It's still there- Venus with dark shadow or storm on May 3, 2012

and this one does NOT make me want to have a colonoscopy. just makes me think about them. A lot.

apod.nasa.gov...

you see, the vortexes looked so... different... like massive craters. it was nuts. at least in my opinion, they spiraled around each other at perfect angles around the pole... like two mad bulls staring at each other, circling each other.

Venus has had dark and light spots appear and disappear for years.

I think it's something to do with clouds of various compositions absorbing/reflecting light of different wavelengths but i can't remember.


QV.

7000 miles wide is some kinda big storm, I'd say. That came from a science channel video involving a guy trying to recreate a storm model or something so he is a scientists and it sounds legit but that almost can't be right. That is a BIG STORM. that would make this storm something like twice as big as the US... not sure of the dimension of the US and don't care to look it up because clearly that is obviously freaking huge and Venus is smaller than earth so imagine how much of an area this would cover.

I also learned from some video that venus has an area 50 km above it's surface where the atmosphere is very similar to ours.

Now anyone must see why there are twice as many missions to venus as there are mars.

If only they could get that ball rolling... literally. Funny thing about it going the wrong way is the fact that it is slowing down. It's definitely doing some interesting stuff. It's already moving so slow.... if it keeps it up it just might stop, and then what? What in the world will that mean? Are there any known planets to not rotate at all?

EDIT... Some people think that the moon is a piece of the Earth among other theories. i could really only imagine that in a clash of the titans situation where Poseidon releases the Cracken and it rises up totally unbelievable and ultimately defying gravity... BUT... I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that the crust of the moon appears to be volcanic rock.

Dammit... i just want the thing to spin.

and check this out, the other close planet to the sun has no moon either.
another interesting thing is that mercury is very dense and metallic with it's core being much bigger than ours despite the planet being small. With no way to be certain since science isn't sure, I think venus is somewhere in the middle having a crust thinner than ours and a big highly fluid core. it's problem is it just isn't moving that much so it just stays too hot.

Here's a video of what Venus actually looks like, as well as proof that the OP's just showing us a bokeh with his camcorder.

reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you very much for taking the time to show us all what Venus really looks like.

[2nd line]

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a video of what Venus actually looks like, as well as proof that the OP's just showing us a bokeh with his camcorder.

Someone else in another thread has already figured something out about this term "bokeh" that is being thrown around a lot lately on the forum.

A bokeh is when you have two objects that are not side by side in distance but are in the same frame. the lens focuses on one object while it blurs the others because of the differences in position of the objects.

If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

it could very well be a blur but it is not a "bokeh"

I am copying and pasting this reply and taking it to yet another thread where it applies where this term is being overused because of some new found popularity on these forums.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a video of what Venus actually looks like, as well as proof that the OP's just showing us a bokeh with his camcorder.

Someone else in another thread has already figured something out about this term "bokeh" that is being thrown around a lot lately on the forum.

A bokeh is when you have two objects that are not side by side in distance but are in the same frame. the lens focuses on one object while it blurs the others because of the differences in position of the objects.

If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

Wrong. You described how to create a bokeh by focusing on an object at a different distance, but you're effectively describing a depth of field effect. You do not need to focus on object to achieve bokeh, you need an object which is not in focus. If this happens because of a difference in distance in a given frame, so be it, but that is not a requirement to call it bokeh. That just happens to be the most common way it occurs in normal photography, but again, it is not a requirement. Ken Rockwell defines it succinctly as this:

"Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light."

www.kenrockwell.com...
Oxford Dictionary defines it thusly

the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

oxforddictionaries.com...
No requirement exists for there to be multiple objects at different distances, it simply describes the way out-of-focus points of light are rendered in the image. In normal photography, there are almost always multiple objects, even if they're all out of focus (and the image is still generally referred to as a bokeh image), but in astronomy we're frequently dealing with one object at a time. That does not mean the image is not showing a bokeh.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by NotAnAspie

Originally posted by ngchunter
Here's a video of what Venus actually looks like, as well as proof that the OP's just showing us a bokeh with his camcorder.

Someone else in another thread has already figured something out about this term "bokeh" that is being thrown around a lot lately on the forum.

A bokeh is when you have two objects that are not side by side in distance but are in the same frame. the lens focuses on one object while it blurs the others because of the differences in position of the objects.

If it is a "bokeh" there must be at least two objects involved.

Wrong. You described how to create a bokeh by focusing on an object at a different distance, but you're effectively describing a depth of field effect. You do not need to focus on object to achieve bokeh, you need an object which is not in focus. If this happens because of a difference in distance in a given frame, so be it, but that is not a requirement to call it bokeh. That just happens to be the most common way it occurs in normal photography, but again, it is not a requirement. Ken Rockwell defines it succinctly as this:

"Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light."

www.kenrockwell.com...
Oxford Dictionary defines it thusly

the visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image, especially as rendered by a particular lens.

oxforddictionaries.com...
No requirement exists for there to be multiple objects at different distances, it simply describes the way out-of-focus points of light are rendered in the image. In normal photography, there are almost always multiple objects, even if they're all out of focus (and the image is still generally referred to as a bokeh image), but in astronomy we're frequently dealing with one object at a time. That does not mean the image is not showing a bokeh.

Ask yourself this question... just try.

which point of light on this image is IN focus and which is not?

point of light... or object... doesn't really matter. What are you seeing that is in focus compared to what is not?

The fact is, the entire focus is bad... which is to be expected of an object that far away with the equipment being used... so really, what part of this is IN focus compared to the so called bokeh? no part of it is really IN focus compared to any other part of this distant object whatever it may be. Furthermore, point of light OR object, doesn't really matter if it still must be in the frame to produce the effect. it still must be there as an actual point of light which is going to be caused by... something. Point of light or not... it must actually be there.

Now, a glare or shadow could APPEAR to be there causing this effect... but that is a shadow or glare, not a bokeh of something actually in the picture.

it is more likely some type of optical illusion or something from a shadow or glare than it is a bokeh.

what is this about "you need an object NOT in focus" as opposed to one IN focus. Balony... you still need two objects or images that have a DIFFERENT focus between them... regardless of whether or not they are both relatively out of focus. it still must be at least two things and their focus must be somewhat different than the other.

I think you are confused by the little circle pictures on that webpage. the bokeh is just an *area* of a photograph which is out of focus. this example is given to show how you would want an entire background to appear to detract attention more to the IN focus area... but again, bokeh is an AREA of a picture. it doesn't mean to imply that the entire picture can just be one big blur and you can call it a bokeh.

It's just a blur.

The main point, where is the differentiation of the focal points on this image? ...and more importantly WHERE are these focal points if they do not exist at all?

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Ask yourself this question... just try.

which point of light on this image is IN focus and which is not?

Bokeh does not require a point of light to be in focus. You don't seem to get that.

Furthermore, point of light OR object, doesn't really matter if it still must be in the frame to produce the effect. it still must be there as an actual point of light which is going to be caused by... something. Point of light or not... it must actually be there.

If you're talking about the OP's video, Venus is producing the bokeh image. Nonetheless, it is still just a bokeh, it does not show you anything about the shape or detail of Venus. It's out of focus, so the only information it provides is about the quality of the OP's optics or lack thereof.

Now, a glare or shadow could APPEAR to be there causing this effect... but that is a shadow or glare, not a bokeh of something actually in the picture.

it is more likely some type of optical illusion or something from a shadow or glare than it is a bokeh.

You're not making any sense. It's not an optical illusion, it's just Venus way out of focus. What about this do you not understand?

what is this about "you need an object NOT in focus" as opposed to one IN focus. Balony... you still need two objects or images that have a DIFFERENT focus between them...

No you don't. I just quoted you the definition of bokeh, it's the way the lens renders out of focus points of light, you do not need objects with different focus between them in order to see it.

regardless of whether or not they are both relatively out of focus. it still must be at least two things and their focus must be somewhat different than the other.

No, that is not the definition at all. I quoted you the definition, twice, you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Ask yourself this question... just try.

which point of light on this image is IN focus and which is not?

Bokeh does not require a point of light to be in focus. You don't seem to get that.

Furthermore, point of light OR object, doesn't really matter if it still must be in the frame to produce the effect. it still must be there as an actual point of light which is going to be caused by... something. Point of light or not... it must actually be there.

If you're talking about the OP's video, Venus is producing the bokeh image. Nonetheless, it is still just a bokeh, it does not show you anything about the shape or detail of Venus. It's out of focus, so the only information it provides is about the quality of the OP's optics or lack thereof.

Now, a glare or shadow could APPEAR to be there causing this effect... but that is a shadow or glare, not a bokeh of something actually in the picture.

it is more likely some type of optical illusion or something from a shadow or glare than it is a bokeh.

You're not making any sense. It's not an optical illusion, it's just Venus way out of focus. What about this do you not understand?

what is this about "you need an object NOT in focus" as opposed to one IN focus. Balony... you still need two objects or images that have a DIFFERENT focus between them...

No you don't. I just quoted you the definition of bokeh, it's the way the lens renders out of focus points of light, you do not need objects with different focus between them in order to see it.

regardless of whether or not they are both relatively out of focus. it still must be at least two things and their focus must be somewhat different than the other.

No, that is not the definition at all. I quoted you the definition, twice, you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

what you do not get is that the bokeh is an AREA of the picture, not the whole picture. It doesn't matter how you word it. if the entire picture has the same out of focus quality, it is simply an out of focus picture. It doesn't matter how many personal webpages are specially written to confuse you about it.

even if you wanted to call an entire picture a bokeh (since you just can't handle being wrong about something let's play nice and let you call it what you want, mkay? even though it is meant to describe an area) it suggests that you are saying the venus image is out of focus. WE KNOW THIS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some compromise on the focus. HOWEVER It doesn't explain the shadow, which is DIFFERENT than the rest of the image. What is causing it?... an entirely blurred picture as you describe?

That makes no sense. So what if the entire image is out of focus and as you call a bokeh. WHY is PART of it DIFFERENT?

You see how blurring the whole picture still doesn't explain that? Apparently not.

you can't call just the part of it that is shadowed a bokeh but also call the whole thing a bokeh.

that's just not going to work. Pick one and stick with it.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
what you do not get is that the bokeh is an AREA of the picture, not the whole picture.

If the whole picture is out of focus, then it's the whole picture! No, that's not usually the case in normal photography, but astrophotography is a bit different. Everything is at the same focus point in astrophotography.

It doesn't matter how many personal webpages are specially written to confuse you about it.

Oh right, now Oxford dictionary is a personal webpage. Unbelievable.

it suggests that you are saying the venus image is out of focus. WE KNOW THIS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is some compromise on the focus. HOWEVER It doesn't explain the shadow, which is DIFFERENT than the rest of the image.

It's just part of the bokeh, the "rest of the image" doesn't show you any bokeh without the "shadow," only Venus provides a bokeh.

What is causing it?...

The optics of the camera. If you knew anything about photography you'd know that it was just showing you the properties of the optics, not the shape or detail of the physical object producing the bokeh. It could be caused by anything ranging from crud in or on the lens, damage or a defect in the lens, or bad alignment of the optical elements; even my camera shows a dark spot in the center of the Venus bokeh, but it's centered on mine.

That makes no sense. So what if the entire image is out of focus and as you call a bokeh. WHY is PART of it DIFFERENT?

Because of the optics of the camera. It has nothing to do with Venus, which as I just showed, is a thin crescent, but can look like any arbitrary shape in an out of focus image from a camcorder, yes even with a dark spot, but this is caused by the optics of the camera, not Venus.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
you can't call just the part of it that is shadowed a bokeh but also call the whole thing a bokeh.

that's just not going to work. Pick one and stick with it.

What the heck are you even talking about? "The part of it that is shadowed a bokeh?" What the heck is that even supposed to mean? Are you talking about the fact that Venus is a thin crescent in my video? I never called the shadowed part of it a bokeh, it's just a crescent, and it was in-focus at that! If you're talking about the dark splotch in the OP's video, I address that above, but at no time did I refer to the splotch itself as a bokeh, but because Venus is out of focus and only presenting a bokeh image the shape and detail of that bokeh only tells you about the optics of the camera being used, not the object whose light is creating the bokeh.

I was talking about the other webpage...clearly. The definition you posted still says it's an AREA of a picture.

so now you are saying it's crud, or a shadow, or damage to the lens on top of the BOKEH, when before you said it was a bokeh.

in other words, you have no idea.

Nobody asked you what the whole picture was and whether it not the whole picture was blurry... they asked what the shadow was.

next, to back up your bokeh theory, you will say it is a bokeh on top of a bokeh.

and just when i thought one bokeh was annoying.

seriously guy... what is the shadow? you said it was a bokeh, now you say the whole thing is a bokeh. you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
you can't call just the part of it that is shadowed a bokeh but also call the whole thing a bokeh.

that's just not going to work. Pick one and stick with it.

What the heck are you even talking about? "The part of it that is shadowed a bokeh?" What the heck is that even supposed to mean? Are you talking about the fact that Venus is a thin crescent in my video? I never called the shadowed part of it a bokeh, it's just a crescent, and it was in-focus at that! If you're talking about the dark splotch in the OP's video, I address that above, but at no time did I refer to the splotch itself as a bokeh, but because Venus is out of focus and only presenting a bokeh image the shape and detail of that bokeh only tells you about the optics of the camera being used, not the object whose light is creating the bokeh.

i'm talking about the TOPIC OF COURSE!

No, i'm not talking about your video. i'm talking about the fact that in both this thread and the sun image thread many people are calling both of these bokehs, which makes no sense. When did your video become the highlight of this thread?

I just want to make one thing clear... there is NO reason to inform people that the image in the OP is entirely out of focus. again as i have stated before. WE KNOW THIS.

we don't need to be told over and over again. that is besides the point. this shouldn't be too hard to understand. Yeah, i know you want to steer it in that direction as if to say you were just talking about the whole picture but that doesn't really help make you look like you have the answer to the real question at hand.

We are trying to figure out what the shadow is.

we know the whole thing is out of focus.

THANK YOU.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I was talking about the other webpage...clearly. The definition you posted still says it's an AREA of a picture.

It's the area which is defocused, which in the case of astrophotography is always the entire image if any of it is defocused.

so now you are saying it's crud, or a shadow, or damage to the lens on top of the BOKEH, when before you said it was a bokeh.

Quote me where I said the "shadow" was a bokeh. I said the bokeh only shows you information about the optical system, not the object being recorded. You are lying about what I said.

in other words, you have no idea.

You're lying about what I said. What's your deal?

seriously guy... what is the shadow? you said it was a bokeh, now you say the whole thing is a bokeh. you can't have it both ways.

Stop lying about what I said. My very first words on this thread were

I see a "crescent shaped shadow" on the bokeh which I assume is Venus in your video, but it's just on the bokeh, which only reveals the shape of your optics and any imperfections/gunk that happens to be on them.

You are desperate to try to discredit me, even if it means flat-out lying about what I said. There are my actual words, clear as crystal in direct contradiction to what you claim I said.

I am not desperate to try and discredit you... relax. I'm not trying to target you specifically. I responded with an opinion and it has upset you to this point.
Do not take it personally. I am just really tired of seeing this word used to describe every image on ATS like it's a new trend.

all definitions I have seen on the web consistently say that it is an area of the photograph. It does not say that it is "a photograph rendered blurry due to the lens"... yet even the definitions say that there is a debate about how the word should really be used and it does give completely blurry examples (although i consider them more for reference).. so use it however you like, but my opinion that it is REALLY annoying and overused remains.

Speaking of the video... there are SEVERAL videos on yt that show the same dark spot... some of them look a tad different but still show a shadow. Then on some out of focus videos of venus, it shows a pale inner shadow that is much more uniform... and i do believe those examples are solely from the lens or as some would say (god have mercy on me )... a *bokeh*

but this particular shadow doesn't seem very uniform or likely (imo) to be solely due to the lens.

here's what I think is happening... some videos are getting copied (typical) that show this dark image... some of them appear exactly the same but some of them appear rendered out of focus slightly different. you see what this does, right?... one method of making a video look authentic is quite frankly to make it look crappy and amatuer. Not to say it is not GENUINELY out of focus... I think it most certainly is... but here's what i think. i think it was edited with a shadow and that multiple slightly different examples are showing up to set a little yt trend, because this "venus shadow" topic is getting hits and some on yt are desperate to get hits on their account because they are yt/google partners... i know, i know... people are crazy- it's true.

people who look into venus know there is or was a large set of twin hurricanes and if they can get people interested by making this shadow appear on a crappy homemade video... it causes a mild sensationalism.

OR....

who knows? maybe some guy who had gunk on his camera looked through and it freaked him out till he figured out what it was and he posted it thinking it would make people think (it worked) and it has started trending and people copied it and made slightly different looking videos. i just don't feel it is a blur all on it's own... there are examples of this on yt and as i stated, they appear much more uniform, much lighter and circular.

also, venus is coming up now as a crescent, as it seems, and the time this was taken, it couldn't have been in a fuller phase... so there is def something wrong with the video from the get go.

what i don't understand about venus right now is why people can get webcam shots of JUPITERS FREAKING MOONS, not to mention the rings on saturn... but all anyone can get on venus is an itty bitty cresent.

I mean, trying to understand the crescent part but we can't even get a bigger crescent???

the whole thing is just weird and i'm still disturbed by all the other things that come up when you search Venus PLUS the fact that they say there are so many shots of venus, so many pictures!!!

Ok, then why do we just to see the same ones over and over and over??

Billions of dollars in taxpayer money and all we get are a handful of images posted and reposted on every other venus website.

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
I am not desperate to try and discredit you... relax.

No. You will quote me where I said the dark splotch WAS a bokeh, or you will retract the claim. I do not tolerate being lied about or having words put into my mouth.

all definitions I have seen on the web consistently say that it is an area of the photograph.

It is the area that is defocused, and in the case of astrophotography that is always the entire photograph. Astrophotography isn't like normal photography and the normal rules do not always apply. Get over it. I've been doing astrophotography for 12 years now, that's what we call it.

Speaking of the video... there are SEVERAL videos on yt that show the same dark spot... some of them look a tad different but still show a shadow.

It's not a shadow, it's a splotch on the bokeh image, or "the defocused image of Venus" if you refuse to simply call it a bokeh (if you can't see why astrophotographers call it a bokeh then lord help you). Since it's completely out of focus it does not tell you anything about the true shape or detail of Venus. Let me spell it out for you since you still don't get it; the "shadow" as you keep calling it has nothing to do with Venus, it is caused by the optical system, whether it's a defect, a misalignment, dirt, grime, grease, a melted spot on a lens, dust, or whatever else, it has nothing to do with Venus. I showed you what Venus actually looks like right now. I even showed how it looked simultaneously in a camcorder. Even my camcorder's optics produces a bokeh image with a dark spot in the center, just more symmetrical than the OP's video. And I repeated this again on a following night:

Then on some out of focus videos of venus, it shows a pale inner shadow that is much more uniform... and i do believe those examples are solely from the lens or as some would say (god have mercy on me

)... a *bokeh*

They're ALL solely from the lens. ALL of them, because that's all the bokeh image tells you!

but this particular shadow doesn't seem very uniform or likely (imo) to be solely due to the lens.

That's because you're ignorant of astrophotography and how bokehs work. I not only told you, I showed you, and still you do not listen and you do not learn a thing. It's not even a matter of it being "likely" due to the lens, IT IS DUE TO THE LENS. Since it's completely out of focus, that is guaranteed to be true!

but here's what i think. i think it was edited with a shadow and that multiple slightly different examples are showing up to set a little yt trend, because this "venus shadow" topic is getting hits and some on yt are desperate to get hits on their account because they are yt/google partners... i know, i know... people are crazy- it's true.

Sure you could do it with CG editing, but it would incredibly tedious to sync it to the motion of the bokeh in the video and incredibly bone headed to do it that way since it would be the most difficult way of creating it; all you have to do is intentionally smear a bit of gunk on the front of the lens of the camera, then film Venus out of focus. No editing required. Again, since the bokeh only tells you about the lens, anything you do to the lens will be seen as a change to the bokeh. Whether done intentionally or accidentally, that's all it is though.

also, venus is coming up now as a crescent, as it seems, and the time this was taken, it couldn't have been in a fuller phase... so there is def something wrong with the video from the get go.

Well again, you're not going to see that with a camcorder unless it has exceptional angular resolution, and more importantly, is in focus. I shot Venus at the same time with a camcorder and with a telescope. The camcorder still shows a full circle of a bokeh regardless of Venus' phase.

what i don't understand about venus right now is why people can get webcam shots of JUPITERS FREAKING MOONS, not to mention the rings on saturn... but all anyone can get on venus is an itty bitty cresent.

What is it that you expect to see of Venus? It didn't look "itty bitty" in my video, at least not to me. Hell, Saturn looked a bit smaller than Venus at first in the above video (40 minutes in) at the same magnification I was using on Venus, until I zoomed in more. The crescent shape is all Venus has to show you. It has no moons and no rings.

I mean, trying to understand the crescent part but we can't even get a bigger crescent???

I could zoom in more as with Saturn, but you won't see any additional detail; Venus is too low in the sky too soon now, thus there's too much atmospheric turbulence to look through to make it worth it.

why do we just to see the same ones over and over and over??

See above, new video for you.