.
Answer: Simple misconception. During "Day Time" launches of high-altitude balloons or rockets, no stars are observable. Nevertheless, the sky is 'black'. This probably has something to do with the nature of light; specifically, it's concentration level (ie bleed - 'blackness'). So, this means, that stars are only visible when the sun is 'hidden' or 'occulted'. Exception: you can see the stars come in/out of focus in the evening/morning; a kind of 'fade effect'. A general rule; the more intense the sun's local presence, the more impossible it is to see stars (unless you pass out).
main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.Some reasons have been given, but stars in space do not twinkle and so are extremely small in any photograph (much, much smaller than a pixel). Unless enough light reaches a pixel it will not show at all.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/DSCOVR%20EPIC%20USA%202028x2048_zpsvqmuwuc6.jpg) DSCOVR EPIC USA 2028x2048 | ........ | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Earth%20from%20Space/DSCOVR%20EPIC%20USA%202028x2048%20-%20stars_zpsjgax4nmg.jpg) DSCOVR EPIC USA 2048x2048 - stars highlighted |
Rabinoz, The image you used was one of the first EPIC images released (July 6, 2015). I am pretty sure those aren't stars. Several reasons:Yes, it looks like that. I imagine the frames making up the video are adjusted to align the frames.
1. Those dots only appear in the very first images released. They don't appear in any of the images downloadable from from http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://from http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/).
2. You can see very similar looking dots on top of the earth, not just surrounding the earth. (522x1064, 1409x350, 1327x345, for example)
3. Those first images were re-released: "Reprocessed version of the first light image of North and Central America made by the DSCOVR EPIC camera on July 6, 2015." (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/first_light/) Those dots are no longer visible. Of course, the dots that were on the earth are still visible, so I assume they just cut out the earth and overlayed it onto a black background. (And tweaked the brightness/saturation a bit). I suspect all the images that you can get from the main portal are cropped and overlayed like this.
4. There is one group of images that don't have a completely pitch black background. (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/lunar_transit_2016/) If you increase the brightness, you can tell how they were rotated, so they clearly weren't cropped like the others. These images were taken within several minutes of each other, so the backdrop of stars shouldn't have changed much. However, the specks seem to be randomly placed in all the images, which indicates they are just an artifact of the lens/sensor/compression/transmission/processing/whatever. There are a few pixels that don't change at all, but they all have a reddish hue (pixels 1363x135 and 1396x142 for example). I suspect that they are a result of dead pixels on the sensor or something.
Sometimes I get carried away looking at pictures of space...
In some photographs, the background can be enhanced so "bring up" the stars. One such photo I have is from the DSCOVR EPIC. This was taken from about 1 million miles from earth, almost in line with the sun. The pixel size in this photo is only 1.07 arcsec, much smaller than for photos from closer to earth.
DSCOVR EPIC USA 2028x2048........
DSCOVR EPIC USA 2048x2048 - stars highlighted
The image I downloaded was at 2048x2048 pixels (the full resolution of EPIC) and ".png", so no ".jpeg" artifacts. This is shown in the left image above.
What are the chances of clouds spelling SEX in the sky?
What are the chances of clouds spelling SEX in the sky?
I don't know and what are the chances of:In some photographs, the background can be enhanced so "bring up" the stars. One such photo I have is from the DSCOVR EPIC. This was taken from about 1 million miles from earth, almost in line with the sun. The pixel size in this photo is only 1.07 arcsec, much smaller than for photos from closer to earth.
DSCOVR EPIC USA 2028x2048........
DSCOVR EPIC USA 2048x2048 - stars highlighted
The image I downloaded was at 2048x2048 pixels (the full resolution of EPIC) and ".png", so no ".jpeg" artifacts. This is shown in the left image above.
What are the chances of clouds spelling SEX in the sky?(http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEX-Earth-Step-two.jpg) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc7FvDnKEGc)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-58PKdVnHJEU/UX1st-naKBI/AAAAAAAAAaA/eJHi3-jjMZs/s1600/7b6de5e066c4a2645295eca386176569.jpg) From Blogger John (https://www.blogger.com/profile/10958476069320306026) | (http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1757676.ece/ALTERNATES/s1227b/Clouds%20that%20look%20like%20things.jpg) From Mirror, UK (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjg6v_Ui8XPAhWFj5QKHYK-BBQQjB0IBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Fpictured-x-rated-cloud-shaped-like-3837590&psig=AFQjCNHt5AW-QJKN1vmXA1tQJOrNIXfEfg&ust=1475804517816760) | (http://cdn0.lostateminor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Clouds-2.jpg) From Cloud Appreciation Society (http://www.lostateminor.com/2014/05/20/clouds-look-like-things/) | (http://i1.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article846948.ece/ALTERNATES/s1023/%C2%A3%C2%A3%C2%A3%20reuse%20fee%20apples%20-%20Clouds%20that%20look%20like%20things:%20Red%20snapper%20by%20Gavin%20Tobin) From Mirror, UK (http://) |
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161005095539-matthew-skull-1-large-169.jpg)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/05/health/hurricane-matthew-skull-trnd/
Quick answer: The dense atmosphere of earth means little to no exposure time because the light is being reflected through the gasses.
In space where there is very little gas in any given area, the camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it. If there was a thick medium for the light to travel through it would be easier and would take far less time.
The fact that we can see stars through the atmosphere of earth is simple to explain: Earth has been getting billions of years of light exposure.
Quick answer: The dense atmosphere of earth means little to no exposure time because the light is being reflected through the gasses.
In space where there is very little gas in any given area, the camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it. If there was a thick medium for the light to travel through it would be easier and would take far less time.
The fact that we can see stars through the atmosphere of earth is simple to explain: Earth has been getting billions of years of light exposure.
Sorry, but no. The presence of an atmosphere does not make a camera focus faster. Less atmosphere means MORE light from the stars reaches the camera, not less. The real explanation has been given several times on this thread. It has to do with brightness of the stars relative to the thing you are photographing.
Quick answer: The dense atmosphere of earth means little to no exposure time because the light is being reflected through the gasses.
In space where there is very little gas in any given area, the camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it. If there was a thick medium for the light to travel through it would be easier and would take far less time.
The fact that we can see stars through the atmosphere of earth is simple to explain: Earth has been getting billions of years of light exposure.
Sorry, but no. The presence of an atmosphere does not make a camera focus faster. Less atmosphere means MORE light from the stars reaches the camera, not less. The real explanation has been given several times on this thread. It has to do with brightness of the stars relative to the thing you are photographing.
Seriously I just repeated what Phil Plait said. That's a bit worrisome to be honest.
Quick answer: The dense atmosphere of earth means little to no exposure time because the light is being reflected through the gasses.
In space where there is very little gas in any given area, the camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it. If there was a thick medium for the light to travel through it would be easier and would take far less time.
The fact that we can see stars through the atmosphere of earth is simple to explain: Earth has been getting billions of years of light exposure.
Sorry, but no. The presence of an atmosphere does not make a camera focus faster. Less atmosphere means MORE light from the stars reaches the camera, not less. The real explanation has been given several times on this thread. It has to do with brightness of the stars relative to the thing you are photographing.
Seriously I just repeated what Phil Plait said. That's a bit worrisome to be honest.
Source? I suspect you just misunderstood him. In general, this part is technically true: "camera must focus longer to get the same amount of light entering it". However, that is because there is more AMBIENT light, not more star light. If you want to look at the stars, ambient light is bad.
Compare stargazing in a big city to out in the woods. Thicker atmosphere (smog) + more ambient light = fewer stars.
That's not a real photo.Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.
That's not a real photo.Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.
It would be impossible to get a photo this good in reality because the orientation of the sun to the outer edges of the sphere would be shaded into darkness.
Sure thing! Some from earlier this year! (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/earth-pictures-noaa-weather-goes-16-space-science/) NOAA updates the image of Earth posted here every single day from their GOES-16 satellite with a multitude of filters available. (https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/imagery-and-data) It might not be exactly as 3DGeek described, but I believe at least one of the images in that first one was taken from a position directly between the Sun and Earth, and thus the dark side is extremely minimal. Here's another, along with a direct link at the bottom to the DISCOVR satellite page with more information on that specific satellite. (https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image)It would be impossible to get a photo this good in reality because the orientation of the sun to the outer edges of the sphere would be shaded into darkness.
Then please show us that photo shaded into darkness with the supposed distance,
How about also taking some quick snaps from the many long distance spacecraft they supposedly send out.
How about also taking some quick snaps from the many long distance spacecraft they supposedly send out.
Here's a good one, not NASA, the Russian Elektro-L.That's a very beautiful image. There are lots of features of it that blue-marble doesn't have.
(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--FqggKhUS--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/18mgsfyhb0k43jpg.jpg)