APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

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: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by orin stepanek » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:50 pm

Beyond wrote:
I've never read Tobit. But then I've never read Tobe or not Tobe either. :lol:
I haven't either but here it is! :ssmile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by neufer » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:25 pm

Beyond wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
Certainly there are references in the bible to blindness that could plausibly describe cataracts, such as in Genesis, where Isaac is described as having "dim" vision with his advanced age. The most interesting example, though, is found in the Book of Tobit, where the onset of his (Tobit's) blindness seems reasonably explained by cataracts, and his cure is reasonably explained by couching.
I've never read Tobit. But then I've never read Tobe or not Tobe either. :lol:
  • A FAR MORE BELIEVABLE story than that of Shaksper of Stratford:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit wrote: <<The Book of Tobit tells the story of a righteous Israelite of the Tribe of Naphtali named Tobit living in Nineveh after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 BC under Sargon II. He is particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Israelites who have been slain by Sennacherib, for which the king seizes all his property and exiles him. After Sennacherib's death, he is allowed to return to Nineveh, but buries a man who had been murdered on the street. That night, he sleeps in the open and is blinded by bird droppings that fall in his eyes. This puts a strain on his marriage, and he prays for death.

Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah prays for death in despair. She has lost seven husbands to the demon of lust, Asmodeus, who abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated. God sends the archangel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and to free Sarah from the demon.

The main narrative is dedicated to Tobit's son, Tobias, who is sent by his father to collect a sum of money that the latter had deposited some time previously in the far off land of Media. Under the guidance of Raphael, Tobias makes the journey to Media, accompanied by his dog. Along the way, he is attacked by a giant (or little) fish, whose heart, liver and gall bladder are removed to make medicines.

Upon arriving in Media, Raphael tells Tobias of the beautiful Sarah, whom Tobias has the right to marry, because he is her cousin and closest relative. He instructs the young man to burn the fish's liver and heart to drive away the demon when he attacks on the wedding night. The two are married, and the fumes of the burning organs drive the demon away to Upper Egypt, while Raphael follows him and binds him. Tobias and Sarah return to Nineveh. There, Raphael tells the youth to use the fish's gall to cure his father's blindness.>>

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Beyond » Sun Nov 13, 2011 6:12 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Beyond wrote:Aw, c'mon neuf, the context of Psalm 69:23 is about people not understanding Jesus because He's been 'hidden' from their view. It's not a physical eyesight thingy.
Yeah, I'm not buying it either. Certainly there are references in the bible to blindness that could plausibly describe cataracts, such as in Genesis, where Isaac is described as having "dim" vision with his advanced age.

The most interesting example, though, is found in the Book of Tobit, where the onset of his (Tobit's) blindness seems reasonably explained by cataracts, and his cure is reasonably explained by couching.
I've never read Tobit. But then I've never read Tobe or not Tobe either. :lol:

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:16 am

Beyond wrote:Aw, c'mon neuf, the context of Psalm 69:23 is about people not understanding Jesus because He's been 'hidden' from their view. It's not a physical eyesight thingy.
Yeah, I'm not buying it either. Certainly there are references in the bible to blindness that could plausibly describe cataracts, such as in Genesis, where Isaac is described as having "dim" vision with his advanced age.

The most interesting example, though, is found in the Book of Tobit, where the onset of his (Tobit's) blindness seems reasonably explained by cataracts, and his cure is reasonably explained by couching.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Beyond » Sun Nov 13, 2011 5:01 am

neufer wrote:
Image
"In the land of the blind,
the one-eyed man is king.
"
- Erasmus's Adagia (1500)
Beyond wrote:
neufer wrote:
The earliest records are from the Bible,
Records pertaining to what?
Cataracts. Here, let me lead you by the hand:

"Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not;" -- Psalm 69:23

"And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness;
and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
" -- Acts 13:11
Aw, c'mon neuf, the context of Psalm 69:23 is about people not understanding Jesus because He's been 'hidden' from their view. It's not a physical eyesight thingy.
Acts 13:11 has a bit more possibility, However, there is a mist and a darkness involved. It's not said whether or not others around when the sorcerer was 'blinded' saw the mist and darkness or not. It was said that he would be blind and not see the sun for a while. I take that to be more like the plague in Egypt, when the land where the Hebrews were had sunlight, but the Egyptians were all in darkness for a while.
Even Paul himself was blind for a time when he was still called saul. But his blindness was because of something like scales over his eyes.
So you're going to have to do a bit better neuf, if you want to link cataracts to Bible blindness. Maybe you'd better do a lot more reading. :mrgreen:

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by neufer » Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:31 am

Image
"In the land of the blind,
the one-eyed man is king.
"
- Erasmus's Adagia (1500)
Beyond wrote:
neufer wrote:
The earliest records are from the Bible,
Records pertaining to what?
Cataracts. Here, let me lead you by the hand:

"Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not;" -- Psalm 69:23

"And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness;
and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
" -- Acts 13:11

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Beyond » Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:13 am

neufer wrote:The earliest records are from the Bible, as well as early Hindu records.
Records pertaining to what? Cataracts, surgery, or both? And where abouts is it located in the Bible?? I don't ever remember running across any eye surgery. Although Sodom could have received a mass case of severe cataracts just before it got burned up.

Re: "an outpouring of corrupt humour"

by Chris Peterson » Sun Nov 13, 2011 12:02 am

neufer wrote:The earliest records are from the Bible, as well as early Hindu records. Early cataract surgery was developed by the Indian surgeon, Sushruta (6th century BCE). The Indian tradition of cataract surgery was performed with a special tool called the jabamukhi salaka, a curved needle used to loosen the lens and push the cataract out of the field of vision.
The procedure is called couching, and was probably used by the ancient Egyptians, and perhaps even earlier. I own a fine Arabic bronze couching needle, probably made (and used) in 11th century Damascus. This is not the sort of needle I'm comfortable seeing plunged into an eye- especially not my own!

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by zloq » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:11 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Not a handy one. But I've read several peer reviewed papers on the subject, with a rigorous analysis of the optical characteristics of lens materials and pupil response, and supported by statistical information regarding cataract rates and age of onset. Those papers would have been published in the early 1990s.
Well - if you find a pointer to any such papers - that would be great. I'm aware of epidemiological studies in the 90's - but at that point they were having enough trouble just demonstrating that cataracts are definitively linked to UV exposure at all - let alone the much more subtle issue that sunglasses might have caused more than would have appeared otherwise. This is a topic I have been interested in over the years, and I lean much farther the other way - that UV protection from typical sunglasses today is much more effective than commonly thought - just based on the materials - and I doubt the claim that early sunglasses made things worse for those who wore them.

Here is the abstract of a 2002 review of studies that concludes - yes - cataracts are linked to UV exposure and it is pretty well accepted:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12061276

That indicates how difficult, and recent, just proving the connection between cataracts and UV has been - with so many human and environmental factors.

For the issue of sunglasses, uv, and pupil dilation, there is an older paper in Appl. Optics by Hoover, 26, 4, 689, 1987. The first line of the abstract says,

"The supposition that, because of pupil dilation, there are greater influxes of solar UV and short-wavelength visible radiation when some sunglasses are worn is wrong. It is based on an incomplete and, therefore, misleading analysis."

He has a detailed analysis showing, as I suggested, that you need to look at the trade off between reduced exposure and increased pupil size - and you need to consider the overall reduction of the full UV spectrum - since even glasses that let some longer wave UV through will be very effective at reducing the shorter and most damaging wavelengths that would otherwise be roaring in. Although the paper is older, he did a study of sunglass materials up to his time - so he was looking at the right materials rather than more modern ones that have additives to block UV.

So - let's just say this is something I disagree with you about - and I see it written all the time. To me it has a common sense, "Sounds good - must be true" feel to it - but when I thought about it over the years, it never made sense to me. I don't need to belabor it since I know many people on the web say the same thing you do. I am just looking for journal papers - especially epidemiological studies - that conclude there has been an increase in cataracts lately linked to early inferior sunglass use.

zloq

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Randy Shivak » Sat Nov 12, 2011 11:01 pm

On the other side of the sun was this group of prominences.
On the other side of the sun was this group of prominences.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Randy Shivak » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:59 pm

Huge Solar Prominence Today!
Huge Solar Prominence Today!

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by TNT » Sat Nov 12, 2011 10:10 pm

Wow! What a striking image! Who knew sunspots could be seen with the unaided eye? :)

"an outpouring of corrupt humour"

by neufer » Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:50 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
I made my fortune designing cataract removal instruments,
No kidding :!: So astronomy was just a hobby then.
No kidding. I initially majored in astronomy, than took my degree in physics. Started a company which designed and manufactured phacoemulsifiers for most of the major ophthalmic surgical companies. Maintained astronomy as a hobby over the years, and then got back into it semi-professionally in the late 1990s, after selling the phaco company and moving to our ranch in Colorado.

Cataracts have been very good to me <g>. I'm completely comfortable with the idea of vibrating needles thrust into eyeballs.
http://www2.nau.edu/~tas3/handel.html wrote: <<Georg Friedrich Handel (1685-1759) was born in Halle (50 miles from Eisenach, Bach's birthplace) in the same year as Bach. Handel sojourned in Italy in 1706 where he met Corelli, and both Scarlattis. His return to Hanover, four years later, was to assume the post of Kapellmeister to the Elector (soon to become king George I of England). In 1712 Handel moved to London where, upon the accession of the house of Hanover, two years later, he gained immediate access to the royal circle of England. In 1717 Handel succeeded Pepusch as chapel master to the Duke of Chandos. Handel's London years were occupied primarily with the writing of Italian operas. After suffering a stroke and the failure of his operas, Handel wrote oratorios, including "Messiah" (1741). Handel's eyesight failed him in later years and he eventually became completely blind.

In 1719 Handel returned to his birthplace, Halle, for eight days. At that time Bach lived in Cöthen, twenty miles away. Bach's admiration for Handel is evident from his having copied, with the help of his wife, a passion and other works by Handel. Knowing that Bach wanted to meet Handel, Prince Leopold lent Johann Sebastian a horse. For reasons that remain a mystery, the meeting never took place. Spitta indicates that Bach's admiration for Handel was not reciprocated. In one of the curious ironies of music history, both men would be afflicted with cataracts in their old age and undergo surgery at the hand of the same oculist, John Taylor. By today's standards, this surgery was extremely crude, and any improvement to the visual impairment would have been minimal at best. It involved physically shoving the cataract-covered lens back into the eyeball in an attempt to allow a little more light to enter. (Bach would die from septicemia induced as a consequence of contaminated instruments). As this surgery was done without anesthesia, the courage and physical constitution of both men must have been amazing! Bach owned a copy of Handel's Brockes Passion, "Armida abbandonata" and the Concerto grosso in F minor. Thematic similarities in some of Bach's cantatas suggest that he may have been familiar with Handel's opera, "Almira".>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract wrote:
<<Cataract derives from the Latin cataracta meaning "waterfall" and that from the Greek καταράκτης (kataraktēs) or καταρράκτης (katarrhaktēs), "down-rushing", from καταράσσω (katarassō) meaning "to dash down"(from kata-, "down"; arassein, "to strike, dash"). As rapidly running water turns white, the term may later have been used metaphorically to describe the similar appearance of mature ocular opacities. In Latin, cataracta had the alternate meaning "portcullis" and it is possible that the name passed through French to form the English meaning "eye disease" (early 15c.), on the notion of "obstruction". Early Persian physicians called the term nazul-i-ah, or "descent of the water"—vulgarised into waterfall disease or cataract—believing such blindness to be caused by an outpouring of corrupt humour into the eye.

The earliest records are from the Bible, as well as early Hindu records. Early cataract surgery was developed by the Indian surgeon, Sushruta (6th century BCE). The Indian tradition of cataract surgery was performed with a special tool called the jabamukhi salaka, a curved needle used to loosen the lens and push the cataract out of the field of vision. The eye would later be soaked with warm butter and then bandaged. Though this method was successful, Sushruta cautioned that it should only be used when necessary. Greek physicians and philosophers traveled to India where these surgeries were performed by physicians. The removal of cataract by surgery was also introduced into China from India. The first references to cataract and its treatment in Ancient Rome are found in 29 CE in De Medicinae, the work of the Latin encyclopedist Aulus Cornelius Celsus. The Romans were pioneers in the health arena—particularly in the area of eye care. The Muslim ophthalmologist Ammar ibn Ali, in his Choice of Eye Diseases, written circa 1000 CE, wrote of his invention of the hypodermic needle and how he discovered the technique of cataract extraction while experimenting with it on a patient.

Age-related cataract is responsible for 48% of world blindness, which represents about 18 million people, according to the World Health Organization (WHO :owl: ). In many countries, surgical services are inadequate, and cataracts remain the leading cause of blindness. As populations age, the number of people with cataracts is growing. Cataracts are also an important cause of low vision in both developed and developing countries. Even where surgical services are available, low vision associated with cataracts may still be prevalent, as a result of long waits for operations and barriers to surgical uptake, such as cost, lack of information and transportation problems.

Cataracts develop for a variety of reasons, including long-term exposure to ultraviolet light, exposure to radiation, secondary effects of diseases such as diabetes, hypertension and advanced age, or trauma (possibly much earlier); they are usually a result of denaturation of lens protein. Genetic factors are often a cause of congenital cataracts. Cataracts may also be produced by eye injury or physical trauma. A study among Icelandair pilots showed commercial airline pilots are three times more likely to develop cataracts than people with nonflying jobs. This is thought to be caused by excessive exposure to radiation coming from outer space. Supporting this theory is the report that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions. Cataracts are also unusually common in persons exposed to infrared radiation, such as glassblowers, who suffer from "exfoliation syndrome". Exposure to microwave radiation can cause cataracts. Atopic or allergic conditions are also known to quicken the progression of cataracts, especially in children. Cataracts can also be caused by iodine deficiency.>>

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Nov 12, 2011 7:12 pm

zloq wrote:Do you happen to have a reference for this? I have certainly heard it numerous times - but I have never seen an actual study to prove a connection - saying that wearing early model sunglasses has caused an increase in cataracts in today's older population.
Not a handy one. But I've read several peer reviewed papers on the subject, with a rigorous analysis of the optical characteristics of lens materials and pupil response, and supported by statistical information regarding cataract rates and age of onset. Those papers would have been published in the early 1990s.
As for how things are nowadays - most eyeglass material is very effective at blocking UVB radiation, with varying impact on UVA, even without a tint.
Yes... but in reference to the earlier question, this involves additives to the plastic (or glass coatings) that are designed to make it this way. While most plastics do have a sharp cutoffs in transmission at short wavelengths, they can still pass unacceptable amounts of near-UV in their unmodified formulations.
There is growing concern for HEV light (in the visible blue-violet) as a cause of macular degeneration - so even perfect UVA blocking may not be an adequate safeguard against general eye damage.
Yes, there is good evidence of this- especially in people with certain genetic or pathological disposition to these diseases. The phenomenon of phototoxicity has been well described for several decades- that is, where bright light, but well inside the intensity range normally considered safe, causes severe and sometimes permanent retinal damage. It is a concern for ophthalmic surgeons (including those removing cataracts), as such surgery normally involves shining rather bright light into the eye.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by zloq » Sat Nov 12, 2011 6:54 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:FWIW, we are riding a peak in cataracts (and I made my fortune designing cataract removal instruments, so I'm not complaining <g>) caused by the popularity of sunglasses after the 1940s. For 50 years, people have worn sunglasses that didn't block UV, and this has resulted in the formation of many cataracts. Wearing such glasses is worse than wearing none at all, since the pupil responds to visible light. When you wear non-blocking sunglasses, the pupil opens wider and you end up getting more UV than you otherwise would. That's why it is so important to include UV blocking in glasses. (And these days, even ordinary eyeglasses and contacts have UV blockers.)
Do you happen to have a reference for this? I have certainly heard it numerous times - but I have never seen an actual study to prove a connection - saying that wearing early model sunglasses has caused an increase in cataracts in today's older population. It's not trivial at all since it involves an estimate of the dilation of the pupil coupled with the expected transmission loss due to the optical materials in use. If it's a situation of bright sun and glare, your pupil will be small anyway but the scene will appear darker thanks to the sunglasses - and any reduced transmission of harmful radiation will have benefit over no eyewear at all.

The argument against inferior sunglass use is self-consistent and often mentioned in discussions like these - but I'm asking if there is an actual published medical study that showed a connection.

As for how things are nowadays - most eyeglass material is very effective at blocking UVB radiation, with varying impact on UVA, even without a tint. There is growing concern for HEV light (in the visible blue-violet) as a cause of macular degeneration - so even perfect UVA blocking may not be an adequate safeguard against general eye damage.

zloq

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by orin stepanek » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:45 pm

neufer wrote:
orin stepanek wrote:
I cant look at the sun naked eye; not even at sunset! :roll:
Too bright for me! Maybe with dark sunglasses! :?
Make sure that they are sunglasses with UV protection.
Thanks for the advice Art; but I won't look at the sun at all. :wink: I'll look at the photos though. 8-) :D And today's was a great one. 8-)

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by luigi » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:12 pm

Thank you for the answer about UV! Now I know.
About the image you are right about the exposure for the sun and the rest of the sky, if the sun is not overexposed the rest of the sky will be dark. I would like to ask the photographer anyway because the brighntess of the sky, foreground and the white balance look totally different compared to what I can get in a single shot. Specially the WB seems to be different between the sky and the sun. I always get red/orange skies near sunrise and sunset.

I have absolutely nothing against composites but if this is not one then it's something new to me and I would love to learn how to take a photo like this one in a single shot.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:01 pm

Beyond wrote:I see.
Indeed. And if you're over 65 or 70, it might be because of my tech <g>.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Beyond » Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:57 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
neufer wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote: I made my fortune designing cataract removal instruments,
No kidding :!:
So astronomy was just a hobby then.
No kidding. I initially majored in astronomy, than took my degree in physics. Started a company which designed and manufactured phacoemulsifiers for most of the major ophthalmic surgical companies. Maintained astronomy as a hobby over the years, and then got back into it semi-professionally in the late 1990s, after selling the phaco company and moving to our ranch in Colorado.

Cataracts have been very good to me <g>. I'm completely comfortable with the idea of vibrating needles thrust into eyeballs.
I see.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:51 pm

neufer wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote: I made my fortune designing cataract removal instruments,
No kidding :!:
So astronomy was just a hobby then.
No kidding. I initially majored in astronomy, than took my degree in physics. Started a company which designed and manufactured phacoemulsifiers for most of the major ophthalmic surgical companies. Maintained astronomy as a hobby over the years, and then got back into it semi-professionally in the late 1990s, after selling the phaco company and moving to our ranch in Colorado.

Cataracts have been very good to me <g>. I'm completely comfortable with the idea of vibrating needles thrust into eyeballs.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by neufer » Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:20 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
I made my fortune designing cataract removal instruments,
No kidding :!:

So astronomy was just a hobby then.

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Nov 12, 2011 4:01 pm

luigi wrote:Question for those that know: Are there sunglasses without UV protection? I thought plastic/glass was an UV blocker. I wonder if those sunglasses "with UV protection" have something special or just listing a property of plastic/glass.
Most popular eyeglass materials pass significant amounts of near-UV radiation (the wavelengths that are most problematic for the eyes). This includes glass, acrylics, and polycarbonates (CR39). All of these materials are normally treated specially to increase their near-UV absorption when used in eyeglasses. These days, you'd be hard pressed to find sunglasses without UV blocking.

FWIW, we are riding a peak in cataracts (and I made my fortune designing cataract removal instruments, so I'm not complaining <g>) caused by the popularity of sunglasses after the 1940s. For 50 years, people have worn sunglasses that didn't block UV, and this has resulted in the formation of many cataracts. Wearing such glasses is worse than wearing none at all, since the pupil responds to visible light. When you wear non-blocking sunglasses, the pupil opens wider and you end up getting more UV than you otherwise would. That's why it is so important to include UV blocking in glasses. (And these days, even ordinary eyeglasses and contacts have UV blockers.)

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by neufer » Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:46 pm

luigi wrote:
neufer wrote:
orin stepanek wrote:
I cant look at the sun naked eye; not even at sunset! :roll:
Too bright for me! Maybe with dark sunglasses! :?
Make sure that they are sunglasses with UV protection.
Question for those that know: Are there sunglasses without UV protection? I thought plastic/glass was an UV blocker. I wonder if those sunglasses "with UV protection" have something special or just listing a property of plastic/glass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet wrote:
<<High intensities of UVB light are hazardous to the eyes, and exposure can cause welder's flash (photokeratitis or arc eye) and may lead to cataracts, pterygium, and pinguecula formation.

UV light is absorbed by molecules known as chromophores, which are present in the eye cells and tissues. Chromophores absorb light energy from the various wavelengths at different rates - a pattern known as absorption spectrum. If too much UV light is absorbed, eye structures such as the cornea, the lens and the retina can be damaged.

Protective eyewear is beneficial to those who are working with or those who might be exposed to ultraviolet radiation, particularly short wave UV. Given that light may reach the eye from the sides, full coverage eye protection is usually warranted if there is an increased risk of exposure, as in high altitude mountaineering. Mountaineers are exposed to higher than ordinary levels of UV radiation, both because there is less atmospheric filtering and because of reflection from snow and ice.

Ordinary, untreated eyeglasses give some protection. Most plastic lenses give more protection than glass lenses, because, as noted above, glass is transparent to UVA and the common acrylic plastic used for lenses is less so. Some plastic lens materials, such as polycarbonate, inherently block most UV. There are protective treatments available for eyeglass lenses that need it, which will give better protection.
>>

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by neufer » Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:40 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Beyond wrote:
I guess i just don't have a scientific mind.

When i look at those sunspots all i think of is -- anti-zits.

Castle Neuhaus = neufer's house :?:
STOP IT :!:

Re: APOD: Sunspot Castle (2011 Nov 12)

by Chris Peterson » Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:38 pm

luigi wrote:We'd have to ask the photographer but I think it has to be a composite. I've been photographing sunrises for several months and the sky is never so dark around the sun that high in the horizon.
It's a great APOD to show that big monster sunspots can be seen with the naked eye and photographed without special equipment.
It certainly does not need to be a composite, and I doubt that it actually is.

Even at noon, if you expose an image so that the Sun is not saturated, the sky will look dark. There's no alternative given the dynamic range of cameras.

It is also worth keeping in mind that an image like this does not necessarily capture quite what the naked eye view would be. With the camera, there is the ability to optimize the dynamic range and choose the white and dark points in a way that our eyes cannot match. Properly constructed images are usually able to capture more than the eye can see... which is, of course, one of the reasons we image!

Top