Comments and questions about the
APOD on the main view screen.
-
owlice
- Guardian of the Codes
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Post
by owlice » Mon Dec 01, 2014 1:03 pm
What a gorgeous image this is!
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Dec 01, 2014 3:11 pm
owlice wrote:What a gorgeous image this is!
Yeah. But again (just as with this author a couple of weeks ago) no processing details at all.
For me, this image is worth no further consideration. It might as well be a bad artist's concept.
-
sapceshot
Post
by sapceshot » Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:25 pm
I ask this question to verify a sense of scale. Would a view like this would ever be visible from location on a planetary surface? The scope of this view (although labeled "detailed") is so deep that I imagine that even from a planet located in the spatial center of this view, a naked-eye observer would not "see" the gigantic rose in the upper left of the image.
Is there any instance where an observer would have a view like this without the use of instrumentation (i.e. crew member aboard the Enterprise)?
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:53 pm
sapceshot wrote:I ask this question to verify a sense of scale. Would a view like this would ever be visible from location on a planetary surface? The scope of this view (although labeled "detailed") is so deep that I imagine that even from a planet located in the spatial center of this view, a naked-eye observer would not "see" the gigantic rose in the upper left of the image.
Is there any instance where an observer would have a view like this without the use of instrumentation (i.e. crew member aboard the Enterprise)?
This would be largely invisible to the naked eye, regardless of location. You'd see the stars, and maybe some faint gray smudges in areas, similar to the Milky Way. That's it. All the detail, all the color require collecting and counting photons, something our eyes can't do.
-
LocalColor
- Science Officer
- Posts: 266
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:11 pm
- Location: Central Idaho, USA
Post
by LocalColor » Mon Dec 01, 2014 4:59 pm
Impressive set of photons. Made me wipe down my dusty monitor to see it better.
-
BMAONE23
- Commentator Model 1.23
- Posts: 4076
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:55 pm
- Location: California
Post
by BMAONE23 » Mon Dec 01, 2014 6:05 pm
There is a little Nessie in the lower right about 3:30ish just below the bright region
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:16 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:
For me, this image is worth no further consideration. It might as well be a bad artist's concept.
Maybe... Notwithstanding the 'artistry' of the photo-composition... The color-ization of the image brings out some details that (to my mind) would not otherwise be visible. Specifically, there re a couple of 'semi-circular' shadow type structures on the right side of the image that seem very peculiar. Not like some optical abortion, but more like a (multi-light-year) shadow cast from some obscured source, off of a back-straight and then the reflection is further obscured by some other intervening structure (dust?)... but circular.... I don't see how these details could be seen in a B&W image. Science is the collection of data and trying to make sense of it, you don't dismiss it in an arbitrary fashion because you don't like the color scheme. Still, a little more contract in the background may help...
-
spaceshot
Post
by spaceshot » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:23 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:
This would be largely invisible to the naked eye, regardless of location. You'd see the stars, and maybe some faint gray smudges in areas, similar to the Milky Way. That's it. All the detail, all the color require collecting and counting photons, something our eyes can't do.
Guess it would be better to watch it on the monitors than to "look out the portside window", to get the full effect(s).
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:23 pm
Guest wrote:Science is the collection of data and trying to make sense of it, you don't dismiss it in an arbitrary fashion because you don't like the color scheme.
My dismissal isn't arbitrary. It's because there is almost no information provided to put the image in context. No link to original data. No processing details (what's with those bizarre circles around the stars- artistic additions or something present in the source data?) No details about the relationship between colors in the image and source wavelengths. In short, a pretty picture which is almost useless scientifically, which I think is unfortunate for a site that specializes in scientific images.
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:48 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:Guest wrote:Science is the collection of data and trying to make sense of it, you don't dismiss it in an arbitrary fashion because you don't like the color scheme.
My dismissal isn't arbitrary. It's because there is almost no information provided to put the image in context. No link to original data. No processing details (what's with those bizarre circles around the stars- artistic additions or something present in the source data?) No details about the relationship between colors in the image and source wavelengths. In short, a pretty picture which is almost useless scientifically, which I think is unfortunate for a site that specializes in scientific images.
Well, I guess the artistic abortions can be dismissed much as the Vatican denied that the Earth was round (their context having been the content of the Bible and the Bible containing no supporting round-earth information), mostly because they chose not to recognize the possible validity of the data source. Oh, I guess they were wrong on that one, but no matter. But for a reasonable person, it should (at least) raise some questions, rather than your ire at the source. The question still remains... any opinions about the (semi) circular structures on the right side of the image?
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Mon Dec 01, 2014 8:59 pm
Guest wrote:Well, I guess the artistic abortions can be dismissed...
Please note that I simply said that for
me, the image is not worthy of additional review. I did not suggest others might not see value in it.
The question still remains... any opinions about the (semi) circular structures on the right side of the image?
Dust tends to be blown outwards from hot stars, forming bubble-like surfaces that can persist for some time, even if the star that caused them is no longer evident. We see such bubbles as circles, or segments of them. I would assume that's the source of the structures you're referring to.
-
bill@wwheaton.com
Post
by bill@wwheaton.com » Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:39 pm
I agree with Chris that more info (or at least links thereto) is needed. People with some (but not much) knowledge like me come here every day, and we need a little more meat and potatoes I think. I could look up the WISE wavelengths, but it would still be nice to give at least the wavelengths used in the image, and what each physically indicates (eg, any major element lines, dust thermal, continuum, etc).
It's harder to deal with the fact that the image has been enormously brightened from the gray the human eye would see, even close up, but it would be good to indicate that somehow. (Maybe an intensity enhancement factor in each waveband?)
Not to quibble too much, APOD is wonderful! Thanks to you all. But we should try to provide a more substantial bridge (from just the "Ooooh!" and "Ahhh" stuff) to encourage our brighter young minds to engage with the astrophysics. That is, plant the seeds we need, yes; and then fertilize them for healthy growth in the future.
-
questioneer
Post
by questioneer » Tue Dec 02, 2014 1:37 am
I have a question.
Would it be possible to transcribe the data in the infrared image to optical colors ?
The human brain is built to perceive depth and perspective in optical light. An optical image simply indicates that something is there but the spatial relationship is lacking. Even so, the infrared image of NGC 7822 clearly shows form and structure which is observed in similar astronomical objects.
A Hubble Space Telescope image of the object in optical light would certainly be a worthy project.
Another worthy project would have been an academic community sponsored laboratory pressure chamber that can imitate the atmospheres of planets - large enough to test weather dynamics including lightning interaction at various atmospheric pressures. The pressure chamber would have to be capable of withstanding a maximum pressure of 200 atmospheres and atmospheric conditions ranging from -20 C to 200 C involving various proportions of gases such as nitrogen and oxygen and neon and water vapor. The pressure chamber would enable study of atmospheric conditions in hypothesized exoplanets - namely, the planets detected by the Kepler mission. Super cooled and super heated atmospheres would be readily available for analysis. An atmosphere of oxygen and neon 10 times heavier than that of the Earth [10 atmospheres] at 20 C would be possible in what kind of terrestrial planet ?
-
Guest
Post
by Guest » Tue Dec 02, 2014 2:47 am
bill@wwheaton.com wrote:I agree with Chris that more info ... is needed. ...
It's harder to deal with the fact that the image has been enormously brightened from the gray the human eye would see, even close up, but it would be good to indicate that somehow. (Maybe an intensity enhancement factor in each waveband?)
Really??? What am I missing here? Science is about knowledge gained from verifiable sources. Simply put, 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck' then a reasonable person should check to see if it is a duck; instead of trying to dismiss the quality of the 'image of the duck'. Sorry if you guys don't like a little scrutiny, and that for you the derived information from data (if you know the difference between data and information) is so easily dismissed, but observation is a keystone of science. And that 'observation' includes looking at the data (including augmented graphically) to see what is actually there....
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:18 am
Guest wrote:bill@wwheaton.com wrote:I agree with Chris that more info ... is needed. ...
It's harder to deal with the fact that the image has been enormously brightened from the gray the human eye would see, even close up, but it would be good to indicate that somehow. (Maybe an intensity enhancement factor in each waveband?)
Really??? What am I missing here?
What you're missing is that if we don't know the conditions under which the data were taken, we are operating at a severe disadvantage in getting scientific value from it.
-
drerchem@gmail.com
Post
by drerchem@gmail.com » Tue Dec 02, 2014 4:47 pm
in the center right of the image there is an orange oval with a white star "just" in front of it in this view. Is or could that oval be the initial stage of a new solar system?
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:09 pm
drerchem@gmail.com wrote:in the center right of the image there is an orange oval with a white star "just" in front of it in this view. Is or could that oval be the initial stage of a new solar system?
At the scale of this image, we can't resolve anything close to a stellar system.
-
starsurfer
- Stellar Cartographer
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:25 pm
Post
by starsurfer » Tue Dec 02, 2014 6:38 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:What you're missing is that if we don't know the conditions under which the data were taken, we are operating at a severe disadvantage in getting scientific value from it.
Wasn't the data taken from space with the WISE telescope?
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Tue Dec 02, 2014 7:47 pm
starsurfer wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:What you're missing is that if we don't know the conditions under which the data were taken, we are operating at a severe disadvantage in getting scientific value from it.
Wasn't the data taken from space with the WISE telescope?
Yes, but that's about as useful as knowing that I used a Canon camera to take a picture of a mountain. Was the image taken early in the mission before the coolant ran out? Which IR channels are represented in the image, and how was the color assignment made?
-
geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
Post
by geckzilla » Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:36 am
After looking at the data available in the WISE archive, I think the data used here are from the 2010 3-band cryo release. The redder colors roughly represent W3 (12 microns) but overall I'd say the color for this image is rather meaningless because they've been fudged so that the stars and nebula appear more white. Compare the colors in this image with
this one and you'll understand that to WISE, the colors become quite foreign to human perception since it is all infrared. There are some blurry blobs which actually seem to be painted on that don't seem at all congruent with the data. The stars with circles have generated diffraction spikes. The image is also mirrored.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
-
starsurfer
- Stellar Cartographer
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:25 pm
Post
by starsurfer » Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:41 pm
Chris Peterson wrote:starsurfer wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:What you're missing is that if we don't know the conditions under which the data were taken, we are operating at a severe disadvantage in getting scientific value from it.
Wasn't the data taken from space with the WISE telescope?
Yes, but that's about as useful as knowing that I used a Canon camera to take a picture of a mountain. Was the image taken early in the mission before the coolant ran out? Which IR channels are represented in the image, and how was the color assignment made?
I have no idea about the infrared realm, I'm usually an optically minded person. I get your point after your insightful post, I always enjoy reading the words you write.
-
Francesco Antonucci
- Asternaut
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:33 am
Post
by Francesco Antonucci » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:39 am
Strange way to analyze an image based on W2,W3,W4 from WISE Archive, an imager extremely far from standard. Strange is talk about imaginary painted stars and areas, trying to find something .....
Talking about without having an idea of what three specialized frequences can do if used as RGB Chanel....... I dont't contest the discussion but the attempt to make my processing as a deception. It's my opinion that the discussion for APODs would fly higher....
Francesco Antonucci
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18611
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
Post
by Chris Peterson » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:43 am
Francesco Antonucci wrote:Strange way to analyze an image based on W2,W3,W4 from WISE Archive, an imager extremely far from standard. Strange is talk about imaginary painted stars and areas, trying to find something .....
Talking about without having an idea of what three specialized frequences can do if used as RGB Chanel....... I dont't contest the discussion but the attempt to make my processing as a deception. It's my opinion that the discussion for APODs would fly higher....
Francesco-
I certainly don't treat your image as a "deception". My only complaint is that you provide no processing details, which greatly limits what we can take away from this image.
-
Francesco Antonucci
- Asternaut
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:33 am
Post
by Francesco Antonucci » Fri Dec 05, 2014 10:04 am
From archive I chose always W2,W3,W4 freq. and process them as if they were S2,Ha,O3
W2.......BLU
W3.......GREEN
W4.......RED
BLU(W2) results too much invasive when compared with the other channel, do to a good result of composition ....BLU(W2) required a strong blur. Then the process go on as a very particular narrow-band inside Photoshop, nothing else.
Processing images of this kind has just a reason, emphasize nebular structures and not the respondence to the physic of subjects or perfection of the stars. Color is a stunning way in addition to natural view
Francesco