Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

ISS, Saturn, APOD, 1-22-2016

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
80 replies to this topic

#26 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,464
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:36 AM

I love how everyone is an expert, yet there are a some factual errors in the listed objections on here.

Here's the thing: I see a number of things that make it probable.

I also see a number of things stated on this thread that are not based on fact or are just incorrect.

 

Additionally, I don't know if it was real or fake, but some objections listed could easily apply to many APOD as far as image manipulation..

 

#1 As far as how large the ISS is....

It all depends on how high in the sky the ISS is passing over the camera.

Calsky--I have found very reliable--does describe said pass, at said location as being 24 arcseconds across.

The ISS was 1000km v the closest ~450km pass it could be.

 

#2 The brightness of an object's pass varies.

 

So the statements about your expectations of how bright or large the ISS should always be is uneducated.

 

#3 as to what Saturn or the ISS should look like:

I love the statement that the ISS would just be a streak of light.---you're wrong. I've shot the ISS numerous times on 30fps video and it's distinct shape can be resolved in individual raw frames. See my gallery-my animated GIFs are not stacked,but individual frames from my 4K videos.

I would be more impressed if you had the same equipment and showed your best shots....

And at least with my equipment I don't see much too doubtful---the enhanced detail maybe could be attributed to stacking of frames, good seeing, and color stretching done in post. Show me an APOD that is not stacked, or color manipulated....

#4 the black background and the time of day and no noise:here's a thought---darken the background to reduce the noise? An APOD have never had that before.

 

 

Here's the thing, it could be possible to catch the shot.

#1. the ISS and Saturn are regularly tracked and the math to calculate the pass can get pretty precise. Calsky has proven very reliable about passes from my experience.

#2. Calsky's centerline pass map is very helpful-one could use it to locate and stage their equipment to get the best chance for an exact occultation.

#3. I don't myself do a lot of stacking but I could imagine one could take frames from the video and stack them to improve the detail of the ISS and then blend it back in to the video or image. How is this different that AP'ers doing it with still photos?

#4. I've caught Saturn looking pretty much like that (without dark center ring) in 4K 30fps video with that color with my Sony a7s, but I wasn't using a tracking mount, so I'm not too skeptical about that.

#5. The orientation of the ISS is completely dependent on the location and point of it's pass, so I don't understand the objection that  a shot from somewhere else hours earlier has anything to do with debunking said APOD.

 

That he had a video frame that landed in the exact middle in front of Saturn is very lucky, but I don't consider that conclusive to doubt.

 

Yes nowadays it's hard to be sure when one can manipulate photos and videos with even a handheld device.....

 

I've thought sometimes about setting up a video of me recording a video of a rare event in case their was any doubt.....

But when all is said and done...People will have their uninformed opinions and create noise on social media as if their statements have the exact same weight as people who actually have experience or correct knowledge of the matter......whatever.

 

If it is a fake (ie the material was not shot day or fabricated)...it is disappointing.

But it' also disappointing to see criticism based on things that are not factually correct either.

 

Feel free to challenge me..



#27 supernov

supernov

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: 25 May 2015

Posted 24 January 2016 - 09:02 AM

If it's faked or not (fake would indeed be even worse) isn't the biggest point I think. He highly suggested this was the real stuff, he posted the Youtube video showing it passing "live" without pointing out it wasn't like that in reality. He never suggested it to be processed on early comments pointing out how great it looked, only later when some questioned it. What other reason would there be to post a video? Usually people post a nicely stacked image of a video and post the video with raw data, for fun, but I've never seen those to be highly processed.

 

The photo I can still sort of forgive in the sense you use it as a bit of representation of the actual event, with processing to give better results (do state that though as is always done in regular astro-photo's (open any photo on Astrobin and behold the processing details).



#28 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,108
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013

Posted 24 January 2016 - 09:19 AM

No to threadjack but for a transit, shooting at 60fps would i catch anything?

#29 ToxMan

ToxMan

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,226
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted 24 January 2016 - 09:57 AM

Thanks for the synopsis of the whole debacle, Dan. Wonder if one of the magazines will pick up the story, discourage others from this nonsense?

#30 robin_astro

robin_astro

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,240
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2005

Posted 24 January 2016 - 01:29 PM

This Jupiter ISS transit of mine from back in 2004 is the real deal though

http://www.threehill...o2_image_67.htm

It would have been much better if i had forged it ;-)

 

Robin



#31 ToxMan

ToxMan

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,226
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:46 PM

"I love how everyone is an expert...Feel free to challenge me.."

 

Ok, I'm looking forward to your attempt. And, I'm not being sarcastic or impudent. You're up! Robin and Ethan showed their efforts.



#32 sulcis2000

sulcis2000

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 858
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2009

Posted 24 January 2016 - 05:56 PM

Steve, Emil,

 

I'm curious to hear what Alessandro Bianconi has to say. He is quite experienced with capturing the ISS. Maybe he will see this post.

 

Paul

 

Hi Paul

 

I think this Apod is a fake. It's not possible to obtain same brightness in two different objects. Iss is brighter than Saturn! Here you can see a my movie of ISS (magnitude -2,5)  With the same camera Saturn it would have been dark...  https://vimeo.com/124161779

 

Alessandro



#33 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,108
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013

Posted 24 January 2016 - 06:11 PM

Well this became divisive. His video is a bit suspect. I live in a zone which is pink on the charts damien peach uses which indicates excellent seeing and i do see flicker sometimes..so anything less should show flickering from seeing

#34 ToxMan

ToxMan

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,226
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2011

Posted 24 January 2016 - 06:36 PM

Thanks for your input, Ale. You are the Maestro!



#35 MvZ

MvZ

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,884
  • Joined: 03 Apr 2007

Posted 24 January 2016 - 06:54 PM

This one is quite nice too. I found some Infrared Satellite history showing Dülmen (center of red cross-hair) clouded out on January 15.

 

 

(source: http://www2.sat24.com/history.aspx)

Attached Thumbnails

  • weer.jpg

Edited by MvZ, 24 January 2016 - 06:55 PM.


#36 wargrafix

wargrafix

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,108
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2013

Posted 24 January 2016 - 07:19 PM

Oh snap!

#37 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,150
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005

Posted 24 January 2016 - 08:06 PM

If you look at the discussion that goes with the APOD, you'll see a post by the photographer, Julian Wessel. The image is clearly not as represented.

 

The image, video, and related story have been removed from Julian's website.

 

Calling it a "composite video" now on the APOD does not address the problem.

 

I love APOD and it is one of my very first stops on the Internet every morning. I don't fault them for publishing this, but they should have been more responsive to the expert imagers who wrote in and expressed their serious concerns.

 

I shared the APOD on my Facebook page and sent the link to a couple of friends, but quickly noticed the criticisms and questions. I quickly removed the link from my Facebook page and sent follow up emails to my friends.

 

Clear skies, Alan



#38 Sunspot

Sunspot

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,987
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2005

Posted 24 January 2016 - 08:40 PM

I saw Mr Wessel's response on the APOD discussion page. It's just my opinion but it really doesn't go far enough. But I know that I will quickly forget about it and move on.



#39 Alan French

Alan French

    Night Owl

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,150
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2005

Posted 24 January 2016 - 08:48 PM

It was a bit at odds (to say the least) with the full story he had on his webpage.

 

But yes, time to move on.

 

Alan



#40 maadscientist

maadscientist

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Joined: 08 May 2013

Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:21 PM

I love how everyone is an expert, yet there are a some factual errors in the listed objections on here.

Here's the thing: I see a number of things that make it probable.

I also see a number of things stated on this thread that are not based on fact or are just incorrect.

 

Additionally, I don't know if it was real or fake, but some objections listed could easily apply to many APOD as far as image manipulation..

 

#1 As far as how large the ISS is....

It all depends on how high in the sky the ISS is passing over the camera.

Calsky--I have found very reliable--does describe said pass, at said location as being 24 arcseconds across.

The ISS was 1000km v the closest ~450km pass it could be.

 

#2 The brightness of an object's pass varies.

 

So the statements about your expectations of how bright or large the ISS should always be is uneducated.

 

#3 as to what Saturn or the ISS should look like:

I love the statement that the ISS would just be a streak of light.---you're wrong. I've shot the ISS numerous times on 30fps video and it's distinct shape can be resolved in individual raw frames. See my gallery-my animated GIFs are not stacked,but individual frames from my 4K videos.

I would be more impressed if you had the same equipment and showed your best shots....

And at least with my equipment I don't see much too doubtful---the enhanced detail maybe could be attributed to stacking of frames, good seeing, and color stretching done in post. Show me an APOD that is not stacked, or color manipulated....

#4 the black background and the time of day and no noise:here's a thought---darken the background to reduce the noise? An APOD have never had that before.

 

 

Here's the thing, it could be possible to catch the shot.

#1. the ISS and Saturn are regularly tracked and the math to calculate the pass can get pretty precise. Calsky has proven very reliable about passes from my experience.

#2. Calsky's centerline pass map is very helpful-one could use it to locate and stage their equipment to get the best chance for an exact occultation.

#3. I don't myself do a lot of stacking but I could imagine one could take frames from the video and stack them to improve the detail of the ISS and then blend it back in to the video or image. How is this different that AP'ers doing it with still photos?

#4. I've caught Saturn looking pretty much like that (without dark center ring) in 4K 30fps video with that color with my Sony a7s, but I wasn't using a tracking mount, so I'm not too skeptical about that.

#5. The orientation of the ISS is completely dependent on the location and point of it's pass, so I don't understand the objection that  a shot from somewhere else hours earlier has anything to do with debunking said APOD.

 

That he had a video frame that landed in the exact middle in front of Saturn is very lucky, but I don't consider that conclusive to doubt.

 

Yes nowadays it's hard to be sure when one can manipulate photos and videos with even a handheld device.....

 

I've thought sometimes about setting up a video of me recording a video of a rare event in case their was any doubt.....

But when all is said and done...People will have their uninformed opinions and create noise on social media as if their statements have the exact same weight as people who actually have experience or correct knowledge of the matter......whatever.

 

If it is a fake (ie the material was not shot day or fabricated)...it is disappointing.

But it' also disappointing to see criticism based on things that are not factually correct either.

 

Feel free to challenge me..

No need to....case closed....not sure what the compulsion is to defend fraudsters...



#41 maadscientist

maadscientist

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Joined: 08 May 2013

Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:25 PM

If you look at the discussion that goes with the APOD, you'll see a post by the photographer, Julian Wessel. The image is clearly not as represented.

 

The image, video, and related story have been removed from Julian's website.

 

Calling it a "composite video" now on the APOD does not address the problem.

 

I love APOD and it is one of my very first stops on the Internet every morning. I don't fault them for publishing this, but they should have been more responsive to the expert imagers who wrote in and expressed their serious concerns.

 

I shared the APOD on my Facebook page and sent the link to a couple of friends, but quickly noticed the criticisms and questions. I quickly removed the link from my Facebook page and sent follow up emails to my friends.

 

Clear skies, Alan

I agree....the APOD editor guy has been seen at NEAF......if I run into him this year I am going to give him an earful............



#42 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,464
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 24 January 2016 - 11:50 PM

No need to....case closed...

There you have it. Case closed.



#43 maadscientist

maadscientist

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,042
  • Joined: 08 May 2013

Posted 25 January 2016 - 12:20 AM

 

No need to....case closed...

There you have it. Case closed.

 

You must not know this, he has already confessed....



#44 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,464
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 25 January 2016 - 12:32 AM

Ok, I'm looking forward to your attempt. And, I'm not being sarcastic or impudent. You're up! Robin and Ethan showed their efforts.

Well, I'll wait till after the burn on Jan 27 for the new TLE to stabilize to look for a future occurrence near me.



#45 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,464
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 25 January 2016 - 01:09 AM

No to threadjack but for a transit, shooting at 60fps would i catch anything?

Wargrafix,

 

Here's 2 examples of 4 frames (color graded in adobe speedgrade and cropped for upload)..

Attached Thumbnails

  • 4framelunarex.jpg
  • 4framesolarex.jpg

Edited by t_image, 25 January 2016 - 01:18 AM.


#46 t_image

t_image

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3,464
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015

Posted 25 January 2016 - 01:16 AM

3 frames another solar pass:

 

In case you are wondering where the ISS is in each, take a look at the animated GIFs:(click on for fuller view)

isslunarpass50
Iss solar pass
Iss solar transit jan2016

 

60fps would give a frame in between all of mine and be a little sharper.

 

It all depends on the angle of the pass (highest overhead=closest) I believe I note the details in my gallery or initial posts.

 

A lot of imagers choose to photograph in rapid sequence for higher frame rate and better resolution.

I settle for video because I don't need to be precise with the trigger (for example I begin recording 1 min before and record 1 min after and see it afterward as I look hard in video review) and my camera gives me the option of 3840x2160 resolution video.

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • 3framesolar2ex.jpg

Edited by t_image, 25 January 2016 - 01:20 AM.


#47 tonybarry

tonybarry

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posted 25 January 2016 - 04:12 AM

Greetings all,

 

Long time lurker from Australia here ...

 

I have been reading this thread with interest.  

 

One of the criticisms of the APOD Saturn-ISS composite seems to be that it's impossible to capture objects like the ISS (mag -3) and Saturn (mag +1) in the same frame with one camera.

 

I would have agreed with this until I had the opportunity to acquire a Watec 910BD analog (greyscale) video camera for occultation work.  By means of undisclosed image magic from Watec, both Saturn and the earth's moon were captured in the same frame with reasonable definition.  (well reasonable for a PAL videocamera ... the true imagers will likely be fairly unimpressed :-).

 

I attach a single frame (even+odd fields) of an emergence of Saturn from the Moon's bright side on 2015-05-14.  The timestamp is from an IOTA-VTI. 

 

I do agree that the APOD composite is several orders of magnitude "better" - i.e. higher resolution, and better balanced in greyscale.  That is the biggest difficulty of the image.  

 

For info, the telescope was a Meade LX90-10" ACF, with a Watec 910BD camera running USER1 Wide Dynamic Range setting.  This setting is not recommended for occultation observing because its operation method is undocumented.  Certainly the LUT of the image is going to be extremely non-linear.

 

Regards,

Tony Barry

Western Sydney Amateur Astronomy Group.

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • Screen Shot 2014-05-15 at 9.35.01 PM.png


#48 WarmWeatherGuy

WarmWeatherGuy

    Aurora

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 4,588
  • Joined: 27 Aug 2011

Posted 25 January 2016 - 06:42 AM

Photoshop has gone too far. To see what I mean watch this video by CollegeHumor.



#49 robin_astro

robin_astro

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,240
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2005

Posted 25 January 2016 - 06:56 AM

Hi Tony,

 

It is surface brightness  that is important in imaging though.  The Moon's albedo is only 0.12 which is probably lower than that of the ISS.  If this is the case, depending on orientation, the ISS would be expected to have a higher surface brightness than the Moon, making it harder to correctly expose Saturn and ISS in the same image.

 

This image (not mine) shows the relative brightness of ISS and moon nicely

http://i600.photobuc...-April-2009.jpg

 

(Saturn's albedo is 0.34 and approx 9x further away from the Sun than the Moon so the ratio in surface brightness between the Moon and Saturn is approx 9^2  * (0.12/0.34)  = 29 )

 

 

Cheers

Robin


Edited by robin_astro, 25 January 2016 - 07:22 AM.


#50 fronk

fronk

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2014

Posted 25 January 2016 - 08:37 AM

I took this incredible picture yesterday  :lol:

 

ncc%201701.jpg




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics