Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/25/2006 9:04:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 9:06:02 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Just awesome.



Link to larger version

btw... I see many faces and figures in this - a horse to the left and and profile of a bushy-mustached man to the center-right among many others.

I love stuff like this. Cat's Eye Nebula is also one of my favorites.



Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:08:10 PM EDT
Purdy
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:08:57 PM EDT
Fascinating stuff.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:11:19 PM EDT
That's pretty....
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:12:08 PM EDT
Far out. Man.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:13:18 PM EDT
I just made that my new wallpaper.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:15:16 PM EDT
I wonder how that formed in only 6,000 years.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:15:24 PM EDT
I see ET's face on the right hand side. Can I sell it on ebay?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:16:08 PM EDT
We were born too early!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:20:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
I wonder how that formed in only 6,000 years.



Because destruction occurs a lot faster than creation.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:39:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
I wonder how that formed in only 6,000 years.



Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:41:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ar15_rifleman:
We were born too early!



A-FRACKING-MEN!
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:41:39 PM EDT
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:42:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
I wonder how that formed in only 6,000 years.



Can we just enjoy His handiwork without making it a pissing contest?
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:42:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
I just made that my new wallpaper.



+1 me too
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:44:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:

Originally Posted By adair_usmc:
I just made that my new wallpaper.



+1 me too



+2
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:49:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).


Wrong.

Learn about color in Hubble pics here


Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:50:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By rasanders22:
I wonder how that formed in only 6,000 years.



Can we just enjoy His handiwork without making it a pissing contest?



+1

Stop trolling for an argument and just enjoy the show
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:54:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 9:54:35 PM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By OBird:
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).


Wrong.

Learn about color in Hubble pics here





Um.....yeah, that link said exactly what I was trying to say. And I quote from your link:

"The colors in Hubble images, which are assigned for various reasons, aren't always what we'd see if we were able to visit the imaged objects in a spacecraft."

Regardless of the actual reason for adding the color, my point still remains....the picture you're seeing is probably a lot more purrrdy-lookin' than the real thing.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 10:03:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By OBird:
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).


Wrong.

Learn about color in Hubble pics here

Um.....yeah, that link said exactly what I was trying to say.

No it didn't.

You said NASA adds color "to make purrrrdy pictures".

That's simply bullshit.

They don't just add colors to make it look "purrrrdy" - colors aren't just painted on to make this or that area pink or red or blue - they are obtained and assigned to print based on whatever is in the original image. For example our eyes don't see UV light and so in order to visualize UV light that is ALREADY THERE (as opposed to added in for effect), the wavelengths are simply shifted into visible realm and we are then able to "see" wherever UV light is.

Your simplistic statement that colors are merely added to make the picture "purrrrdy" is ignorant.

Take some time to read up on the pages I linked. You'll learn something.


Originally Posted By OBird:
Regardless of the actual reason for adding the color, my point still remains

Uhh... no.

Your point was that "they add color to make purrrrdy pictures" That is NOT the reason they "add" color so your point is wrong.

Link Posted: 2/25/2006 10:16:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 10:20:02 PM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:

Originally Posted By OBird:
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).


Wrong.

Learn about color in Hubble pics here

Um.....yeah, that link said exactly what I was trying to say.

No it didn't.

You said NASA adds color "to make purrrrdy pictures".

That's simply bullshit.

They don't just add colors to make it look "purrrrdy" - colors aren't just painted on to make this or that area pink or red or blue - they are obtained and assigned to print based on whatever is in the original image. For example our eyes don't see UV light and so in order to visualize UV light that is ALREADY THERE (as opposed to added in for effect), the wavelengths are simply shifted into visible realm and we are then able to "see" wherever UV light is.

Your simplistic statement that colors are merely added to make the picture "purrrrdy" is ignorant.

Take some time to read up on the pages I linked. You'll learn something.


Originally Posted By OBird:
Regardless of the actual reason for adding the color, my point still remains

Uhh... no.

Your point was that "they add color to make purrrrdy pictures" That is NOT the reason they "add" color so your point is wrong.




Whoah there, you're reading WAY too much into my original post. It's not like I'm trying to discredit NASA for some reason. "Purdy" is just a jokingly overly-simplistic way of representing all the scientific reasons behind the color additions. Yes, I read the whole thing, and I've been to a number of Mike Lynch's (famous meteorologist/astronomer/astronomy author) astronomy classes, and he's discussed this very subject. I KNOW what you're saying, you don't need to "convince" me. Again, my main point still remains the same: regardless of the reason for the color addition, these images are usually more dazzling in the pics than they would seem up close and personal. My second post was created under the assumption that your main "beef" with me was that I was claiming that the pics/real life images look different, not that I was being simplistic with the reasonings for the coloring. Only now do I realize that your actual problem with me is that I was too casual in my posting. I mean, come on, do you honestly believe I was trying to liken NASA to a postcard company?

Lighten up, Francis.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 10:21:01 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 10:21:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2006 10:23:22 PM EDT by gaspain]
I wonder what the actual color of that is. Nasa photoshops them to bring out alot of the neet colors, but they call it "color correction" I bet its full alot of yellows and blues in reality.

after reading, it looks like someone else posted the Nasa color correction FACT
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 10:21:50 PM EDT
The horse is the coolest and easiest to see for me. I saw it before I read your text.

I see faces and errr stuff everywhere though. Ever since I read the book subliminal seduction in the mid/late 70s.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:52:26 AM EDT

Bump for the diurnal crew.

Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:54:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).



+1. Mars isn't the "red" planet
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:56:46 AM EDT
If you want to see that nebula, all you have to do is look up in the sky tonight if it's clear. Look for a line of three average-brightness stars (you'll know it when you see it, it's the only thing like it in the sky). Look below it for a very tiny line of three stars. The middle star should look fuzzy. That's M42.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:59:57 AM EDT
Thanks for posting the image new desktop wallpaper as well.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 6:00:01 AM EDT
I can't find the horse.

I did find a set of boobs!
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 9:04:49 AM EDT
NASA does tend to "process" their publicity images, but then this is common in the astrophotography communities, even among amateurs. Separate primary exposures, long exposure times, image stacking and filtering/subtracting are just a few of the things that are "normal". An astrophotography shot isn't "unaltered" unless the description specifically says it is.

If you tweak the colors or apply various filtering techniques, sometimes you can visually bring out things that otherwise would be difficult to notice.
~
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 9:27:15 AM EDT

This is one of my favorites.
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 9:50:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sandguard:

Originally Posted By OBird:
Nice, but keep in mind that NASA tends to "refine" these pics (that is, they add color to make purrrrdy pictures).



+1. Mars isn't the "red" planet



Yeah, that was my first impression when I saw it. Remember that one night about 2 or 3 years ago, when Mars was as close to earth as it will be in our lifetimes? I got a chance to look at Mars through a high-powered telescope. I was surprised to see that it was in fact quite blandly yellow colored. Granted, our atmosphere was between the telescope and Mars, but it was still surprising.
Top Top