It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All those space photos are black and white pics that have been colorized.

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
I'm sure we've all spent some time going oooh and ahhh at those pics sent back to us by the Hubble Space Telescope.

















Funny thing is, most of those pics were taken in black and white and then colored in to make them more appealing to the public. Kinda like watching colorized versions of those old classic movies on TCM.


"The colors in Hubble images are neither 'true' colors nor 'false' colors, but usually are representative of the physical processes underlying the subjects of the images. They are a way to represent in a single image as much information as possible that's available in the data."

So, yeah. Basically, all those awesome pictures space research has been throwing our way for years are nothing but black and white images colored in to show how much science each part of the picture features.

Cracked: 6 Myths Everyone Believes about Space (Thanks to Movies)


You would think that, with all the money they spent to send those things up there, they could've at least put a color camera in it.


Its a little more technical than that but, if you think space travel would greet you with the remarkable sights the Hubble pics show, you might be disappointed. Many of the colors you see in the pics are meant to represent wavelengths outside the human ability to perceive.


True or False (Color): The Art of Extraterrestrial Photography

“The colors in Hubble images are neither ‘true’ colors nor ‘false’ colors, but usually are representative of the physical processes underlying the subjects of the images,” he said. “They are a way to represent in a single image as much information as possible that’s available in the data.”

True color would be an attempt to reproduce visually accurate color. False color, on the other hand, is an arbitrary selection of colors to represent some characteristic in the image, such as chemical composition, velocity, or distance. Additionally, by definition, any infrared or ultraviolet image would need to be represented with “false color” since those wavelengths are invisible to humans.

The cameras on Hubble and MER do not take color pictures, however. Color images from both spacecraft are assembled from separate black & white images taken through color filters. For one image, the spacecraft have to take three pictures, usually through a red, a green, and a blue filter and then each of those photos gets downlinked to Earth. They are then combined with software into a color image. This happens automatically inside off-the-shelf color cameras that we use here on Earth. But the MER Pancams have 8 different color filters while Hubble has almost 40, ranging from ultraviolet (“bluer” than our eyes can see,) through the visible spectrum, to infrared (“redder” than what is visible to humans.) This gives the imaging teams infinitely more flexibility and sometimes, artistic license. Depending on which filters are used, the color can be closer or farther from “reality.”

Universe Today

They aren't exactly faking up the images but, what you see in those pics isn't exactly a true representation of what we would see if we went there ourselves either. How much of this is a real representation of what's out there in outer space and how much is just fantastic artistry to encourage more funding for space exploration?



It makes you wonder how much we can trust NASA to give us the real images of what they see out there and how easy it would be for them to hide things they don't want us to know about.


edit on 1/30/12 by FortAnthem because:
______________ extra DIV




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Yea , the raw images are really not interesting its only after each is put together in different filter you can see the beauty of it .

But down the road , we will get a camera that does all of that and send it in a raw form .

Here is also a great video that helps describe the process!






posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Yeah, nasty astronomers using their telescopes for science...

There's no such thing as a true colour digital image. All digital sensors are monochromatic and sit behind colour filters. The colours you see from your camera are estimated as best possible. Astronomers just happen to use filters tuned to specific wavelengths to 'see' certain elements, such as hydrogen, oxygen, neon, helium, argon etc. These images are therefore very important because they tell an awful lot about the chemical makeup of a particular object in space.

This is hardly news, as it's always been done this way. And it has nothing to do with NASA.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by yourboycal2
 


AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!


They cut him off before he could start the explanation.


I found this vid about the Hubble Telescope. It looks like the same guy. I hope he gets around to finishing that explanation.



ETA: nah, they don't get to that part but, some interesting info just the same.


edit on 1/30/12 by FortAnthem because:




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Not just the coloring of photos but they let us believe they accurately know far away things are as well.

Sucks cause we crave knowledge yet we can't trust our leading sources to give us accurate knowledge.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Those distances are based on the Red Shift theory which is starting to come under fire by modern science.


The Redshift Light Theory

The Redshift Light Theory is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory. The Redshift Light Theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory. The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory. The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift. Dr. Hubble found that very distant galaxy clusters were emitting light with a redshift. The thought was that a distant body was moving away from us because the light emitted had a shift to a longer wave length caused by the velocity. This is called the Doppler Effect in sound waves. White light emitted from an object that is moving away at a high speed appears in the red spectrum. The light appears in the violet or blue spectrum when the object is moving toward the viewer. The concept is simple, perhaps too simple. The Redshift Light Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

Bible Life


The astronomer Halton Arp (25) has observe many pairs of galaxies that seem to be very close to each other, even physically connected, yet have greatly differing red shifts. This suggests that at least some of the red shifts have a cause other than motion. If some red shifts have a non-motion cause it is possible that most have such a cause, leaving us with a static universe. A static universe is one which is not expanding. (26)

Hubble's red-shift distance was based on an analysis of only a few dozen galaxies. Newer, much more complete, statistical analysis of thousands of galaxies, depart significantly from Hubble's linear law. Studies by I.E. Segal find that a quadratic relation, where the red shift varies as the square of the distance, gives a much better fit. This contradicts BB expansion and supports a static cosmology. (27)

Could the red shift have some other, non-velocity cause? Other theories involve what is called "tired light", or energy lost as light traveled through space, or a "gravitational red shift"; a condition resulting from gravity effects on energy coming from galaxies. John Byl in his book, God and Cosmos, lists twenty non-velocity red-shift mechanisms. (28)
According to Mitchell, "tired light" theories have been advanced by a number of theorists. They believe in the presence of what they call an "ether"; matter; forces, or fields which in some manner cause red shifting. Some tired light advocates have claimed that all red shifting is due to tired light phenomena. However, they would be hard pressed to provide a satisfactory explanation for some astronomical observations, such as blue shifts of radiation from some stars within our galaxy, indicating that they are moving towards us at high velocity. (29)

Another problem is raised by Lerner. Red shifts indicate how fast an object is moving away from us. Red shifts increase with distance, but also with an object's own speed, relative to the objects around it. It turns out that galaxies almost never move much faster than a thousand kilometers per second, about one-three-hundredth as fast as the speed of light. Thus, in the (at most) twenty billions years since the BB, a galaxy, or the matter that would make up a galaxy, could have moved only about sixty-five million light-years. But if you start out with matter spread smoothly through space, and if you can move it only sixty-five million light-years, you can't build up objects as vast and dense as Tully's complexes. (30) Tully's complexes are vast clusters of stars, each one made up of dozens of super-cluster filaments containing millions of trillions of stars. The density within the ribbon is about twenty-five times that outside them.

Creationstudies

Its a shame that only religious or "creationist" sources seem to pay much attention to this. Maybe mainstream science tries to ignore it because they haven't come up with a solid theory yet to replace red shift. They probably couldn't admit that they have no idea of how to accurately gauge astronomic distances.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
S+F for linking a great Cracked article!

I would suggest that people take a look at the balck hole portion as well. Some great stuff.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


You have a very cynical outlook of discovery, and representation of available detection technology. Fact is many of the colors in space are taken with real color cameras and detection methods, what's added in infrared, and x-ray detection is much the same as images you see of earth from space, to cut through the clouds. The color images of the moon and Mars the data retriever detractors herald as real are even more pushed beyond the human spectrum. Its not what you would see if you were there. You detractors want it both ways, by your choice. Tell us who should we believe, data retrievers or pedestrians with a grudge?


edit on 30-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I don't know if I have a cynical outlook on discovery but, I'm certainly cynical about the info our government chooses to share with us.

I found the Cracked article interesting and worth sharing. I didn't know so much went in to the pics they show us from space. It is an interesting process. The thing that I worry about is that, if they do color editing of the pics we see, how are we to trust that they are really showing us everything that's out there? How can we be sure they aren't editing out information they don't want us to know about?

Maybe things like the face on Mars or structure shapes on the Moon are just NASA's piss poor attempts at hiding something that's out there they don't want us to know about.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Why must you destroy my hopes and dreams, sir? Now I must envision a dark and uninteresting universe....



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 



The Redshift Light Theory

There's no such thing as the Redshift Light Theory.



The Redshift Light Theory is in big trouble. Perhaps this should be listed as Big Bang Flaw No. 1 because it gave birth to the Big Bang Theory.

Wrong. The Redshift Light Theory did not give birth to the Big Bang Theory.



The Redshift Light Theory is the very foundation for the Big Bang Theory.

No it's not. The relationship between cosmological redshift (not Dopler) and distance was predicted by expanding universe theories, notably by Georges Lemaître. This relationship was confirmed by Hubble, and is now known as Hubble's constant.



The theory was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 and became known as the Hubble Redshift Theory.

Not a formulated theory, just a proper scientific observation.



The concept of a universe expanding from a single source at a real point of time in the past was developed because Dr. Hubble discovered the red light shift.

Back to front. Once again, Hubble only confirmed what had already been predicted.



The Redshift Light Theory has our little planet at the center of the universe because nearly all galaxies are moving away from us. This is ridiculous. It seems the myth that the Earth is the center of the universe will never die.

The final sentence shows a gross misunderstanding of the scientific principles relating to the expanding universe. Or, based on the website, a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader. You choose.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Interestingly, photos from the 1800's were in black and white. Therefore I posit that there was no colour before at least 1925.

Yes yes, colour only exists per out technology to capture it.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Maybe things like the face on Mars or structure shapes on the Moon are just NASA's piss poor attempts at hiding
something that's out there they don't want us to know about.


WHY?? Just WHY?

Do they lose a bet or something if there is a big fat rock face on mars? Do they lose a bazillion bucks?

WHY is it all a cover up? I mean "Hey guys, theres a face on mars.." "Big deal, so what.." yet you seem to think there is an invested interested in making sure it's secret. I mean WHY?

WHY??????



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


The purpose of taking single light wavelength space images is that an RGB true color image is a triple detection (or emulsion) and introduces blur, (loses clarity, misses subtile variations in chroma value ranges), whereas a single filter pass, in grayscale–why not, (black and white ranges is the most possible extended range of value than any color), allowing for the most variable steps in minute value variations, and the single pass affords the greatest possible clarity.

Before color photography, serious photographers imaged glass plates, usually 8x10" sized, becoming the negatives of what today is considered a large format camera. The process is very accurate, but very fragile. Here is a triple emulsion 'real color' image taken between 1909 to 1912 by a Russian photographer that somehow was able to insert a true R, G, and B colored lens filters shooting the same image 3 times and developing the three images, printing them with the corresponding dyes. Notice the clarity of this 100-year old photo, (likely the internet upload is a fraction of the original clarity), and then notice the sky is not as clear because it obviously moved during the 3 exposures.

One would consider this true color. Its how RGB cameras work inside the imaging process.



A series of these prints can be viewed here.

Here's an image from the same time period in grayscale taken in Pittsburgh over 100 years ago on the same kind of 8x10" glass plate illustrating the clarity of a single pass negative.
I don't have the website, I only have direct image links.
edit on 31-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Those are some beautiful pics. Thanks for posting that along with the explanation.


It must have been really hard for those folks to sit still for those pics. In this pic, you can see a few guys who couldn't sit still through the whole process.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by mainidh

WHY?? Just WHY?

Do they lose a bet or something if there is a big fat rock face on mars? Do they lose a bazillion bucks?

WHY is it all a cover up? I mean "Hey guys, theres a face on mars.." "Big deal, so what.." yet you seem to think there is an invested interested in making sure it's secret. I mean WHY?

WHY?????



I was thinking along the lines that if, there was evidence of alien structures on the Moon or Mars, NASA would instruct them to cover it up because "the public isn't ready to know about aliens yet."


Not that they lost a bet or anything but, instead covering up government knowledge of extra-terrestrial beings or even human settlements in outer space if our own tech has evolved way beyond what they are telling us about.

The one thing you can count on the government to do is lie to its people. Oh yeah, and collect taxes. They never forget to do that EVER.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join