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

131–140 of 214 posts

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#131

Post by lgl »

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…

Hey Rod, your last name seems portuguese(?)

Congrats on this, not only you got credits on a feature movie, you got one of the good ones. Cloud 9 for you, enjoy!

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#132

Post by inaros »

throw0101d wrote: post #105
inaros wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>When it comes to the concept of entertainment? No. You are confusing taste and quality.... If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony. The moment you say something is good or bad, we can talk about craft, skill, storytell…

> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony. What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'? Is PHM 'good' in its purpose? Is The Room ? Was 2023's Barbie ? When…

>> What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'?

So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt Institute can comment on your quality as an Artist.

Why do you dismiss the concept of Quality?

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#133

Post by throw0101d »

inaros wrote: post #132
throw0101d wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony. What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'? Is PHM 'good' in its purpose? Is The Room ? Was 2023's Barbie ? When…

>> What is the purpose of "art": in general and/or particular works of it? What makes (a work of) 'art' 'good'? So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt…

> So many things...But anybody at The Juilliard School or Berklee College of Music can tell you if you are good or bad on your musicianship...Anybody at the California School of Cinematic Arts or American Film Institute Conservatory can advise you on your future as a future Director...and anybody at the Pratt Institute can comment on your quality as an Artist.

Can anyone else tell us that, or only certain 'gatekeepers'? Who gets to judge the amount of Quality in a thing, or whether something is Good for its Purpose?

> Why do you dismiss the concept of Quality?

"Quality" as in the amount of 'Goodness' something has?

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_(philosophy)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

An Axe is a bad Chair because it does not have the Qualities for (e.g.) sitting, but that is not its Purpose.

Were the folks that made PHM trying to make Art or Entertainment (or a mix of the two)? If PHM was made to be Entertainment, and people were entertained, was it not Good at its desired Purpose? Did 2007's Transformers have the Quality of Entertainment that it set out to have? Roger Ebert seems to have thought so.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#134

Post by inaros »

ceejayoz wrote: post #100
inaros wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>When it comes to the concept of entertainment? No. You are confusing taste and quality.... If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another, A student first iPhone short would be equal to The Godfather. A child banging pots would be indistinguishable from a Symphony. The moment you say something is good or bad, we can talk about craft, skill, storytell…

> If there is no objectivity....then you would have no basis to explain why a film is better or worse than another This is indeed the case. You can consult many film experts and get very different top ten lists. Some critics may hate The Godfather. Some won't get Citizen Kane. Some love a good popcorn fluff movie and find this year's Oscar contenders pretentious. It becomes a matter of general consensus. And that con…

You say there is no objectivity, but then you immediately appeal to consensus, Rotten Tomatoes scores, and whether the film achieved its goal :-))

Those are all attempts at objective measurement. You are using objective frameworks to argue objectivity does not exist. :-)

The fact that critics disagree does not prove there is no objectivity. People disagree about scientific questions too, but that does not mean science is purely subjective. Disagreement just means the question is hard, not that there is no answer...

The whole reason you cited that score is because you believe it points to something real about the film quality. That is an appeal to objectivity whether you realize it or not. :-)

I argue those manipulated reviews [1] are not...

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47520761

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#135

Post by romanhn »

inaros wrote: post #72
dahart wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is your problem with the movie or the book? It sounds like you didn’t read the book…? It is a buddy story and the author Andy Weir has stated he wanted the story to be different from the typical scary first encounter and send a positive hopeful message. Again, name any movie you like and go look at the 1-star reviews. You will see the very same rants you’re making here. You can trash any SciFi movie this way because…

This is why the bad reviews are important and support my argument: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47518428

Since you have multiple times refused to answer the question of whether your have read the book, I'm going to assume you have not. I found the movie to be a pretty close adaptation to the written material, so your strong feelings seem entirely misplaced (and I guess you don't like Ryan Gosling, fine).

That said, my family - both kids and adults, with entirely different interests and preferences - enjoyed the hell out of it. That, to me, makes for a good movie, whatever your definition of "objectivity" is. Listen, it's OK not to like something popular, but consider that the downvotes and responses you're getting are not astroturfing, but simply you swimming against the current. Sincerely, - real human.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#137

Post by Sivart13 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #49
Tommix11 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved that they changed the ending. I did not like the ending in the book.

About to see the movie in two days, read the book ages ago and remember I wasn't too fond of the book ending either, so now I got a bit more excited :)

I don't think they changed much about the ending. There's one scene added that's not in the book, but the outcomes are all the same.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#138

Post by teraflop »

cj wrote: post #126
teraflop wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this part of the blog post is essentially false: "no generative AI of any kind" I have yet to see a precise technical definition of what "generative AI" means, but StarXTerminator uses a neural network that generates new data to fill in the gaps where non-stellar objects are obscured by stars. And it advertises itself as "AI powered".

I don't consider photos I take on iPhone to be "AI generated" or even "AI augmented" even though iPhone uses neural networks and "AI" to do basic stuff like low light photography, blurring backgrounds, etc.

I agree that I wouldn't call these photos "AI generated", because the majority of what you're seeing is real.

But that's very different to saying that no generative AI was used at all in their production. "AI augmented" sounds pretty accurate to me.

Likewise, if someone posted a photo taken with their iPhone where they had used the built-in AI features to (for instance) remove people or objects, and then they claimed that no AI was involved, I would consider that misleading, even if the photo accurately depicts a real scene in other respects.

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#139

Post by dotancohen »

knappe wrote: post #107
vintagedave wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious how the starless versions are created. From the steps at the end, I couldn't see a 'this is how stars are removed' step. Maybe it's part of stacking (but most stars would remain present?) or the calibration process treating stars as noise?

Traditionally (pre-ai) you would use another image of the same part of the sky and negate the items that you want to remove from the image As an example terrestrial telescope mirrors get dusty. You're not going to break down the scope just to clean up the dust as this is a many days operation in most cases. So instead you would take "flats" that were of a pure white background and thus showed the dust in its full, du…

  > Traditionally (pre-ai) you would use another image of the same part of the sky and negate the items that you want to remove from the image.
I'm not an astrophotographer, so I'm interested about why that method would work for stars. Are not stars fixed in relation to the images taken? I could see how the technique would work with planets, maybe, but not stars.

Why does the technique not work with aircraft? Because they generally fly on fixed routes?

Re: My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary

#140

Post by inaros »

dahart wrote: post #47
inaros wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author of the great Astrophotography is not the OP of the HN post. And that is already one starting and possible isolated indicator of astroturfing, ....when the movie related posts got no traction, they went looking for related subjects...

That proves nothing. You are making assumptions. Did you look at the submission history of the poster? HN runs on user-submitted posts. People submit things they find interesting, and things they believe others will find interesting.

>>People submit things they find interesting, and things they believe others will find interesting.

I can hear the sounds of Kumbaya, My Lord.... this is a more realistic take: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47520761

Post reply on HN