posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:08 PM
Originally posted by FreeMindedMason
Sometimes I wonder if this is all clever CGI.
hubble images and other imagery from observatories of any kind is ALWAYS some sort of CGI by default.
This is because the way your eyes would see it, these images wouldn't show up the details required in understanding what is up there.
You can imagine taking an image means 'collecting a dataset' from a particular spot in a sky with calibrated sensors. These datasets contain a
bulkload of data which must be calculated to get an image.
Its possible to calculate it that way that it would look like if you would see it with your own eyes in natural colors.
Now the challenge on this competition was to examine these datasets and derive images from it never seen before, possibly giving scientists new
chances in discovering something.
And thanks to the OP its just great to find it here.
just a few posts later someone starts ranting about this way doing astronomy and the cost.
We are privileged to have such a technology in our constant try to explain the universe.
And as we are privileged, we as a nation make use of this privilege and share knowledge with others.
Knowledge that has been collected by calibrated instruments being presented in pictures like these and articles being published in magazines and not
knowledge that comes from hearsay cause our elders simply knew it better.
if someone would ask me to decide wether to donate for a religious organisation or for building a telescope,
i would go for the telescope, because it creates something trustworthy, creates jobs and opportunities for the younger generations to work in an
so CGI .. yes of course .. people working hard to make it as accurate and usable as possible