Superb work, astonishing dedication, and a beautiful result!
High congratulations!
Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
41–50 of 141 posts
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#42Can 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?
Do you want the cheapest way to do it or the highest quality, or something in between?
If you have an image that fits in less than 20x30", CostCo or another mass printing service can do it for $10. They won't do any adjustment, so the colors may be off a little.
They'll print on canvas to 30x40" for $120. That's only 150dpi; it doesn't look great up close, but is pretty good from 3+ feet away. Again, colors are what they are.
High quality printing is a thing that you talk about with a professional printer (the person, not the machine) for each job. Prices generally start at $100 or so for smallish prints, and can go up to $1500 or more for large, permanent-art quality work.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#43When I look at this, it is hard to believe that life (and intelligent life) only exist on planet Earth... Very hard to believe.
When I look at this I feel life must be common. Maybe some dot in there must be planet full of dinasaurs.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#44I'm so glad we're used to clouds on Earth and that our human brain evolved to intuitively understand them because as it happens the cosmos are just like clouds. It'd suck if we looked at them and were lost in their perplexity.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Looking at this pic of the Orion nebula it looks like even the smoothest, darkest areas have tons of stars in them:
* https://orion2020v5b.spaceforeverybody.com/
This is also a much smaller area of the sky. The higher acuity of the image might actually be more representative of what the telescope actually sees. The smooth darkness you are used to seeing might be similar to how some people prefer music where the treble rolls off (like tube amps or sennheizer 650s headphones) vs people preferring a more linear freq response.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#46When I look at this, it is hard to believe that life (and intelligent life) only exist on planet Earth... Very hard to believe.
When I look at this I feel life must be common. Maybe some dot in there must be planet full of dinasaurs.
If we would find a huge natural mirror or similar - far away, maybe we would be able to see our past earth still populated with dinosaurs.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#47It looks a little grainy / too much sharpening to my eye. Natural images tend have more blended features instead of looking like sand.
When someone shows you the moon, do you start talking about her finger?
Peace!
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#48> 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.
Depends on what you mean by "civilized", but I take your point. I do wonder, however, if there isn't a correlation between the increase of light pollution and the trend away from reverence for gods. In other words, does the ability to see the grandeur of the heavens on a daily basis influence us to believe in greater beings?
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Looking at this pic of the Orion nebula it looks like even the smoothest, darkest areas have tons of stars in them: * https://orion2020v5b.spaceforeverybody.com/ This is also a much smaller area of the sky. The higher acuity of the image might actually be more representative of what the telescope actually sees. The smooth darkness you are used to seeing might be similar to how some people prefer music where the trebl…
well, the orion image you linked doesn't look like it's been over-sharpened, in contrast to the OP image. I'm not saying there's a way to tell just by eyeballing it, but that's what it smells like.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#50Can 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 have worked with Inprintz (https://inprintz.com) they are in the south bay area. They can do prints on photographic media up to 5 foot by 10 foot.