Live data from Hacker News

Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

astroanarchy.blogspot.com

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#32
post #25

It looks a little grainy / too much sharpening to my eye. Natural images tend have more blended features instead of looking like sand.

I can kind of see what you mean, but I wonder if this is actually a result of the subject, not processing. The night sky is absolutely peppered with pinpoints of light far smaller than individual image pixels (resolvable stars) which are quite unlike typical terrestrial scenes.

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#33
post #25

It looks a little grainy / too much sharpening to my eye. Natural images tend have more blended features instead of looking like sand.

In astrophotography there's (almost) no such thing as "natural". It's definitely an aesthetic, but it's based on "real" data.

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#34
post #16

Can I buy a large print of this somewhere?

I have the same question!

Related question: If someone wanted to print something like this for themselves, how would they go about it? Say, I have an image or photo and I wanted to make a high quality print suitable for framing and hanging on, say, my office wall. Is this an 'Ask HN' question?

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#35
post #25

It looks a little grainy / too much sharpening to my eye. Natural images tend have more blended features instead of looking like sand.

I can kind of see what you mean, but I wonder if this is actually a result of the subject, not processing. The night sky is absolutely peppered with pinpoints of light far smaller than individual image pixels (resolvable stars) which are quite unlike typical terrestrial scenes.

The effect seems to be more noticeable in the areas filled with gas.

I'm not saying that stars aren't pinpoints or sometimes are just single pixles, but just it overall looks like some post-sharpening has definitely been applied aggressively to my eye.

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#36
post #33
post #25

It looks a little grainy / too much sharpening to my eye. Natural images tend have more blended features instead of looking like sand.

In astrophotography there's (almost) no such thing as "natural". It's definitely an aesthetic, but it's based on "real" data.

It can be true that it's both based on real data and that there is an aggressive amount of post-sharpening applied.

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#38

> My observatory is located in the very center of the city Oulu in Finland. Due to massive Light Pollution I mainly do ... Well I guess most of us live in filthy cesspools of light. Seriously I wonder what humanity misses out on. I think we would have been a much better species if only we could see our place in the universe every night.

Would have been a much better species? Bright lights are a very recent part of our species’ history. It’s not like humanity had a reputation for being particularly civilized before the invention of electric light.

Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky

#39
post #16

Can I buy a large print of this somewhere?

I have the same question! Related question: If someone wanted to print something like this for themselves, how would they go about it? Say, I have an image or photo and I wanted to make a high quality print suitable for framing and hanging on, say, my office wall. Is this an 'Ask HN' question?

I've done high quality large prints from https://www.bayphoto.com/. They did a great job and have different archival paper to choose from. Got the print from there and used a local framing shop to get it professionally framed.
Post reply on HN