[HN Gopher] 140 Megapixel Picture of the Sun
___________________________________________________________________
140 Megapixel Picture of the Sun
Author : skilled
Score : 151 points
Date : 2023-03-26 11:31 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I wonder why we can't _model_ the sun. It would seem to be
| simpler than say modeling the weather on Earth.
| thfuran wrote:
| Why would it be simple?
| macintux wrote:
| No butterflies.
| brilee wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics
|
| Sure we do. It is different and no simpler than modeling
| weather. Weather at least has the advantage of a 3D system
| decomposing into a 2D sphere X 1D height dimension via a thin
| shell approximation, but also has the complexity of humidity.
| The Sun is intrinsically a 3D system, but has electromagnetic
| complications.
| dtgriscom wrote:
| > the complexity of humidity
|
| Without the nonlinearity of water vapor<=>liquid<=>ice, Earth
| weather predictions would be pretty darn easy.
|
| IANA astrophysicist, but I'm guessing the same would be true
| about the Sun without magnetic fields.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| 1. The sun has a (weak) magnetic field that affects how its gas
| moves, which we don't fully understand. 2. There is a Coriolis
| force all the way down to the center of the sun, which makes
| the gas move in weird ways. 3. As a sphere of fluid, the sun
| supports vibrational modes that we are only just beginning to
| understand. (See work by e.g., Conny Aerts) 4. We can't really
| see into the sun's interior, although understanding the
| vibrational modes will help.
| elteto wrote:
| What does "model" even mean here?
| tintedfireglass wrote:
| make the sun into a set of mathematical equations, like the
| way gargantuan was modeled in interstellar
| https://github.com/sirxemic/Interstellar or the way
| schrodinger wave equations model an atom. [libretexts
| schrodinger equation] https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Uni
| versity_of_California...
| elteto wrote:
| My question still stands? _What_ aspect are you modeling
| exactly? The Sun as a celestial body? The fluid dynamics of
| the surface? The nuclear process going on in the core?
|
| You can't just entirely "model" something as complex as a
| star anymore than you can do large scale simulations of the
| universe at the atomic level. If we could we would be much
| more ahead as a civilization.
| lunfard000 wrote:
| Anecdotally, Argentina tried it[0]. The project was sold to
| Peron as way to create artificial suns.
|
| 0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huemul_Project
| DoItToMe81 wrote:
| 140 megapixel _computer interpretation_ of the sun. Much lamer.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Is this a "raw" photo or has a bunch of computional photography /
| AI been applied?
| skilled wrote:
| Here is what the author said:
|
| > This image is a fusion from the minds of two
| astrophotographers, Myself and u/thevastreaches . The combined
| data from over 90,000 individual images captured with a
| modified telescope last Friday was jointly processed to reveal
| the layers of intricate details within the solar chromosphere.
| A geometrically altered image of the 2017 eclipse as an
| artistic element in this composition to display an otherwise
| invisible structure. Great care was taken to align the two
| atmospheric layers in a scientifically plausible way using
| NASA's SOHO data as a reference.
|
| > If you're curious how I take these sorts of images, I have a
| write-up on my website. Check it out here:
| https://cosmicbackground.io/blogs/learn-about-how-these-are-...
| antisthenes wrote:
| There's no such thing as a "raw" photo.
|
| Even your eyes process certain wavelengths and omit a lot of
| the spectrum that something like the Sun emits.
| hjkl0 wrote:
| It's pretty clear what is meant by "raw photo" here. This is
| not a raw photo, and probably not really what we'd call a
| "photo" at all, more like a visualization.
| yokoprime wrote:
| Captured radiant energy was involved in the process, so I
| think it can be considered a photo. But it's not raw data
| straight out of the camera. That being said, a composite
| timelapse of the night sky isn't a raw photograph either. I
| don't think you find a lot of "raw photos" in Astro
| photography
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| Photographers think of "RAW" as the unmodified original data
| from the image sensor. It is raw in the sense that no further
| processing has been applied yet to make a human viewable
| image (or whatever you want to do with it). It would need to
| be demosaic'd, adjusted for lens distortion, have dynamic
| range and gamma adjustments, and other things to make a nice
| image for humans to view.
| danieleggert wrote:
| The "raw" data in so-called "raw" image formats in not
| unprocessed data from the image sensor. The camera will
| already have done processing on the data, it's just not
| fully processed.
|
| If it was indeed raw data off the sensor, you'd see all
| kinds of "bad" things such as dead pixels. And camera
| vendors (obviously?) don't want you to see that.
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _The "raw" data in so-called "raw" image formats in not
| unprocessed data from the image sensor._
|
| RAW images _are_ completely un-demosaiced and otherwise
| unprocessed sensor data, dead or stuck pixels and all. It
| 's the job of the RAW converter (whether performed in-
| camera or post-capture) to hide those in the conversion
| to a standard color space.
|
| Manufacturers are now blurring the meaning of RAW to be
| closer to what you imagine. For example, Apple's ProRAW
| images are demosaiced and heavily processed.
| antisthenes wrote:
| > Photographers think of "RAW" as the unmodified original
| data from the image sensor. It is raw in the sense that no
| further processing has been applied yet to make a human
| viewable image (or whatever you want to do with it). It
| would need to be demosaic'd, adjusted for lens distortion,
| have dynamic range and gamma adjustments, and other things
| to make a nice image for humans to view.
|
| Yes, but even besides that, image sensors only capture a
| part of the spectrum.
|
| Is a combination image from 3 different spectrums (let's
| say UV/X-Ray/Visible) raw or no? Is it less or more raw
| than individual images?
|
| That's what my comment was about.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Computational:
|
| > This image is a fusion from the minds of two
| astrophotographers, Myself and u/thevastreaches. The combined
| data from over 90,000 individual images captured with a
| modified telescope last Friday was jointly processed to reveal
| the layers of intricate details within the solar chromosphere.
| A geometrically altered image of the 2017 eclipse as an
| artistic element in this composition to display an otherwise
| invisible structure. Great care was taken to align the two
| atmospheric layers in a scientifically plausible way using
| NASA's SOHO data as a reference. The final image is the most
| detailed and dynamic full image of our star either of us have
| ever created. A blend of science and art, this image is a one-
| of-a kind astrophoto, as the ever-changing sun will never quite
| look like this again.
| dmead wrote:
| The photographer here is one of the biggest users of topaz
| denoise/sharpening. It's an ai model that is really great at
| cleaning up back yard astrophotography.
|
| It's considered cheating.
| jug wrote:
| Who are they cheating? If they are upfront about the process,
| hardly the observer, or..?
| yokoprime wrote:
| Why is it considered cheating? What is it cheating against?
| macinjosh wrote:
| Or the guy is just having fun enjoying his hobby.
| florbo wrote:
| The photographer is very upfront about the process, too.
| rvnx wrote:
| At some point the photo cameras or mobile phones are going to
| automatically include such denoising features (since it's an
| artefact of the photo capture, not a visible element) and
| then people would still call it "#nofilter"
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Erm, that point has come since quite a while.
|
| Recent controversy over fake sony moonshots:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35107601
| unwind wrote:
| *Samsung, though. Not Sony.
| rvnx wrote:
| True, this was a fascinating one :)
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Great image. and, SpaceX should totally offer cremations where
| you can get shot into the sun.
| kwonkicker wrote:
| Food your repeat that please?!
| cwillu wrote:
| "A geometrically altered image of the 2017 eclipse as an artistic
| element in this composition to display an otherwise invisible
| structure. Great care was taken to align the two atmospheric
| layers in a scientifically plausible way using NASA's SOHO data
| as a reference.
|
| The final image is the most detailed and dynamic full image of
| our star either of us have ever created. A blend of science and
| art, this image is a one-of-a kind astrophoto, as the ever-
| changing sun will never quite look like this again."
| davidw wrote:
| Make sure you view it with appropriate shielding for your eyes!
| mncharity wrote:
| True color images of the Sun are rare, so just for context, the
| Sun looks roughly like [1] (the original upload of the Wikipedia
| "Sun"'s current header image, before it was degraded[2] by its
| author and others).
|
| Does anyone have a favorite _true color_ image of the Sun? Real
| or synthetic? I wish I knew of even one created with good
| research-paper-level care. Searching now, I sank in the usual
| swamp of artistic bogosity. Perhaps one could take a common
| visible-band image for grayscale detail, and colorize it with
| computed limb darkening tint? (Computed tinting like this[3], but
| there are python astro libraries now.)
|
| [1]
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/83/...
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sun_in_white_light.jp...
| used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun [3]
| https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/16622/need-help-si...
| kelsolaar wrote:
| "True Colour" does not really mean much here because colour is
| a characteristic of visual perception, i.e., it a human
| observer construct. With that in mind, and disregarding the
| fact that it is impossible to directly observe, the colour of
| the Sun would be white because it is the dominant irradiance
| source around us and an observer would be logically be
| chromatically adapted to it. It is the reason why the standard
| illuminant in colour science is D65, i.e. a average spectrum of
| the sun going through our atmosphere.
| [deleted]
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| kid64 wrote:
| Wait so did he make the full-resolution, uncropped image
| available?
| skilled wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is full-resolution, but the uncropped
| image was posted on his Twitter account:
|
| https://twitter.com/AJamesMcCarthy/status/163864845900280627...
| AkshatJ27 wrote:
| Uncropped:
| https://nitter.net/AJamesMcCarthy/status/1638648459002806272
|
| The full resolution image is being sold on author's website
| here: https://cosmicbackground.io/products/fusion-of-helios
|
| The print ready 139 megapixel version costs 50$
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-26 23:02 UTC)