APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 4911
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by APOD Robot » Fri Jul 08, 2022 4:05 am

Image Roots on a Rotating Planet

Explanation: With roots on a rotating planet, an old tree is centered in this sequence of 137 exposures each 20 seconds long, recorded one night from northern Sicily. Digital camera and fisheye lens were fixed to a tripod to capture the dramatic timelapse, so the stars trailed through the region's dark sky. Of course that makes it easy to spot the planet's north celestial pole. The extension of Earth's axis of rotation into space is toward the upper left, at the center of the concentric star trail arcs. The Milky Way is there too. The plane of our galaxy stretches across the wide field of view from north to east (left to right) creating a broader luminous band of diffuse starlight.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 7895
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by orin stepanek » Fri Jul 08, 2022 11:46 am

MilkWayTree.jpg
The roots, trunk, and a few scraggly branches seem to be all there
is left of this tree! Looks like it tangled wit a twister! :evil:
StarTreels.jpg
The star trails make it a nice centerpiece though! 8-)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Orin

Smile today; tomorrow's another day!

Bellerophon
Ensign
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:00 pm

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by Bellerophon » Fri Jul 08, 2022 2:24 pm

Old tree? This tree is dead!

It has kicked the bucket, shuffled off its mortal coil, and joined the choir invisible.
It is an ex-tree.

raschumacher

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by raschumacher » Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:19 pm

Does anyone else get an impression that the star field rotates slightly between the still image and the trailed image? I get a strong impression of rotation near the pole, but no such impression far from the pole. My GF gets no such impression in any part of the image. Weird.

User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 12495
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by Ann » Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:36 pm

Nice, Marcella. I like the fact that we get one "non-trail" image where we can see the stars clearly, and then another one with a dizzying amount of trails.

Can't resist posting two Orion trail images:

Orion rising behind plough Alan Dyer.png
Orion rising behind plough. Image: Alan Dyer.
Orions Belt and Orion Nebula trails Steve Baker.png
Orion's Belt and the Orion Nebula trails. Image: Seve Baker.


I love these two Orion trail images. As for Steve Baker's image, the most obvious triple parallel lines (above center, to the right) are Orion's Belt, of course. The slightly thicker, slightly violet-blue line is the Orion Nebula.

Ann
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by Ann on Sat Jul 09, 2022 4:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Color Commentator

Marcella Giulia Pace

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by Marcella Giulia Pace » Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:32 pm

very beautiful, thank you for showing them

Marcella Giulia Pace

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by Marcella Giulia Pace » Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:33 pm

Ann wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 7:36 pm Nice, Marcella. I like the fact that we get one "non-trail2 image where we can see the stars clearly, and then another one with a dizzying amount of trails.

Can't resist posting two Orion trail images:

Orion rising behind plough Alan Dyer.png
Orion rising behind plough. Image: Alan Dyer.
Orions Belt and Orion Nebula trails Steve Baker.pngOrion's Belt and the Orion Nebula trails. Image: Seve Baker.


I love these two Orion trail images. As for Steve Baker's image, the most obvious triple parallel lines (above center, to the right) are Orion's Belt, of course. The slightly thicker, slightly violet-blue line is the Orion Nebula.

Ann

Very beautiful. Thanks for showing them
Marcella

User avatar
johnnydeep
Captain
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by johnnydeep » Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:43 pm

raschumacher wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:19 pm Does anyone else get an impression that the star field rotates slightly between the still image and the trailed image? I get a strong impression of rotation near the pole, but no such impression far from the pole. My GF gets no such impression in any part of the image. Weird.
Yes, presumably because the still image was taken slightly before the 20 second exposures started.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."

User avatar
johnnydeep
Captain
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by johnnydeep » Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:45 pm

Alright, what's the reason for taking 137 20 second exposures as opposed to just one 137 * 20 = 2740 second exposure? The result would look much the same, no?
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 17163
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:10 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:45 pm Alright, what's the reason for taking 137 20 second exposures as opposed to just one 137 * 20 = 2740 second exposure? The result would look much the same, no?
The sensor doesn't just respond to light, but also to heat. Each pixel is like a little bucket that holds electrons. In a perfect world, each electron would be produced by a single photon hitting that bucket. But in the real world, the silicon spontaneously produces electrons at a steady rate due to the fact that it isn't at absolute zero. (Cameras designed for long exposure astronomical imaging use cooled sensors; operating them at -30°C or colder isn't uncommon; professional setups operate even colder.) And each of those buckets can only hold so many electrons before it is full (saturated). Non-astronomical cameras tend to have problems with excessive dark current (and the noise that comes with it) in exposures longer than just a few minutes.

From a practical standpoint, astronomical images usually benefit from being stacked because transient artifacts caused by planes, satellites, cosmic ray hits, and other such things are not consistent across frames, and are trivially removed in the stacking process. In a single exposure, there's no simple way to determine what is image and what is artifact.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Captain
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by johnnydeep » Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:18 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:10 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:45 pm Alright, what's the reason for taking 137 20 second exposures as opposed to just one 137 * 20 = 2740 second exposure? The result would look much the same, no?
The sensor doesn't just respond to light, but also to heat. Each pixel is like a little bucket that holds electrons. In a perfect world, each electron would be produced by a single photon hitting that bucket. But in the real world, the silicon spontaneously produces electrons at a steady rate due to the fact that it isn't at absolute zero. (Cameras designed for long exposure astronomical imaging use cooled sensors; operating them at -30°C or colder isn't uncommon; professional setups operate even colder.) And each of those buckets can only hold so many electrons before it is full (saturated). Non-astronomical cameras tend to have problems with excessive dark current (and the noise that comes with it) in exposures longer than just a few minutes.

From a practical standpoint, astronomical images usually benefit from being stacked because transient artifacts caused by planes, satellites, cosmic ray hits, and other such things are not consistent across frames, and are trivially removed in the stacking process. In a single exposure, there's no simple way to determine what is image and what is artifact.
Thanks! My naivete about all things astrophotographical strikes again. What is "dark current"? (heh - dark matter, dark energy, dark current :-))
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 17163
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:03 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:18 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:10 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:45 pm Alright, what's the reason for taking 137 20 second exposures as opposed to just one 137 * 20 = 2740 second exposure? The result would look much the same, no?
The sensor doesn't just respond to light, but also to heat. Each pixel is like a little bucket that holds electrons. In a perfect world, each electron would be produced by a single photon hitting that bucket. But in the real world, the silicon spontaneously produces electrons at a steady rate due to the fact that it isn't at absolute zero. (Cameras designed for long exposure astronomical imaging use cooled sensors; operating them at -30°C or colder isn't uncommon; professional setups operate even colder.) And each of those buckets can only hold so many electrons before it is full (saturated). Non-astronomical cameras tend to have problems with excessive dark current (and the noise that comes with it) in exposures longer than just a few minutes.

From a practical standpoint, astronomical images usually benefit from being stacked because transient artifacts caused by planes, satellites, cosmic ray hits, and other such things are not consistent across frames, and are trivially removed in the stacking process. In a single exposure, there's no simple way to determine what is image and what is artifact.
Thanks! My naivete about all things astrophotographical strikes again. What is "dark current"? (heh - dark matter, dark energy, dark current :-))
Dark current is the thermal electron flow/accumulation. So called because it accumulates... you guessed it... in the dark.

There is inherent statistical noise on any signal, which is equal to the square root of the signal. If you collect 100 photons, you only know the intensity ±10 (S/N = 10). Collect 10,000 photons and the uncertainty is ±100 (S/N = 100). That's why you want to collect as much light as possible: it improves the S/N. But the same statistics apply to dark current. It comes with its own noise, which just adds to the intensity uncertainty. The dark current itself can be subtracted off (assuming it hasn't saturated the pixel). But you can't remove noise.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
alter-ego
Serendipitous Sleuthhound
Posts: 1068
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:51 am
Location: Redmond, WA

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by alter-ego » Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:19 am

johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:43 pm
raschumacher wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:19 pm Does anyone else get an impression that the star field rotates slightly between the still image and the trailed image? I get a strong impression of rotation near the pole, but no such impression far from the pole. My GF gets no such impression in any part of the image. Weird.
Yes, presumably because the still image was taken slightly before the 20 second exposures started.
The sense of rotation is clearly visible to me, but it's an illusion. The tighter the circle radius (higher declination), the more prevalent the illusion. It appears to be related to a larger gradient in star-trail length over a smaller field of view of our eyes. Seeing Polaris almost motionless compared to star trails only 10° away enhances this sense of rotation. However, the effect hardly visible (if at all) when viewing stars within 10° of the equator.
I generated a similar image sequence in hover sequence below (137 images x 20 seconds). The no-trail image is the first, so no delays. I think for some people, focusing on the star trails while going back and forth might be bothersome to them.

NOTE: Increase your browser magnification until the image(s) about fill the screen. I increase the magnification to 3x (300%).
 
Click to view full size image 1 or image 2
A pessimist is nothing more than an experienced optimist

User avatar
johnnydeep
Captain
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:19 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 10:03 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:18 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:10 pm

The sensor doesn't just respond to light, but also to heat. Each pixel is like a little bucket that holds electrons. In a perfect world, each electron would be produced by a single photon hitting that bucket. But in the real world, the silicon spontaneously produces electrons at a steady rate due to the fact that it isn't at absolute zero. (Cameras designed for long exposure astronomical imaging use cooled sensors; operating them at -30°C or colder isn't uncommon; professional setups operate even colder.) And each of those buckets can only hold so many electrons before it is full (saturated). Non-astronomical cameras tend to have problems with excessive dark current (and the noise that comes with it) in exposures longer than just a few minutes.

From a practical standpoint, astronomical images usually benefit from being stacked because transient artifacts caused by planes, satellites, cosmic ray hits, and other such things are not consistent across frames, and are trivially removed in the stacking process. In a single exposure, there's no simple way to determine what is image and what is artifact.
Thanks! My naivete about all things astrophotographical strikes again. What is "dark current"? (heh - dark matter, dark energy, dark current :-))
Dark current is the thermal electron flow/accumulation. So called because it accumulates... you guessed it... in the dark.

There is inherent statistical noise on any signal, which is equal to the square root of the signal. If you collect 100 photons, you only know the intensity ±10 (S/N = 10). Collect 10,000 photons and the uncertainty is ±100 (S/N = 100). That's why you want to collect as much light as possible: it improves the S/N. But the same statistics apply to dark current. It comes with its own noise, which just adds to the intensity uncertainty. The dark current itself can be subtracted off (assuming it hasn't saturated the pixel). But you can't remove noise.
Great, thanks. And of course, had I bothered to check Wikipedia first, I would have found an explanation of why it occurs (though I'm still in the dark about the fundamental physics here :-):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_current_(physics) wrote:Dark current (physics)

In physics and in electronic engineering, dark current is the relatively small electric current that flows through photosensitive devices such as a photomultiplier tube, photodiode, or charge-coupled device even when no photons enter the device; it consists of the charges generated in the detector when no outside radiation is entering the detector. It is referred to as reverse bias leakage current in non-optical devices and is present in all diodes. Physically, dark current is due to the random generation of electrons and holes within the depletion region of the device.

The charge generation rate is related to specific crystallographic defects within the depletion region. Dark-current spectroscopy can be used to determine the defects present by monitoring the peaks in the dark current histogram's evolution with temperature.

Dark current is one of the main sources for noise in image sensors such as charge-coupled devices. The pattern of different dark currents can result in a fixed-pattern noise; dark frame subtraction can remove an estimate of the mean fixed pattern, but there still remains a temporal noise, because the dark current itself has a shot noise. This dark current is the same that is studied in PN-Junction studies.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."

User avatar
johnnydeep
Captain
Posts: 1728
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: Roots on a Rotating Planet (2022 Jul 08)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:21 pm

alter-ego wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:19 am
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 8:43 pm
raschumacher wrote: Fri Jul 08, 2022 3:19 pm Does anyone else get an impression that the star field rotates slightly between the still image and the trailed image? I get a strong impression of rotation near the pole, but no such impression far from the pole. My GF gets no such impression in any part of the image. Weird.
Yes, presumably because the still image was taken slightly before the 20 second exposures started.
The sense of rotation is clearly visible to me, but it's an illusion. The tighter the circle radius (higher declination), the more prevalent the illusion. It appears to be related to a larger gradient in star-trail length over a smaller field of view of our eyes. Seeing Polaris almost motionless compared to star trails only 10° away enhances this sense of rotation. However, the effect hardly visible (if at all) when viewing stars within 10° of the equator.
I generated a similar image sequence in hover sequence below (137 images x 20 seconds). The no-trail image is the first, so no delays. I think for some people, focusing on the star trails while going back and forth might be bothersome to them.

NOTE: Increase your browser magnification until the image(s) about fill the screen. I increase the magnification to 3x (300%).
 
Click to view full size image 1 or image 2
Dang it - I am unable to view those images, which is what had been happening to some of the images posted by Ann a while back. But she seems to have remedied that somehow. These "googleusercontent" links seem problematic, at least to me and my browser.

Oh, and I do see that it's an illusion now: looking closely at one of the small inter arcs, you can clearly see that the initial star point source remains fixed, and it's only the arc it makes in the long exposure that is added. So, no real rotation: the initial short exposure is still there.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."