Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

rpastro.square.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 214 posts

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#111

Post by rpastro »

Hey everyone, I’m the astrophotographer, but I’m not OP. I’m assuming OP picked up my article and posted here and that’s ok! So I quickly created an account here to comment.

Having a quick read through the comments I just want to say thank you for the kind words! Please follow my IG (https://www.instagram.com/deepskyjourney) to see more of my photography, and the reddit article if you want to drop a comment with any questions :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProjectHailMary/s/NbRv3sj3fs

Cheers,

Rod Prazeres

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#112

Post by [deleted] »

tomasphan wrote: post #26
shubhamjain wrote: post #21

Amazing! Kudos to Hollywood, for going to this length to license the work, credit the author, involve him in the project. To respect realism as a goal for its own, even though "no one will notice" and a similar image might be "just a prompt away." I know how common is the latter these days.

I doubt that good looking IMAX quality astrophotography is just a prompt away.

[deleted]

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#113

Post by BenjiWiebe »

inaros wrote: post #108
AnDaltan wrote: post #96

Dude, amazing! The images are beautiful and it's 1000 times better when you know they're real and not CGI/AI.

They are not real ... https://astrobackyard.com/starnet-astrophotography/

They're a lot more real than CG/AI. It's very rare and maybe not even possible to have a "true" astrophotography photo. At those light levels, eyes and camera sensors work very differently and even a "plain" astro photo has either been processed a lot, or else doesn't look like what our eyes would see.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#114

Post by BenjiWiebe »

ceejayoz wrote: post #31
izzydata wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Trek is true scifi? I always considered it to be soft scifi due to it being more about social issues in space rather than the more hard scifi about the fictional science. At least the book of Project Hail Mary is closer to hard scifi than Star Trek as they spend a lot of time describing the science. The movie rightfully skips most of this tedium in favor of a beautiful spectacle. This is the first time I've hear…

Star Trek is largely fantasy .

IMO if "fantasy" tries to explain things as being technology, it's (soft) sci-fi. If it describes it as magic, then it's fantasy.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#116

Post by inaros »

mkehrt wrote: post #83

I was wondering what these images were! I wasn't sure if they were real photographs or not. They're great!

The stars were stripped out with neural network tools (StarNet++/StarXTerminator) at the studio request so text credits would read cleanly over them. The underlying nebula data is real, but removing every star from the field puts this firmly in the category of art photography, not scientific imaging.

No one has ever or could ever observe a nebula with zero stars in the frame.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#117

Post by HeavenFox »

inaros wrote: post #108
AnDaltan wrote: post #96

Dude, amazing! The images are beautiful and it's 1000 times better when you know they're real and not CGI/AI.

They are not real ... https://astrobackyard.com/starnet-astrophotography/

That is not what starnet does. It just removes the star from the picture you took, nothing else. It also predates generative AI by a few years.

If by "not real", you mean "you removed the stars so it no longer reflect reality!", then real photograph doesn't exist. For example, OP uses narrow-band filters, and it's common to map H-alpha wavelength, which is red, to green in the images. Does that make it unreal?

In the end, astrophotography is more art than science; the goal is more about producing aesthetically-pleasing images than doing photometry. Photographers must take some artistic license.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#118

Post by inaros »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #113
inaros wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not real ... https://astrobackyard.com/starnet-astrophotography/

They're a lot more real than CG/AI. It's very rare and maybe not even possible to have a "true" astrophotography photo. At those light levels, eyes and camera sensors work very differently and even a "plain" astro photo has either been processed a lot, or else doesn't look like what our eyes would see.

>> They're a lot more real than CG/AI.

Fine, but is still art photography with heavy processing. Not to criticize the amazing work of Rod Prazeres, who has now commented on this thread.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#119

Post by fosco »

rpastro wrote: post #111

Hey everyone, I’m the astrophotographer, but I’m not OP. I’m assuming OP picked up my article and posted here and that’s ok! So I quickly created an account here to comment. Having a quick read through the comments I just want to say thank you for the kind words! Please follow my IG ( https://www.instagram.com/deepskyjourney ) to see more of my photography, and the reddit article if you want to drop a comment with an…

Can you share what equipment was used to capture those images?

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#120

Post by [deleted] »

rpastro wrote: post #111

Hey everyone, I’m the astrophotographer, but I’m not OP. I’m assuming OP picked up my article and posted here and that’s ok! So I quickly created an account here to comment. Having a quick read through the comments I just want to say thank you for the kind words! Please follow my IG ( https://www.instagram.com/deepskyjourney ) to see more of my photography, and the reddit article if you want to drop a comment with an…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN