APOD: Sunrise at Tycho (2011 Jul 06)

[quotient]

heya,
i was looking at this photo: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M ... small2.png
and i noticed an extra dark patch in the shadow in the lower leftish part-- it's kind of a wedge-- any idea what might cause that? you folks seem to know your stuff so i figured i'd ask--

[geckzilla]

heya,
i was looking at this photo: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M ... small2.png
and i noticed an extra dark patch in the shadow in the lower leftish part-- it's kind of a wedge-- any idea what might cause that? you folks seem to know your stuff so i figured i'd ask--

Usually caused either by slightly mismatched black levels when combining multiple image parts to form a larger panoramic scene, or perhaps some sloppy editing with the rectangular marquee to adjust a small section. Either way, the person who made the adjustments probably can't see the blacks on their computer screen very well. A lot of people can't see details like that, really. Either they have a poorly adjusted monitor, a cheap screen, or are working in bright ambient lighting conditions usually involving the Sun.

[rstevenson]

Here's a crop of the area, with greatly increased brightness and some contrast increase to make it obvious...

(I couldn't see it at first, on my carefully calibrated screen -- but I keep the brightness turned down a notch because my eyes are sensitive to glare.)

Rob

[Chris Peterson]

heya,
i was looking at this photo: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M ... small2.png
and i noticed an extra dark patch in the shadow in the lower leftish part-- it's kind of a wedge-- any idea what might cause that? you folks seem to know your stuff so i figured i'd ask--

Usually caused either by slightly mismatched black levels when combining multiple image parts to form a larger panoramic scene, or perhaps some sloppy editing with the rectangular marquee to adjust a small section. Either way, the person who made the adjustments probably can't see the blacks on their computer screen very well. A lot of people can't see details like that, really. Either they have a poorly adjusted monitor, a cheap screen, or are working in bright ambient lighting conditions usually involving the Sun.

This seems to be a single image, however. Stretch the contrast to see just the shadows, and it's apparent that some very peculiar processing has been applied, across the entire image. Maybe some sort of attempt at an HDR composite?

[quotient]

cool! thanks so much for the response and the high contrast version of the image--

[geckzilla]

heya,
i was looking at this photo: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/uploads/M ... small2.png
and i noticed an extra dark patch in the shadow in the lower leftish part-- it's kind of a wedge-- any idea what might cause that? you folks seem to know your stuff so i figured i'd ask--

Usually caused either by slightly mismatched black levels when combining multiple image parts to form a larger panoramic scene, or perhaps some sloppy editing with the rectangular marquee to adjust a small section. Either way, the person who made the adjustments probably can't see the blacks on their computer screen very well. A lot of people can't see details like that, really. Either they have a poorly adjusted monitor, a cheap screen, or are working in bright ambient lighting conditions usually involving the Sun.

This seems to be a single image, however. Stretch the contrast to see just the shadows, and it's apparent that some very peculiar processing has been applied, across the entire image. Maybe some sort of attempt at an HDR composite?

M162350671LE.jpg

I will give you this link, found via a simple search for the image ID conveniently provided by the image filename. Two separate image components.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/ ... 62350671LE

[Chris Peterson]

Usually caused either by slightly mismatched black levels when combining multiple image parts to form a larger panoramic scene, or perhaps some sloppy editing with the rectangular marquee to adjust a small section. Either way, the person who made the adjustments probably can't see the blacks on their computer screen very well. A lot of people can't see details like that, really. Either they have a poorly adjusted monitor, a cheap screen, or are working in bright ambient lighting conditions usually involving the Sun.

This seems to be a single image, however. Stretch the contrast to see just the shadows, and it's apparent that some very peculiar processing has been applied, across the entire image. Maybe some sort of attempt at an HDR composite?

M162350671LE.jpg

I will give you this link, found via a simple search for the image ID conveniently provided by the image filename. Two separate image components.
http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/ ... 62350671LE

Thanks. I was thinking about trying to track the source down, but then I didn't. I assume the data comes from the pair of narrow field cameras operating simultaneously. When I look very closely, I can see stitching artifacts across the sunlit regions, as well.

Still, though, there's some odd processing involved. The strange outlines around the shadow regions (present in both halves of the processed image) are not there in the source data.

[geckzilla]

Still, though, there's some odd processing involved. The strange outlines around the shadow regions (present in both halves of the processed image) are not there in the source data.

Probably high pass or unsharp mask filters... or perhaps local adaptation—my favorite—a version of which seems to be tucked away into Photoshop's camera raw filter and labeled as "clarity" made to work on 8-bit and 16-bit images. Most people stick with various unsharp masks and high pass filters, though.

[Chris Peterson]

Still, though, there's some odd processing involved. The strange outlines around the shadow regions (present in both halves of the processed image) are not there in the source data.

Probably high pass or unsharp mask filters... or perhaps local adaptation—my favorite—a version of which seems to be tucked away into Photoshop's camera raw filter and labeled as "clarity" made to work on 8-bit and 16-bit images. Most people stick with various unsharp masks and high pass filters, though.

I use the clarity slider in Photoshop Raw quite often... but the radius filter around the shadows seems very large for that (you can open non-raw images in PS Raw). In any case we're seeing some sort of processing artifact. Not a very big deal for normal viewing, though.

[geckzilla]

I use the clarity slider in Photoshop Raw quite often... but the radius filter around the shadows seems very large for that (you can open non-raw images in PS Raw). In any case we're seeing some sort of processing artifact. Not a very big deal for normal viewing, though.

It's in the filters list these days so one doesn't have to go through the old rigmarole to get other-than-raw files open with it now.

[Chris Peterson]

I use the clarity slider in Photoshop Raw quite often... but the radius filter around the shadows seems very large for that (you can open non-raw images in PS Raw). In any case we're seeing some sort of processing artifact. Not a very big deal for normal viewing, though.

It's in the filters list these days so one doesn't have to go through the old rigmarole to get other-than-raw files open with it now.

I stopped upgrading after CS6. I don't do subscription software.

[geckzilla]

I stopped upgrading after CS6. I don't do subscription software.

Your loss, honestly. I resisted for a long while, but I like updates.

[neufer]

I use the clarity slider in Photoshop Raw quite often... but the radius filter around the shadows seems very large for that (you can open non-raw images in PS Raw). In any case we're seeing some sort of processing artifact. Not a very big deal for normal viewing, though.

It's in the filters list these days so one doesn't have to go through the old rigmarole to get other-than-raw files open with it now.

rigmarole (n.) 1736, "a long, rambling discourse," apparently from an altered, Kentish colloquial survival of ragman roll "long list or catalogue" (1520s), in Middle English a long roll of verses descriptive of personal characters, used in a medieval game of chance called Rageman, perhaps from Anglo-French Ragemon le bon "Ragemon the good," which was the heading on one set of the verses, referring to a character by that name. Sense transferred to "foolish activity or commotion" by 1939.

[Chris Peterson]

I stopped upgrading after CS6. I don't do subscription software.

Your loss, honestly. I resisted for a long while, but I like updates.

I've used CC. It's got a handful of mildly useful new features, but nothing that I really need. I could still be using CS3 or CS4 with very little impact on my workflow. At some point, updates really become more about how to market a mature product than anything else.

I just like to buy what I need and own it. Software. Music. Books. Video. The whole subscription model the world is trying to go with just doesn't do it for me.

[geckzilla]

Yeah, I get that. It's unnerving to have to depend upon a business staying in business into perpetuity and a reliable internet connection to use stuff. On the other hand, I've also found it oddly liberating. I threw my old hard copies in the trash and haven't touched a disc of any sort in years, now. Saves a lot of physical space and clutter. They're all just utilities like electricity, now. I am sure you have your own backup generators and water supply too, though. You'll be thoroughly entertained during any apocalypse, at least until the goats run out.

[rstevenson]

I too threw away my old disks, but not because I now subscribe to software. I just buy it online and download it, and that's where the updates come from too. No way do I want to pay monthly for something as vital as software, since the most likely apocalypse I'll ever face is becoming unable to pay the monthly bills.

Rob (who keeps good backups)

[Chris Peterson]

Yeah, I get that. It's unnerving to have to depend upon a business staying in business into perpetuity and a reliable internet connection to use stuff. On the other hand, I've also found it oddly liberating. I threw my old hard copies in the trash and haven't touched a disc of any sort in years, now. Saves a lot of physical space and clutter. They're all just utilities like electricity, now. I am sure you have your own backup generators and water supply too, though. You'll be thoroughly entertained during any apocalypse, at least until the goats run out.

Yeah. Solar power and our own well. Goats for milk and meat and neighbors who hunt and grow veggies. We're all set. Except for the guns. If the marauders come, we'll be the first to go down. But at least I'll be photoshopping to the end!

[geckzilla]

I too threw away my old disks, but not because I now subscribe to software. I just buy it online and download it, and that's where the updates come from too. No way do I want to pay monthly for something as vital as software, since the most likely apocalypse I'll ever face is becoming unable to pay the monthly bills.

Rob (who keeps good backups)

Do you only purchase DRM-free software? Most online purchases require at least monthly check-ins whether you are subscribed or not. If the business goes down, and their servers disappear, and they didn't kindly offer an update for you to turn off the DRM before they went down, then your copy isn't going to work any longer without some kind of hack. It's subscription-like, even if you aren't paying monthly. I'm not even sure Chris's CS6 will function after a month without a DRM check. After considering all of this, and doing the math to figure out I was paying about the same in the end, I gave in.

[Chris Peterson]

I too threw away my old disks, but not because I now subscribe to software. I just buy it online and download it, and that's where the updates come from too. No way do I want to pay monthly for something as vital as software, since the most likely apocalypse I'll ever face is becoming unable to pay the monthly bills.

Rob (who keeps good backups)

Do you only purchase DRM-free software? Most online purchases require at least monthly check-ins whether you are subscribed or not. If the business goes down, and their servers disappear, and they didn't kindly offer an update for you to turn off the DRM before they went down, then your copy isn't going to work any longer without some kind of hack. It's subscription-like, even if you aren't paying monthly. I'm not even sure Chris's CS6 will function after a month without a DRM check. After considering all of this, and doing the math to figure out I was paying about the same in the end, I gave in.

My firewall prevents CS6 from calling home. No sign of it failing. AFAIK I have no software that is dependent upon calling home, with just a few exceptions where I've put some sort of hack in place to disable that. Some things (like Windows 10) can't really be cut off completely, but they don't ever fail because of connectivity or licensing issues.

[rstevenson]

I've never heard of software checking in as you describe geck. Maybe this is not something software vendors can do on MacOS. I have some major software that doesn't get used every month, and nothing has failed yet, not for that reason at least. I've got CS3 PS which I use maybe once or twice a year, for example. (I do most of my graphics work in Lemke Software's GraphicConverter.) I haven't used Excel in ages and use Word only a few times a year -- both from Office 2011. (In case anyone is wondering, Word 2011 runs under the very latest MacOS, High Sierra, while Excel doesn't quite finish starting up. If it ever matters, I'll upgrade.)
Edit: Excel did finally start up. Guess it wanted me to know it doesn't like being ignored.

Rob

[Chris Peterson]

I've never heard of software checking in as you describe geck. Maybe this is not something software vendors can do on MacOS.

The subscription system is used with Macs, too. Go with Photoshop CC or with Office 365, and the software will only work as long as you maintain your subscription.

I haven't used Excel in ages and use Word only a few times a year -- both from Office 2011. (In case anyone is wondering, Word 2011 runs under the very latest MacOS, High Sierra, while Excel doesn't quite finish starting up. If it ever matters, I'll upgrade.)

If you need it at some point, look at LibreOffice. It's free and gives you most of the same features as Excel (and is file compatible). A good option, especially for the occasional user. (It's a full office suite, an alternative to all the MS Office apps.)

[geckzilla]

It's not that you need to use it once a month, it's that, when you start it up, it has to have an active internet connection to check in. So say you don't have a connection for whatever reason, and the last it checked was >30 days ago, it might tell you that registration failed, or something similar to that. I've been online with so few interruptions for the last couple decades of my life that it's not something I put much thought into. If I ever decide to go off-grid though, I know things will get dicey. A lot of EULAs state that you do not own any of your software. You simply have a license to run it as long as they say it's ok.

[rstevenson]

I've never heard of software checking in as you describe geck. Maybe this is not something software vendors can do on MacOS.

The subscription system is used with Macs, too. Go with Photoshop CC or with Office 365, and the software will only work as long as you maintain your subscription.

Geck seemed to me to be referring to my online purchases of software in the download and install format, not in the subscription format -- which I would never, um, subscribe to. She seemed to be suggesting that such software would also try to check in once in a while. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Rob

[rstevenson]

It's not that you need to use it once a month, it's that, when you start it up, it has to have an active internet connection to check in. ...

Ah, I see. Like you, I haven't computed without an internet connection for many years, so I wouldn't have noticed.

Rob