Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Worldwide Night Sky Stitched Together In 5 Gigapixel Image

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the billions-and-billions-of-pixels dept.

Space 118

katarn writes "Nick Risinger traveled the world, using a robotic camera mount and six air-cooled cameras, each fitted with their own lenses and filters, to capture the entire night sky in one image; the largest full true-color sky survey. The project took a year to complete, and Risinger logged 60,000 travel miles. The final image is made up of over 37,000 individual photos, has a resolution of 5,000 megapixels, and took months to piece together. Risinger says, 'Travel was necessary as capturing the full sphere of the night sky brought with it certain limitations. What might be seen in the northern hemisphere isn't always visible from the south and, likewise with the seasons, what may be overhead in the summer is below the horizon in the winter. Complicated by weather and moon cycles, this made for some narrow windows of opportunity which we chased through the remote areas of Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, California and Oregon.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I WANT IT!!! (1)

jmd_akbar (1777312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073684)

I am getting it!!!

Re:I WANT IT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36073784)

You'll get nothing!!! NOTHING!!!

Re:I WANT IT!!! (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073866)

"MAN!

I am Zaphod BEEBLEBROX!"

Re:I WANT IT!!! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074398)

"MAN!

I am Zaphod BEEBLEBROX!"

The resolution wasn't high enough, Unless you are in some artificial universe designed for you as to capture some ship you stolen. Well my I am feeling a little down and I need new Shoes.

Re:I WANT IT!!! (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075240)

You'll get nothing!!! NOTHING!!!

Wonka breaks it down. [ytmnd.com]

Full (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36073736)

My God, it's full of stars!

Re:Full (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074206)

Lay off the Angel Dust - 'cos down some dead-end streets, there ain't no turnin' back.

Re:Full (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074284)

And holy shit, what are the chances? The guy that did this study is Nick Risinger, but it also happens that his name is written over the night sky in multiple places!!!! Surely this is proof that god exists, and he's a bit strange.

Re:Full (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074776)

Does he have two heads?

Re:Full (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074784)

Risinger, I mean, not god.

Re:Full (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074464)

My God, it's full of stars!

And Gimbel Lock - learn to code FTW.

Re:Full (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36076510)

It's gimbal... learn to spell FTW.

Re:Full (1)

Muros (1167213) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076534)

Awww give the guy a break. It's an awesome picture, and requires very little effort to find and zoom into a particular patch of the sky. It isn't a space flight sim.

Re:Full (1)

battling (2128650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36078896)

That's so awesome!!!

Re:Full (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079250)

So, where is the Earth?

Milky Way (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36073748)

I've never seen any notion of the Milky Way in the sky... how clear is it in an unpolluted area?

Re:Milky Way (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073802)

Where I live (middle of nowhere in Canada) it almost looks like your eyes just aren't focusing properly; it's basically a white "haze" that stretches across the sky.

Re:Milky Way (3, Funny)

Palmsie (1550787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074058)

Where I live (middle of nowhere in Canada) it almost looks like your eyes just aren't focusing properly; it's basically a white "haze" that stretches across the sky.

In southern California, we call that pollution.

Re:Milky Way (0)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073832)

It is mostly visible from the southern hemisphere. 'We' see only a vague streak up north.

Rubbish... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074554)

It's *very* easy to see the Milky Way here in Spain... ...if you go out into the country.

In the city? Not so much.

Re:Rubbish... (2)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076428)

because of the lights or the cheap wine?

Re:Milky Way (1)

RuiFerreira (791654) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073856)

According to some studies 1 fifth of the world population can't see the milky way at night.

Re:Milky Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36078058)

>According to some studies 1 fifth of the world population can't see the milky way at night.

That's because 20% of the world's population is drunk (1 fifth).

Re:Milky Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36073878)

I've never seen any notion of the Milky Way in the sky... how clear is it in an unpolluted area?

Southern hemisphere is amazing for seeing the milky way, especially in February. Northern hemisphere lucked out.

Re:Milky Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074444)

"lucked out" has the opposite meaning of "is out of luck"

Re:Milky Way (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074570)

So he's right then...Northerners can see it just fine.

Re:Milky Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074022)

i travel to mozambique (south eastern africa) fairly often and it is spectacular. in more rural areas on a clear moonless night you can see by starlight. the milky way itself is unbelievably beautiful. You can see it totally clearly. I can see it pretty well where i live in nor cal too if i head up toward mt shasta. but nothing like the southern hemisphere.

-Si

Re:Milky Way (1)

praedictus (61731) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074690)

SImilarly, I have worked in some remote areas of Brazil with little light pollution. You can actually get a feel for the immense size of our galaxy, especially looking the region around Scorpio, as the structure and depth becomes apparent in clear skies - you can see where the nebulae are obscuring the stars in a manner that shows the extent of the dust clouds. Its hard to explain unless you see it though.

Re:Milky Way (1)

Digital11 (152445) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075638)

I'm in Redding and would love to see a good night sky. Is Shasta the best place?

Re:Milky Way (4, Informative)

raptor_87 (881471) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074080)

In an area with minimal/no light pollution, the Milky Way is about as hard to miss as the ground. It appears as a giant (10+ degree wide) ragged band with various dark spots and veins. At the right times of year/night, you can see it stretching from horizon to horizon.

But in most towns, it's just a faint bit of paleness near the zenith. And completely invisible in even a small city.

Re:Milky Way (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074584)

Yep, and honestly if you've never see the night sky with minimal/no light pollution then you owe it to yourself to make the effort. It's a spectacular sight.

Re:Milky Way (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079204)

Where is the best place in the world to see stars? Death Valley has some of the best I've ever seen, but surely in the world there are better places?

I've lived in New Mexico and NYC, and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074408)

the difference is amazing - light pollution and clarity of hte atmosphere, which is dust + water vapor (mostly) (neglecting rayleigh scattering, etc)
In NM, the milky way just about hits you over the head.
However, in Northern N England, where there is no light pollution, the stars are nowhere near as bright, and the milky way is hard to see

Re:Milky Way (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074418)

I went camping in Pennsylvania once and saw it for the first time. First thing I said was "What the hell is that?"

It looks like a reflection of city lights off of smoke or clouds or something, but in a clear sky. It's a little bewildering the first time you see it.

Re:Milky Way (4, Insightful)

Cronock (1709244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074506)

It's very sad that since the dawn of man we've been able to see the night sky in all it's glory on a clear and moonless night, but in the last 120 years or so it's been reduced to just a faint glimmer of what had been. Someday, I hope that we can have one night a year with no light pollution so that we could see the full glory of what's really all around us and can be seen with a naked eye.

Re:Milky Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36075012)

It's very sad that since the dawn of man we've been able to see the night sky in all it's glory on a clear and moonless night, but in the last 120 years or so it's been reduced to just a faint glimmer of what had been. Someday, I hope that we can have one night a year with no light pollution so that we could see the full glory of what's really all around us and can be seen with a naked eye.

I'm severely nearsighted, you insensitive clod!

A few hundred years ago, I wouldn't be able to see even the brightest planet, because correcting my vision that well would have been very expensive. Now contacts give me 20/10 vision. You can keep your good old days. I'm incredibly happy to be alive now instead of then. No one should feel "very sad".

Re:Milky Way (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075516)

Now ask yourself why we can't have both.

There is not really any connection between you having glasses (a good thing) and light pollution (a bad thing).

We don't have to live in caves to get darker skies, either.

Re:Milky Way (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 3 years ago | (#36078452)

people were flopping over dead by age 30 for that glorious stretch of time for which you yearn. I'll take this part of the industrial age any day of the week

Re:Milky Way (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074504)

When I put my glasses on, and look at the night sky in the mountains of southern California, it's VERY visible. Sometimes. When it's above you and you don't have light pollution (rare), it's spectacular. Before I got glasses, I couldn't see it.

Re:Milky Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074558)

it's incredible. very very obvious in the sky. I had never seen it until I was 17 out in Vale Colorado, and it's the only time that I can recall seeing it.

Re:Milky Way (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074692)

In the big city I live in (Europe) I don't see almost anything. Only 100km away, in the country, Milky Way is clearly visible, it looks like highway for the stars on the sky... beautiful.

Re:Milky Way (1)

calderra (1034658) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074890)

Follow the link in TFA, see that image on the right, with the band of the Milky Way being so clear? With a truly clear sky, it's like you bluescreened the entire sky and that image is showing in impossibly high resolution. Absolutely jaw-dropping. It's so hard to understand how rural people, who can look up and SEE the stars at night, aren't foremost in space exploration. When you realize what you're seeing, you have to want to go up there.

Looks a lot like the 5 Gp Image (2)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075522)

You will not see all the colors, since the light in the Image was collected over time. None the less it looks just like that.

You have to go to a place without light pollution. Then you have to let your eyes acclimate in the dark for 20 to 30 minutes. Of course the quality of your eye sight will factor in.

Map of light intensity of the earth [ecochildsplay.com]

Here is just a picture of the earth at night [nasa.gov] .

Re:Milky Way (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076154)

It's pretty sweet. I went camping a lot as a kid in northern California and saw it all the time. Now I live in a heavily light polluted area and can barely make out the big dipper anymore. I need to head out to the sticks again. It's definitely worth a trip to the boonies at some point in your life to see what the sky really looks like.

Re:Milky Way (1)

dargaud (518470) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076304)

Well, see this image [gdargaud.net] ? It was taken with an El-Cheapo compact camera, handeld, in the place with the clearest sky on earth [gdargaud.net] . To answer your question: it's so bright that it appears like it's painted on the ceiling in fluorescent paint..

Re:Milky Way (1)

BoogieChile (517082) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079212)

Mind-blowingly amazing - From where I live in Australia, at the right time of the year, the central bulge of the galaxy is more or less right overhead with the arms spreading out on either side from horizon to horizon. Dizzying sense of gazing across unfathomable distances, standing on the shores of the infinite? You better believe it...

Re:Milky Way (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079276)

I've never seen any notion of the Milky Way in the sky... how clear is it in an unpolluted area?

That is sad. It's probably becoming more and more common for the next generations to never have experienced how we are in this dish of stars, and to see our neighboring galaxies. A big loss in understanding the bigger world.

Amazing (2, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073810)

It's an amazing accomplishment and truly a beauty to behold. A survey of his completed image would match perfectly with a monologue from Carl Sagan. Not only does it show the elegance of a galaxy from the inside, but the views at large angles away from the galactic plane show a liberal sprinkling of alien galaxies, the inhabitants of which could scarcely care about us puny humans and our problems.

-d

Re:Amazing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36073938)

Who the fuck says shit like, "the inhabitants of which could scarcely care about us puny humans and our problems"?

As if that were an excuse for the apathetic, obese, and lethargic existence you carry on in your mom's basement.

Re:Amazing (3, Funny)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074060)

show a liberal sprinkling of alien galaxies...

Aha! So you admit it! The liberals do want illegal aliens to live here.

Re:Amazing (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075016)

As usual, Liberals are misunderstood. All they want is to swindle the aliens out of their galaxies so they can have it and profit from them.

Re:Amazing (3, Interesting)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074136)

Salman Khan may yet do one. He did one [khanacademy.org] for the Hubble image that turned up hundreds of galaxies, where we had never seen anything before.

Re:Amazing (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075126)

I think you misunderstood the message. Sure, you can use a space telescope to get an even deeper look into the universe, billions of lightyears further that he could possibly look due to atmosphere and dust.

The message is that you can do that. A picture from the space telescope might be pretty, but you quickly toss it aside as something you can't possibly attain yourself, nothing you could ever dictate where to point it at and what to look at. This, OTOH, is something you can do, too! This beauty is at your disposal and you can enjoy it from down here.

Granted, few will have the money to travel around from continent to continent just to watch the sky. But a telescope ain't that expensive and for most people reaching a point where light pollution and smog is bearable is well within reach. Hobby astronomers' telescopes aren't back breaking investments either.

This beautiful night sky isn't something that requires a multi million dollar space telescope. It's in a hobbyist's reach!

Re:Amazing (1)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075644)

I do appreciate your concern for "the message" as you put it, but (1) I do have a telescope, and (2) I still enjoy hearing someone who wants to convey a passion for the subject at hand, whatever that subject may be. Richard Feynman is just as much fun to listen to as Anna Russell ("I'm not making this up, you know!").

Traveled the world!! (5, Insightful)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073864)

The world, consisting of Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, California and Oregon. To be fair, he also went to South Africa twice, but really, "traveled the world" seems to be a slight embellishment.

The accomplishment is nonetheless pretty damn impressive. I wonder how long it took to stitch all those photos together.

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

Mouldy (1322581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074130)

The accomplishment is nonetheless pretty damn impressive. I wonder how long it took to stitch all those photos together.

From the summary; "months" (:

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074194)

I was wondering the same thing. Why bother to include a tidbit like "What might be seen in the northern hemisphere isn't always visible from the south" when your stops include... Nothing but places well inside the northern hemisphere?

Re:Traveled the world!! (4, Funny)

Arlet (29997) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074364)

Nothing but places well inside the northern hemisphere?

Such as South Africa ?

Re:Traveled the world!! (2)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074846)

Shhh, some people don't believe there is anything outside the U.S. We don't want to shatter their delusions on the jagged rocks of reality. ;)

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075152)

There's a South Africa now? C'mon, I took a look at the map, Africa IS already kinda south of the funny old place... whatisitcalled...

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079034)

Africa IS already kinda south of the funny old place... whatisitcalled...

The Middle-Earth Sea.

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075040)

The world, consisting of Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, California and Oregon. To be fair, he also went to South Africa twice, but really, "traveled the world" seems to be a slight embellishment.

The accomplishment is nonetheless pretty damn impressive. I wonder how long it took to stitch all those photos together.

In Soviet Russia, world travels you.

Re:Traveled the world!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36076236)

How did he get from Arizona to Texas or possibly Colorado to Texas? Contrary to public opinion there is a state between AZ and TX. There is a choice of two states between CO and TX.

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079926)

All of which he easily could have flown over, going from one state to another.

Re:Traveled the world!! (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076536)

How about donating to the project to give him the funds to travel to more locations?

"Nick Risinger traveled the world" = (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36073892)

"chased through the remote areas of Arizona, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, California and Oregon.'"

Wow! You can see the Dark Matter right there (1)

Agent0013 (828350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36073994)

Why has it takes scientists so long to work out dark matter? You can see it right there in the picture!

But seriously, I have looked at the sky where there was very little light pollution and I have never seen the red or white cloud like structures. I guess that comes out with the long exposure. It is pretty cool how much you can see without an actual telescope.

Re:Wow! You can see the Dark Matter right there (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075576)

But seriously, I have looked at the sky where there was very little light pollution and I have never seen the red or white cloud like structures. I guess that comes out with the long exposure. It is pretty cool how much you can see without an actual telescope.

These sky photographers tend to overdo it a bit. This is understandable, since it looks good and it's hard to emulate the really weird human vision system.

However, in reality we perceive the sky with either peripheral vision which is monochromatic or the central vision which is much, much better at seeing blue than red. Which is a shame, since this means the only red you'll ever see in the sky are some profoundly red stars.

It would be interesting if someone made a similar effort to this and processed it to emulate human vision under ideal conditions though. It would be especially valuable since many people are completely ignorant about how pollution-free skies look.

Re:Wow! You can see the Dark Matter right there (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36077330)

But seriously, I have looked at the sky where there was very little light pollution and I have never seen the red or white cloud like structures. I guess that comes out with the long exposure.

Your night vision isn't very good with color. Your camera has no such limitations.

download right here.. (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074124)

... server capacity exceeded,,,

Low resolution (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074196)

This [megapixelmyth.com] telescope will take 3.2GP images of just a fraction of an arc-minute of the night sky. A complete night sky rendering at that kind of resolution would be immense.

But did he find Stars' End? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074258)

And would he still know it if he did?

Re:But did he find Stars' End? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074324)

The Second Foundationists would make sure he forgot it if he did. So we'll never know.

Great work but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074462)

The only thing I found disappointing is that the (meaningless) constellations are marked, but things like the Magellanic clouds are only marked when you hover the mouse over them.

Incomprehensible size (1)

AnonymmousCoward (2026904) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074514)

Wow, just zooming in all the way on the photo there is nearly an uncountable number of stars. Zooming out only multiplies the number you can see. I don't know about anyone else, but this makes me feel really really tiny! Even seeing this photo I cannot comprehend how many of these stars and alien solar systems are within our own galaxy. And to think there are numerous other galaxies full of these as well!

Re:Incomprehensible size (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075188)

And clusters, and superclusters...

Kinda makes our petty quarrels down here about this nation or that border quite insignificant, don't you think?

each pixel averages 200 galaxies (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074548)

If you believe the current estimate of about a trillion galaxies. Of course they are not evenly distributed nor visible to a photographers camera.

HTML5 (1)

Mojo66 (1131579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074604)

All Gigapixel web pages I saw use Flash to zoom around. Would it be possible to do the same in HTML5 and if yes do example sites exist?

Re:HTML5 (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074758)

Its certainly doable with SVG and some javascript, which I'm not sure if SVG is anywhere in the HTML5 spec, but pretty much every HTML5 capable browser DOES support SVGs enough to do this sort of thing, just needs basic a basic SVG viewer with support for scaling, javascript and images.

Re:HTML5 (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074922)

Why would you want SVG for photos, which are bitmap images?

All you need is a modern browser capable of doing basic AJAX tasks.

Re:HTML5 (1)

Xupa (1313669) | more than 3 years ago | (#36074918)

Suck to be you, iBoughtacrapphone

Re:HTML5 (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075858)

You mean like Google Maps?

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36074988)

The best story Ive seen on /. yet

WorldWide Telescope (2)

rlseaman (1420667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075010)

Very neat little project!

Once you build a digital image archive of the sky, various whole sky browsers become possible. The gold standard for such is WorldWide Telescope:

http://worldwidetelescope.org/ [worldwidetelescope.org]

This permits overlaying various sky surveys at different wavelengths, not just a single picture of the sky.

The web client is very nice, but the Windows client is something else again. (This is a Microsoft Research project.) You should see it on a planetarium dome.

Google has another:

http://www.google.com/sky/ [google.com] ...as well as an Google Earth based client to install.

Re:WorldWide Telescope (1)

rlseaman (1420667) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075236)

The Big Picture should also be mentioned:

http://bigpicture.caltech.edu/ [caltech.edu]

and in porcelain form:

http://www.griffithobs.org/exhibits/bbigpicture.html [griffithobs.org]

Others have also made the point that really cool astronomy projects are within the reach of "citizen scientists" with a modest budget.

Re:WorldWide Telescope (1)

scotty.m (1881826) | more than 3 years ago | (#36077862)

I thought it looked like something google would have their fingers in.
Google Sky looks like a work in progress though.

Whoa Milky way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36075124)

Having never been south of the US, I've never seen the Milky Way. Too far north I figure from that photo.

I have seen meteor showers and stuff like that, but I always thought the Milky Way was something people were looking at with super telescopes.

Milky Way Always Visible (1)

Iskender (1040286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075444)

Having never been south of the US, I've never seen the Milky Way. Too far north I figure from that photo.

Some part of the Milky Way is visible from any part of the planet. This includes the North Pole which is the worst place for observing it.

Unless you're in Alaska you can see the galactic center too. I'm in Finland which is (barely) too far north for that. However, parts of the Milky Way are still there in places with an actually dark sky. Now if I could only get away from this city more often...

So get *far* away from cities sometime and look up. Just don't expect anything but bright stars to be in colour, that's beyond the capabilities of human vision. Also, download Stellarium from Stellarium.org: it's great and it's free software and it's even easy to use.

By my count... (1)

rhenley (1194451) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075280)

By my count he missed one.

Linux and Gimp (1)

katarn (110199) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075324)

Also of note, which I should have added to the summary; some of the tool used to make this included a laptop running Linux, and GIMP - two things near and dear to many slashdoters. I wonder if Nick reads Slashdot.

Remember that you're standing... (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 3 years ago | (#36075620)

...on a planet that's evolving
revolving at nine hundred miles and hour...

Wow (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076058)

I have no better words to describe that image. I'm going to stop working now and just stare at this image for the next 30 minutes or so and just wonder....

naked-eye version? (1)

adavies42 (746183) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076132)

this is pretty, but obviously the product of long exposures (and/or post). are there any similar pics out there that try to represent a real naked-eye view under ideal conditions? i'd like to know what i'd actually personally be able to see of the milky way, etc.

Re:naked-eye version? (1)

naturaverl (628952) | more than 3 years ago | (#36078740)

Turn the contrast up and the brightness down on your monitor. I think that would be pretty close.

Since this is slashdot, (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36076150)

Here is a list of hardware and software this guy used. Nice to see open source software contributing to this amazing project. Hardware: Cameras—Finger Lakes ML-8300 monochrome Lenses—Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f2.8 Filters—Astronomik LRGB, Astrodon Ha Mount—Takahashi EM-11 Temma 2 w/ custom armature Generator—Yamaha EF1000iS for USA trips Laptop—Intel Core i7-820QM running Linux Fedora, 8GB RAM w/ 4TB external storage Software: MaximDL—mount control, image capture, and creation of calibration frames (dark, bias, flat) IRAF—many scripted tasks such as up-scaling, registration, saturated pixel replacements with scaled exposures, stacking, and median background modeling SExtractor—building each frames list of objects SCAMP—cross referencing to create position and distortion headers Swarp—reprojection and stitching of frames PixInsight—generate final LRGBHa color composite, midtones transfer function, noise reduction GIMP—final assembly, curve & saturation tweaks

Done Before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36077302)

This is beautiful, but the same thing has been done before by Serge Brunier, cooperating with the European Southern Observatory. See http://www.gigagalaxyzoom.org/B.html and http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso0932a/ for comparison.

Kinda smooshed (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36078448)

It looks kinda smooshed on my smartphone. Maybe I need a microscope?

DeepZoom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36079012)

The zooming web UI is a great idea but the Flash/Zoomify version is clunky because it keeps the images in pyramidal Tiff format on the server. DeepZoom is a lot snappier and looks much smoother. This is partially because the images are split up into individual tile files on the server and partially because the Silverlight DeepZoom viewer is more performant than the Flash OpenZoom player.

SPAAAAAACE (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079066)

Somuchspace. Gottaseeitall. Gottagotospace.

Space!

dark in middle? (1)

reasterling (1942300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36079270)

So why is the milky way dark through the centre?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?