[HN Gopher] Two astrophotographers teamed up to capture a stella...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Two astrophotographers teamed up to capture a stellar image of the
       moon
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 103 points
       Date   : 2022-08-22 12:43 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
        
       | Synaesthesia wrote:
       | I found another really good moon photo here:
       | 
       | https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/wu9dm3/100_megapixel...
        
       | pmayrgundter wrote:
       | Got me interested to find the Apollo landing site.
       | 
       | Someone circled it here https://i.imgur.com/DDy794h.png and then
       | I zoomed around to find it in Google Moon:
       | 
       | https://www.google.com/maps/space/moon/@0.6714676,23.4736245...
       | 
       | Amazing
        
       | 0xcafecafe wrote:
       | The article certainly lacks interesting details. Why did it take
       | 9 months to edit the image? What nuances were involved?
       | 
       | Also would it have been better to capture the full moon?
        
         | MisterTea wrote:
         | Right in the beginning: "Two astrophotographers have teamed up
         | to produce an out-of-this-world photo of the moon, capturing
         | over 200,000 shots to create a single image."
         | 
         | I'm no astrophotgrapher but I'd imagine 200,000 shots takes a
         | long time to go through.
        
         | CharlesW wrote:
         | There's more detail to be found in the Reddit thread linked to
         | in TFA.
         | 
         | Here's an example link from that post with a few more details
         | on the setup and process:
         | https://cosmicbackground.io/blogs/learn-about-how-these-are-...
         | 
         | Here's a guide for astrophotography beginners:
         | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAstrophotography/comments/e609qd...
         | 
         | This article compiles a list of some popular software used for
         | astrophotography:
         | https://www.highpointscientific.com/astronomy-hub/post/astro...
        
       | lupire wrote:
       | > stellar image of the moon
       | 
       | When do we get a lunar image of the sun?
        
         | rimliu wrote:
         | Do images taken during solar eclipses count?
        
         | dwighttk wrote:
         | To be fair it is almost entirely stellar light
        
       | sexangel wrote:
       | Andrew McCarthy is great, glad he's been working on bigger &
       | bigger projects lately
        
       | stavros wrote:
       | > "Andrew aimed purely for the detail side whereas I aimed purely
       | for the color side," Matherne said. "That allowed us to get the
       | full moon."
       | 
       | Looks like it was merely waxing.
        
         | SamBam wrote:
         | A wax gibbon, even.
        
           | huhtenberg wrote:
           | Waxing Gibbous
           | 
           | https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/moon-phases/en/
        
       | dukeofdoom wrote:
       | So are these colors accurate? What mineral causes the redish
       | brown color.
        
         | amflare wrote:
         | According to one of the photographers[0], yes.
         | 
         | > The color in this image is real, but presented with increased
         | saturation so it is easily visible to our eyes. The reddish
         | tones demonstrate areas rich in iron and feldspar, while the
         | bluish areas are spots where the regolith is rich in titanium.
         | Oxidization from influence from Earth's atmosphere makes the
         | colors appear like they do.
         | 
         | [0]:
         | https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/wtl9fj/comment/il4q5...
        
           | JohnJamesRambo wrote:
           | Is the color real if it has wildly increased saturation?
           | 
           | https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyHDR/comments/wo453p/picture_o.
           | ..
           | 
           | As an aside, does anyone have a link to what equipment they
           | used for the detail photos?
        
             | CharlesW wrote:
             | > _Is the color real if it has wildly increased
             | saturation?_
             | 
             | It might be more accurate to say that the color is not
             | typically that noticeable by the human eye. It's "real" in
             | the sense that it exists even though we can't perceive it
             | without help, like infrared light, or the sound made by
             | black holes.
        
               | bb88 wrote:
               | This is particularly true if you're looking at pictures
               | of nebulas. The hydrogen alpha light is in the infrared
               | and for humans is color mapped to red.
               | 
               | Cameras are sold with the capability of capturing the
               | hydrogen alpha light. Like the Nikon 810A which is a
               | Nikon 810 but with the IR filter removed.
        
             | platz wrote:
             | Agree the saturation is pushed to the point of absurdity in
             | the moon image. Doesn't look like a 'Real' Photo anymore
             | and thus looses it's impact/gravity.
        
           | dukeofdoom wrote:
           | So a little like Hawaiian volcanic red dirt soils. At least
           | one of the moon landing sites would have been in the red
           | dirt. Would be interesting if the moon landing footage from
           | there also matches up with a color grade of a redish tone.
           | All the photos I've seen the ground is supper grey.
        
             | yborg wrote:
             | Anywhere on the near side would be exposed to the Earth's
             | extended atmosphere, so this oxidation would be everywhere.
             | Out of all the Apollo landing sites, ironically Apollo 11
             | would be the only one in an area not heavily reddish in
             | this photo. So, no, this coloration would not be
             | perceptible to the human eye.
        
         | pengaru wrote:
         | They're obviously not accurate, that's post-processing
         | highlighting what are subtle variations.
         | 
         | It's presumably being done to make the images more interesting
         | to look at.
        
         | kloch wrote:
         | The colors are real but exaggerated during image processing by
         | pushing color saturation much higher than normal.
         | 
         | I took a pic of the moon in 2018 and noticed the colors when
         | playing around in Lightroom. At first I thought it was
         | artifacts from my camera but after some research realized it
         | was due to real Iron and Titanium oxides:
         | 
         | https://kevinloch.com/pics/color-supermoon-2018-01-31-0658z....
         | 
         | That's just a single hand-held shot with a Canon 5D Mark IV and
         | 400mm lens, so it doesn't take much.
         | 
         | I don't know when this "mineral moon" style became popular but
         | it's all the rage right now.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | hengheng wrote:
       | Parts of that mosaic are awfully soft, did they not pre-select
       | images based on sharpness?
        
         | macintux wrote:
         | You can always ask them. My guess is that after 9 months and
         | 200k images they went with what they had.
         | 
         | https://old.reddit.com/r/space/comments/wtl9fj/two_years_ago...
        
         | mixmastamyk wrote:
         | There seems to be a blur or glow applied to the bright edge, as
         | if there is an atmosphere. It's not in the input photos. Looks
         | distracting to me.
        
           | jacquesm wrote:
           | https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LADEE/news/lunar-
           | atmosphe...
        
         | jetrink wrote:
         | They did themselves a bit of a disservice uploading the full-
         | resolution version. Enlarged to 3m x 3m and viewed from 20cm
         | away, which is approximately the situation when you view this
         | one at 100% on a computer screen, you can see every
         | imperfection. I think it looks great when viewed at normal
         | size.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-24 23:02 UTC)