Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by geckzilla » Mon Sep 21, 2015 8:08 pm

It's been a while since this APOD last ran. Strangely, I thought it happened much more recently than 2009, but anyway, I am resurrecting this post to link to an article Brian Koberlein posted recently. He shares a few interesting details about the challenges of discovering the cosmic latte.
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/07/23/cosmic-latte/

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by apodman » Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:26 pm

I was forever copying and pasting images into a program where I could use a tool to identify a color. In my travels this morning I ran into this utility some might find handy. I'm not a salesman for the company, and it's free anyway. It's a minuscule (11K) download for Windows 2000, XP, or Vista. When you run it, a little box appears on your screen that continuously shows the current mouse cursor pixel location and color in hex, RGB, HTML, CMYK and HSV values. So now I can leave a picture right where it is and identify the colors.

http://www.nattyware.com/pixie.php

Re: Now there's an interesting shot!

by apodman » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:24 am

Andy Wade wrote:If the average colour in the universe is beige, then why does it look mostly black?

rhetorical question... :D
Maybe it's a rhetorical question to you, but some people might not know the answer yet, so here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by Star*Hopper » Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:02 pm

I've long understood there is no such thing as an absolute, pure 'black' in the universe. Pure black is a theory.
I took that to mean as long as there's a single photon of light floating around, there can be no absolute black.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by bystander » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:58 pm

nz1m wrote:So I ask again - using the beige definition - are we defining the "color of the universe" or the "color of light" in the universe?
I guess you could say it is the average color of that 4.6% of normal matter in the universe that is radiating emr in those wavelengths we humans consider to be visible. If we could see in other spectrums, I suppose the color would be different. Even still, black is the absence of visible emr, and as such, we really can't see it. You can't see what's not there. Sometimes you can't even see what is there (dark matter / dark energy).
Wiki: Beige: Cosmic Latte wrote:Cosmic latte is a name assigned in 2002 to the average color of the universe (derived from a sampling of the electromagnetic radiation from 200,000 galaxies), given by a team of astronomers from Johns Hopkins University.
What color would it be to a Mantis Shrimp?

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by NoelC » Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:31 pm

Color is still among the most subjective of "sciences". Even today, with modern display technology and calibrators, what you see is not always what was intended.

I find it fascinating that the color of the universe closely resembles the color of office equipment... That people think of beige as boring... Does this say that our sensibilities are well-aligned with the universe; that we are most sensitive to what's new and different?

We are so very clearly children of this universe.

Here's a question that will bake your noodle: Was it the same color yesterday, or have all our perceptions been changed by the operators of the Grand Overall Dimensional simulation to perceive what we see today to suit some grand purpose? Some grand social scientific experiment, perhaps? Were Robert's and Jerry's hands "divinely" guided in putting up this image just to see how we would all react?

Will the experiment be over when we discov

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by nz1m » Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:51 pm

Perhaps it is our "definition" of the color light that is confusing. We describe it in simple terms like RGB, CMYK, Pantone, etc. One could ask if the absence of "color" is also "part of our universe"? You have to admit that we all see black. We see these black pixels (or absence of transmissive RBG) on this screen we're reading. It is this absence of light that is the MOST important here. So, logically, one can theorize that without black, there is indeed nothing - therefore no universe. So I ask again - using the beige definition - are we defining the "color of the universe" or the "color of light" in the universe?

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by bystander » Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:03 pm

nz1m wrote:Color? Additive color? Subtractive color? Transmissive color? Reflective color? Is black a color? In reflective coloring it is. In spectral color is it? I'd suspect a lot of analytics and math when in to determining the exact "color" of the electromatic spectral spectrum. But the brain, the TV, the computer, printing requires additive black, or mixing RGB or CMYK to generate black. Then there is spot black. There are shades of black, usually referred to as percentages of black and white mixed together. Or 100% tiny black dots spaced appropriately over a white background to give the allusion of gray.

So for the sake of this argument, and this beige calculation, let's call it the COLOR of LIGHT, not just color. What say you?
It's all the COLOR of LIGHT, or rather the way we see light. Without light, there would be no color. Even in subtractive (reflective) color (CMYK), the color is the color of light reflected. With color pigments, when you apply a Cyan tint to a surface, you are really applying a filter so that all the red light is absorbed and not reflected. In any case, black is the complete absence of color. In additive (transmissive) color (RGB), black is when no light is emitted. In subtractive, no light is reflected. In terms of RGB, black is 000000. There is only one shade of black, any thing else is just gray scale.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by geckzilla » Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:44 pm

You can call it "the color of light" and have it in RGB space at the same time since RGB is additive, or, light based. :)

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by apodman » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:25 am

nz1m wrote:What say you?
I live in the RGB world of the screen before me, so I am comfortable calling colors by their RGB values. But all the while I know the RGB color value in this APOD represents a frequency or distribution of frequencies along a spectrum, and that the conversion from frequency to RGB is messy, incomplete, and imperfect in a number of ways. Volumes have been written on the issues you have touched upon, but I'm happy with an approximation that fits the format of my RGB brain and leave it at that. You may call it what you like.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by nz1m » Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:27 am

Color? Additive color? Subtractive color? Transmissive color? Reflective color? Is black a color? In reflective coloring it is. In spectral color is it? I'd suspect a lot of analytics and math when in to determining the exact "color" of the electromatic spectral spectrum. But the brain, the TV, the computer, printing requires additive black, or mixing RGB or CMYK to generate black. Then there is spot black. There are shades of black, usually referred to as percentages of black and white mixed together. Or 100% tiny black dots spaced appropriately over a white background to give the allusion of gray.

So for the sake of this argument, and this beige calculation, let's call it the COLOR of LIGHT, not just color. What say you?

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by beckfield » Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:33 am

apodman wrote:
About this pale green color Wikipedia says, "The original and incorrect color thought to describe the universe was 'cosmic turquoise' due to an error in the way that the software used had calculated the shade." But the pale green color shown is 153R + 255G + 204B which anyone will recognize as the "web safe" color 99FFCC that I wouldn't believe without verification.
Ah, good. I had not seen the correction. Thanks.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by apodman » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:31 pm

beckfield wrote:I thought it was pale green.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/u ... 20110.html

Think about it, though: In this one image, you've seen every sight there is to see in the universe... :D
The pale green color shown in your link is 161R + 232G + 205B. This makes me wonder, since the brightness is arbitrary, why they didn't increase the brightness until one channel was at maximum (near 184R + 255G + 228B) - other than that it would tend to oppose the author's opinion of "a very disappointing shade of green, really."

About this pale green color Wikipedia says, "The original and incorrect color thought to describe the universe was 'cosmic turquoise' due to an error in the way that the software used had calculated the shade." But the pale green color shown is 153R + 255G + 204B which anyone will recognize as the "web safe" color 99FFCC that I wouldn't believe without verification.

The same Wikipedia article shows and specifies the cosmic latte color as 255R + 248G + 231B (FFF8E7) instead of 255R + 248G + 230B (FFF8E6) as shown in the APOD. The actual calculated color must fall somewhere in between.

---
neufer wrote:Dark Energy?
If so, lots of it.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by neufer » Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:22 pm

apodman wrote:APOD 2009 November 1
APOD 2002 July 2
There is no color change in the past 7+ years in these pictures, but they do show that the universe is expanding faster than previously believed; in 2002 the universe was 625 x 475 pixels, while by 2009 it had grown to 900 x 600 pixels.
Dark Energy :?:

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by apodman » Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:53 pm

APOD 2009 November 1
APOD 2002 July 2
APOD wrote:This color has become much less blue over the past 10 billion years, indicating that redder stars are becoming more prevalent.
There is no color change in the past 7+ years in these pictures, but they do show that the universe is expanding faster than previously believed; in 2002 the universe was 625 x 475 pixels, while by 2009 it had grown to 900 x 600 pixels.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by WatchTower » Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:16 pm

I think if anything I was very disappointed when I saw that APOD. I have come to expect far more from this site and I almost had to check the calendar to see if someone had slipped an April fools joke in on us.

I think that there are far better images that could have been used. What next? an image of a smudged lens? How about an image of bird droppings left on a lens.

Truly disappointing.

Maybe i just expected too much from the site.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by neufer » Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:18 pm

geckzilla wrote:Well, I probably would have named it after cheese.
The Universe is made of yellow cheese?

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by apodman » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:23 pm

nadia wrote:What gives cheese its color?

Milk is essentially white whether it comes from a cow, sheep or goat. So why are there so many colors of cheese? A couple of different factors come into play here, the primary ones being:

- Milk type. Goat cheese is always white because the beta carotene in the goat’s diet is broken down into Vitamin A before it enters the animal’s milk. Sheep and cows retain the beta carotene in their milk, giving their cheeses a yellowish color.

- Animal diet. Cheese color can vary depending on what the animals have been eating. Cows grazing on alpine flowers and fresh grass will have higher levels of beta carotene in their milk than cows who have been feeding on hay.

- Added colorant. Often a natural coloring annatto will be added to cow and sheep’s milk cheeses to create a more uniform and deeper colored cheese (most notable with bright orange or red cheddars). The brighter and more uniform color is used primarily to disguise seasonal fluctuations in the animal’s diet, as well as a marketing tool (some consider brighter to be better, or sharper tasting).
---

http://www.kalsec.com/products/cheesecolor_over.cfm

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by harry » Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:16 pm

G'day redbone

If you did notice a dot on the right bottom corner, then you had one toooo many drinks.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by geckzilla » Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:23 am

Well, I probably would have named it after cheese. But I guess many astronomers share an affinity for caffeinated beverages such as coffee given the late nights and early mornings.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by apodman » Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:10 pm

If your video is set to 24- or 32-bit color, your browser is newer than antique, and these two colors look the same to you, then your monitor brightness is way too high:

Image

---

Scrolling or moving the window usually lets me know whether a wild pixel is on the screen or in the image.

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by jzerm » Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:14 pm

Ah, this spookily reminds me of a song I used to play over and over as a teenager (and from time to time today) by the Dead Milkmen.

http://www.deadmilkmen.com/lyrics/beige_sunshine.html

Check out the lyrics...eerily apt, eh?

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by Mac » Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:00 pm

Has the average color of the universe been corrected for the increasingly red-shifted light spectrum that we observe from objects at greater distances (and therefore greater recessional velocities)?

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by Star*Hopper » Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:00 pm

Thanx 'by';
Couldn't remember the date, so posted the 'original' from my bookmarks.
Other stunning Cassini imagery available here:
http://ciclops.org/view_event/116/A_Rar ... _Spectacle
and an, at times, sort've poetic project overview by CICLOPS' Joe Mason, here:
http://ciclops.org/view.php?id=5844

Long Live Cassini!!!
~S*H

Re: Now there's an interesting shot! (2009 Nov 1)

by beckfield » Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:52 pm

I thought it was pale green.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/u ... 20110.html

Think about it, though: In this one image, you've seen every sight there is to see in the universe... :D

Top