Starship Asterisk*

Case wrote:

[b][color=#0000FF]March 1969: Apollo 9[/color][/b]

---

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:
I guess you missed the dawning of the age of Aquarius...

• Who can really say for certain?

We all know that was March 1969.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space wrote:
<<The "fifth dimension" is often used to refer to unexplored or unknown aspects of the universe, and not necessarily to the mathematical concept of a 5-dimensional space. For example, the opening narration of The Twilight Zone begins: "There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man." In the fictional universe of DC Comics, the "fifth dimension" is said to be the place from which Mister Mxyzptlk, a Superman villain, comes. In 1966, The Byrds released an album titled fifth dimension, using the fifth dimension as a metaphor for unexplored and unknown aspects of the universe and oneself. In Hindu philosophy, the fifth dimension of love of the Divine is termed by the Gaudiya Vaisnavas as turyatita, the dimension of the soul's Soul. The original Doctor Who episode hints at the 5th dimension being key to the abilities of the TARDIS. Douglas Adams' book Mostly Harmless advances the idea of the fifth dimension being probability. In Family Guy, Mayor Adam West sends Alex Trebek, host of Jeopardy, to the fifth dimension by making him say his name backwards, commenting, "Only saying his name backwards can send him back to the fifth dimension where he belongs." This is a parody of Mister Mxyzptlk's weakness in the Superman comics.

neufer wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

Keith Millsap wrote:The only other astrological phenomenon close to that was the comet in the late 90's.

Hmmm. I guess you missed the dawning of the age of Aquarius...

Who can really say for certain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comets#In_popular_culture wrote:

<<The depiction of comets in popular culture is firmly rooted in the long Western tradition of seeing comets as harbingers of doom and as omens of world-altering change. Halley's Comet alone has caused a slew of sensationalist publications of all sorts at each of its reappearances. It was especially noted that the birth and death of some notable persons coincided with separate appearances of the comet, such as with writers Mark Twain (November 30, 1835 – April 21, 1910) who correctly speculated that he'd "go out with the comet" in 1910 and

Eudora Welty (April 13, 1909 – July 23, 2001)>>

Chris Peterson wrote:

Keith Millsap wrote:
The only other astrological phenomenon close to that was the comet in the late 90's.

Hmmm. I guess you missed the dawning of the age of Aquarius...

Who can really say for certain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius wrote:
<<According to different astrologers' calculations, approximated dates for entering the Age of Aquarius range from 1447 AD to 3597. The start date for the Aquarian age is somewhat contentious and there is little uniform agreement upon the date or process leading from the previous Piscean age to the Aquarian age (or between any two ages).

Based on the research by Nicholas Campion most published material on the subject state that the Age of Aquarius arrived in the 20th century (29 claims), with the 24th century in second place with twelve claimants. Eight researchers claim the Aquarian age will arrive in the 25th century while the 21st, 26th and 27th centuries have seven supporters for each century. Other centuries that have a number of supporters for the beginning of the Aquarian age include: 22nd and 23rd centuries (6 each); 19th century (5); and the 18th century (4).>>

Keith Millsap wrote:The only other astrological phenomenon close to that was the comet in the late 90's.

• Hoofbeats, horses.

owlice wrote:
Airglow.

• Owlice: I just want to say one word to you. Just one word.
  
  Neufer: Yes, ma'am.
  
  Owlice: Are you listening?
  
  Neufer: Yes, I am.
  
  Owlice: Airglow.
  
  Neufer: Exactly how do you mean?

Eric Bateman wrote:The photo's view is generally south, which rules out the aurora borealis, as someone else suggested.

When I saw the photo, I suspected the green glow was from Las Vegas. Ward Charcoal Kilns are far enough that the city's glow wouldn't be visible with the naked eye, but on a time exposure it might show up. The brightest light in Las Vegas is green, and shines out of the top of the Luxor Hotel.

chadair wrote: ....
As the scientist from Fairbanks indicated (and they know their aeronomy) it could very well be aurora. Since aurora reach up hundreds of KM into the atmosphere, you could very well see it near the horizon from modest latitudes like 35 degrees N in the US.

I don't think it is moon reflection. Moonlight is basically sunlight skewed a little to the blue in color. Both forward scattering and backscattering of moonlight should be yellowish in color.

I have seen some really weird stuff above distant lighting storms at night- flashes of green and blue, but I'm not familiar with the physics. But maybe...

Chad Moore
National Park Service

PS. Las Vegas light pollution is visible from 210 miles, but it tends to be sodium-colored (yellow) at that distance

Guest wrote:The charcoal kilns are near Ely, Nevada in the Ward Charcoal Ovens State Historic Park. http://parks.nv.gov/images/wcoparkmap.jpg The ovens are oriented with the doors facing southward, east is toward the left. The snow-capped mountain could be in the Great Basin National Park. The source of the sky glow is probably Las Vegas.

geckzilla wrote:Something occurred to me about this image that I did not originally consider. This was very likely submitted to APOD in the same format as would be submitted to a printer. It is common to adjust dark (read as: lots of ink) images to compensate for something known as dot gain. Result: It looks like crap on your computer screen but looks great once the printer outputs it. Could be what happened, here.

sOnIc wrote:Where's the 'belt of Venus' effect? (The low band at the horizon where the stars should be fading out as a result of looking through much more atmosphere).

Radarman wrote:About the image quality, the original image is five 21MP frames and the center star trails are sharp. It looks great on a 20x30" print.

sOnIc wrote:Hi Tom, I know the re-sampling problem you mean but this is not the issue and I cannot fault APODs jpeg processing, looking back through you will find lots of very sharp images.

The concept behind your image is excellent; its a fantastic scene, and obviously a superb location to photograph the night sky

The problem is one partially of post-processing, but also I suspect the original photography as well, please let me explain:

Look at this APOD in comparisson with your picture - the difference is quite remarkable.
Bobak's image looks wonderfully natural, its in the middle of the night and you can see that; though the milky way is awesomely bright and the foreground is clear and well visible.
Now if you look back at your image the difference is easily apparent, firstly your night sky looks over-saturated and overdone on the 'levels' type tools, the stars do also look blurry here and this might be a resizing problem but I'd have to see the original raw images to know, I suspect its actually an effect of the stars trailing. Secondly the foreground kilns leap out having the appearance of being overlaid; that is the reason I thought it was a 2 layer image at first, but it kind of is; you have pointed out that you masked the foreground to apply different treatments to it and this explains the unnatural effect which 'troubles' the mind, and again judging by the left most white patch you have used a LOT of extra brightening?

With 75 second shots you have significant trails, I'd either go for a long trail; or no trail. Also, even with a modern digital camera ISO 3200 sounds like a big compromise on quality?! I'd say you have over-exposed the original images? The brightest part of the Milky Way (Sag star cloud?) for example is actually blown out; clipped, if you look at Bobak's image it has plenty detail to that cloud. Myself I'd probably try 30 sec images at ISO 800 or something, and I bet Bobak's exposures were something like that? Then if you think the kilns are not showing up enough, perhaps silhouetted, remember that most foregrounds in images like this are illuminated by something; camp fires, flashlights, car headlights etc, sometimes natural or sometimes deliberately by the photographer, but ultimately not with Photoshop masking!

Would you not agree that you could do these exposures again and do it better? Or do you think you have the perfect image?
Whatever you think now; my bet is in a few years time you will look back on this image and realise that these points are indeed worthy of consideration.

I don't wish to present myself like a "know it all"! But I have some experience, and courage in my convictions...
Keep up the good work...
Chris

Some wonderful APODs working on the same technique: 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5

alter-ego wrote:

ronlevandoski wrote:Hello everyone.

I am a good friend of Tom McEwan. I have seen the original star lit kiln images he has hanging in his lab and I can tell you that the original image has tremendous impact, excellent technically and you just cannot take your eyes off of it from across a twenty foot room.

My wife is a judge for our camera club here in southern Nevada. She agrees that this is an outstanding image. The artifacts, blurriness, etc., are no at all present in the original 18X30 (approximately) prints that I examined.

I have had a chance to do photography with Tom and his imaging, artistry and processing abilities are absoulutely first rate.

I have taken similar images at the Race Track in Death Valley with a very thin moon illuminating the mountains to the east with a similar effect. Great Milky Way with mountains looking nearly like daylight. Very little Pshop to get the image presentable.

Get your digital camera and a tripod and get out there and get some images. This is a whole new area for photographers.

Congratulations. Great job Tom!

docron

Nice contribution!
It's too bad that the APOD presentation degraded the image, but, even so, not very many catch my eye like Tom's - I'd love to see the image as quality print. Despite APOD's imperfections, I'd like to point out what I like about it. Particularly I like diversity of the APODs. The pictures reflect the diversity of people, talent and equipment involved. From the high-end professional to a drink can pinhole camera. Literally anyone can contribute. Depending on creativity, simplicity, technical prowess, (it goes on), there is a place for new and different pictures. I personally enjoy pictures like Tom's because they bring an air of freshness to the experience. Like you say: "..get out there and get some images." I'll add to that: Submit them and you have a chance at the world seeing them.

"The APOD archive contains the largest collection of annotated astronomical images on the internet."

Radarman wrote:
Carl, I have also asked this of Chad, above. When I shot the photo, a thin moon still illuminated the distant mountain to the east (the white patch on the left in the photo) while the kilns were in a shadow from a nearby hioll to the west. The green mist area was most likely still moonlit. What is your opinion that it might be a reflection effect? Thanks, Tom McEwan

chadair wrote:
I have seen some really weird stuff above distant lighting storms at night- flashes of green and blue, but I'm not familiar with the physics. But maybe...

ronlevandoski wrote:Hello everyone.

I am a good friend of Tom McEwan. I have seen the original star lit kiln images he has hanging in his lab and I can tell you that the original image has tremendous impact, excellent technically and you just cannot take your eyes off of it from across a twenty foot room.

My wife is a judge for our camera club here in southern Nevada. She agrees that this is an outstanding image. The artifacts, blurriness, etc., are no at all present in the original 18X30 (approximately) prints that I examined.

I have had a chance to do photography with Tom and his imaging, artistry and processing abilities are absoulutely first rate.

I have taken similar images at the Race Track in Death Valley with a very thin moon illuminating the mountains to the east with a similar effect. Great Milky Way with mountains looking nearly like daylight. Very little Pshop to get the image presentable.

Get your digital camera and a tripod and get out there and get some images. This is a whole new area for photographers.

Congratulations. Great job Tom!

docron

alter-ego wrote:Having experienced and recorded these faint streamers, and being familiar with sky glow phenomena, do you have occasions where you aren't sure what type you're dealing with?

As with Tom's image, does a single captured event seem normal to you?

And one last question, how over the last 10 years, how many zenith auroras have you witnessed?

Chris Peterson wrote:

alter-ego wrote:I question aurora because I have never experienced an aurora (Seattle area) popping up on the southern horizon and no where else. I.e. aurora borealis activity "grows" from the north and migrates southward (every time in my experience). I keep track of the auroral oval (and the KP) and this trend is very strong. I can certainly believe seeing an aurora on the northern horizon, but not an isolated blip near the southern horizon.

I've photographed low-level auroras (too dim to be visible) all over the sky, including to the south. They tend to be diffuse streamers that can appear anywhere. So I have no reason to think this couldn't be a photographic aurora, even towards the south- especially given that a significant CME hit the Earth right around the time the picture was taken. Of course, skyglow is also a likely explanation, although atmospheric extinction makes such a strong band of skyglow so near the horizon unusual.

owlice wrote:Info on airglow: http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/airglow1.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/highsky/airglow2.htm
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz378.htm