Amazing Space Pictures

reply to post by seagrass


hey now ....mind your manners...

haha....i shall have more stars than space

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by seagrass

 

hey now ....mind your manners...

haha....i shall have more stars than space

now now, I was talking to jafo123, he gave me a star for pointing out the lack thereof. I can't take your stars, and yes you shall have all the stars you deserve! Great pix they are!

reply to post by Jeff Riff


Wow, beautiful. I found my next desktop wallpaper. Thanks

Originally posted by LateApexer313
Now just what are those silver things on the horizon, right on the edge of the planet, where it gets really blue? Satellites? You knowwww I had to look for anything juicy

I just went back and counted it's photo number 10....and there's something in photo 9 as well....but there's a better pic of them in photo 10, anyone else?

That was the first thing I noticed... Zoomed in really far it looks like a rod with a spiral around it in picture #10. Picture #9 looks like it could be the same object but I am not 100% sure.

Here's a zoom in of what I see:

Full size link

Amazing pictures - not seen pics like that before - thanks for sharing that - they have been distributed....

pic no:6 looks a bit odd too....if you look at the sea to the right, it seems a bit pixelated whereas all the other pics look normal.....

I think I woke my neighbors and even scared myselv, because somebody were screaming WOW.

Somewhere over the rainbow, why Lord oh why can I.

Thanks for sharing J.R.

These images were posted a while ago on another thread. The poster also somehow had received the original untouched images and posted them as well, which showed the differences. Interesting how much NASA "cleans" up their images. I only wish NASA would give us the full resolution.

WOW! great pics thank you for the share!

wow, they are some amazing pictures. Thanks for sharing.

-fm

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
I ran across these pictures from the last Endeavour mission. They are possibly the best pictures I have ever seen taken from a mission. Great resolution and absolutely awe inspiring.

www.texasjim.com...

One word: WAUW!!!

Originally posted by Freezer
These images were posted a while ago on another thread. The poster also somehow had received the original untouched images and posted them as well, which showed the differences.

Please post the link to that thread if you happen to remember it. I would love to compare them.

reply to post by SystemiK


I just found the thread, but someone changed the images back to NASA's edited images...Maybe he got in some type of trouble for posting them. Reason I know this is because the image showing the vortex cloud was full of black dots and such, and you could clearly see that NASA edited it out. Not that those were UFO's or anything, I think they just wanted to make it look perfect.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are great photos... but i wonder how the astronauts concentrate on the job at hand. I'd be too busy looking at the view for hours on end.

Starred and Flagged.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


Thank you for more pictures of shuttles, but maybe it needs to pointed out that the first pic is actually the Shuttle Atlantis, not the Endeavour (check the wing)

While looking at Space Shuttle photos with Earth well lit in the background consider the lighting sources first. You would have to be on the same side of the earth as the sun and in space it is bright, but in comparison, the earth is a huge second light source opposite of the sun in our perspective, occupying half of our visible field of view, and is also very bright. Now also consider most of the Shuttle is white and reflective metal that is reflecting from all over multiple subordinate light sources.

So yes, Shuttle photos look professionally studio lit with the correct camera exposure, I’m guessing a very fast exposure due to the light drenched area and highly reflective, and white subjects. So dark backgrounds will also be exaggerated in the depth of it’s blackness, giving the whole weightless scene a computer generated zero gravity look. Meaning wrinkles in materials looking uniform and fake without a nice gravity or wind blown flow.

So we have a well lit stagnant near still life scene but here’s where the real problem comes into play. FOLKS, THESE IMAGES ARE SMALL, with high detail. 1024 x 728 pixels is not even the resolution of an HD TV set, which is a small image for print reproduction that is even smaller than continuous tone glossy photographs. They have been digitized with a very low pixel count. In print, the average pixel count I choose to reproduce on a printing press for an image this size (approx. 10 X 7.5 inches) would be over 6,000 by more than 4,500 pixels, 6 times square the size of these jpeg images. I prefer a 600 dot per inch (dpi) resolution for print, a continuous tone photographic negative has an effective count of over 2,400 dpi, these jpegs are 100 dpi. For comparison the high-end 1080p cinematic computer animation movie image size is a 1920 X 1080 pixel frame size, still a small image for printing.

What was that? A ‘jpeg’ image, –file extension - .jpg– (Joint Photographic Expert’s Group), is a commonly used method of COMPRESSION for photographic images. The degree of compression can be adjusted, allowing a selectable tradeoff between storage size and image quality. JPEG typically achieves 10 to 1 compression with little perceivable loss in image quality, but web color restrictions and loosy compression settings can noticeably effect image quality for greater file size reductions.

Better digital picture choices for web viewing would be a tiff file format which uses NO compression compensation for storage space, or an eps which requires even more file space than tiff files, and there are several more no-loss file formats, but we have all waited long periods of time on some sites waiting for larger jpegs so that is the tradeoff. But God lives in the details, so the greater the pixel count, the better the image quality that is preserved.

Digital image compression works in several ways, and an earmark visual clue would be color field averaging, which tends to look posterized, cutout, or ‘cartoony’, flat in effect. The compression would take an area of subtle color variations and apply a limited palette or even one solid color to the entire area. The compression needs only to remember the code for one color applied to hundreds of pixels, less data to store. Interpolation occurs in jpeg compression at sharp color transitions, ‘edges’ which tend to exaggerate the transition, ‘edge glow’ and also can create legacy pixels after the transition, (pixilation), the additional spots of each color field in a percentage of intensity, due to poor edge anti aliasing, (smoothing of the edges during pixel reduction, number of pixels), edge averaging, eliminating pixel, ‘stair stepping’ at diagonals and curves. Anti aliasing tends to soften ‘blur’, what jpegs sharpen, or exaggerate.


Cont...

Wow you see those pictures and it really makes you feel how little you are doesnt it. Simply amazing, great find. Starred and Flagged.


An amazed Fox

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
I ran across these pictures from the last Endeavour mission. They are possibly the best pictures I have ever seen taken from a mission. Great resolution and absolutely awe inspiring.

www.texasjim.com...

Yet, we are led to beleive the best pictures they can get of Mars is black and white?

Great pictures, glad they were posted again, because i forgot to save them the first time around.

I'm not saying they are fake at all, but doesn't picture #03 strike anyone as being a very small model?

I dunno it just pops out to me like it's obviously a small minature model. I don't know why it looks that way to me.

It's probably just me because no one else has seem to even have mentioned it.

Pic #02 is beautiful though! Amazing.

Seems they use the good camera for themselves and give we the ones that pay for all this the pictures with the crappy camera.