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

Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 310 posts

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#261

Post by mistermann »

Nevermark wrote: post #260
mistermann wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although they sensibly tend to focus on interpretation at the particle level, avoiding the hype and wishful mysticism that would tend to crop up around its implications for us as individuals. Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof? > Too many imaginative people and popularizers have a tendency to jump from actual equations/constraints they don't understand, to non-scientific…

While I get your general critique I am not quite clear if you are critiquing me, including me with the science inspired confabulators. Just in case you were including me in that: For the record, the many worlds interpretation just sticks with the field equations of quantum mechanics (extremely well tested). It doesn’t invent the quantum collapse, which actually isn’t necessary to interpret them and which raises many…

I think it's interesting (though not surprising) that your long response avoided every single piece of your text that I quoted, as well as my question and other text (ie: the unknowable) of my critique.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#262

Post by darkwater »

seabass wrote: post #193
rkuester wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your picture is itself quite impressive. Do you mind sharing more about the equipment and process it takes to capture something like that? Edit: Oh, you can click through the image and see technical details. Very cool.

You already noticed the technical card [1], but I can describe some of the details that go into this for those unfamiliar with the items on it. 1. The scope they used is roughly equivalent to shooting with an 800mm telephoto lens. But the fact that it's 8" wide means it can let in a lot of light. 2. The camera [2] is a cooled monochrome camera. Sensor heat is a major source of noise, so the idea is to cool the sensor…

Now I need to know the ballpark cost of this whole setup, so it will block me from trying to get into yet another very costly hobby.

EDIT: oh, just saw it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40206558

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#263

Post by alistairSH »

cconstantine wrote: post #222
aronhegedus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s super cool!!! Looks like quite a niche/technical hobby with amazing output. Do you mind sharing how much equipment costs to get similar results?

It's a wonderful niche/technical hobby, but it's not cheap. You could even say it's "pay to win". I didn't buy all of my stuff at once, and I had some mistakes, but I'd guess I use on the order of $10k in equipment.

Just to follow on, you can gets started with quite a bit less. My dad took a stab at some basic shots with his prosumer Nikon and a basic tracking tripod.

That's still $1000 body, $1000 glass, $500 tripod, give or take. So far from cheap if you're starting from scratch. But if you already have a body and some glass, it's not a stretch. Or, if you're ok with hunting for used gear, the body and glass can be ~half off new retail.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#264

Post by sktrdie »

What do you all think all this comes from? To me personally it always baffles me with wonder. I think of the analogy of a mouse living in a cage. Do they actually even realize they are inside a cage? Inside a world constructed by some other being?

What baffles me is that the explanation of reality is too complex for our brains to grasp. Same as to how the mouse will never be able to understand they live in a cage (or even the concept of a cage?) no matter the knowledge we throw at them.

Such an incredible concept.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#265

Post by WorldMaker »

the_af wrote: post #49
devsda wrote: post #30

That's an incredibly detailed image. Every single time I see one of these amazing space pics, it's hard not to get all philosophical and wonder about the size of space & time on cosmic scale, how small our earth is and how insignificant our regular problems are. I don't care if I don't get to see flying cars or AGI in my lifetime but I will be very disappointed if our knowledge of space remains more or less the same…

> it's hard not to get all philisophical and wonder about the size of space & time on cosmic scale Indeed! Never a bad time to re-watch Cosmos and (in my opinion) the awesome sequel(s) by Neil de Grasse Tyson. Is it weird to admit I even choke up during some of the episodes? (As an aside, why is it so hard to find the sequels to Cosmos in any streaming service. In my country it's not on Netflix, Disney+, Apple, HBO/M…

It should be one of the things that Disney owns outright today (from having bought some but not all of Fox/News Corp), so Disney+ is the natural home, but that version of Cosmos was a very expensive show so between the "Disney Vault" and Disney again remembering they can get revenue from lending shows to other services it does seem to be off Disney+ for the moment.

JustWatch says it is streaming on ad-supported Free service Tubi in the US right now: https://www.justwatch.com/us/tv-show/cosmos-a-spacetime-odys...

(JustWatch is a too useful service at this point in the Streaming Wars to figure out where shows and movies currently are. I am getting to point of buying more Blu-Rays again, though, because there are too many services and many of the ad-supported ones like Tubi and Pluto are sometimes really obnoxious, and some of the paid services I have strong reasons I don't want to pay for them. I certainly have friends that have gone back to piracy, and it does sound more tempting as the Streaming Wars get worse.)

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#266

Post by WorldMaker »

antod wrote: post #233
seabass-labrax wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neil de Grasse Tyson is still on my 'to watch' list, but you may be interested in Brian Cox's 'Wonders of the Solar System / Universe' series. From what I've heard, Brian Cox is something of the British equivalent of Tyson. 'Wonders-' is a beautifully shot series that is both educational and remains impressive over a decade on (2010-2011). The only thing that might be disappointing if you're already into astrophysics…

I really like Brian Cox, but I do really wish he'd aim his content a bit higher and pack a bit more information into it. I hesitate to use "dumbed down" though (maybe I would if I didn't like him so much), more like it's just a bit too laid back and slow like it's aimed at people not really paying attention.

I feel like Brian Cox over-corrected as his career has progressed further and further into the "science edutainer" career. His early books were fascinating glimpses into String Theory and M-Theory and often got criticized for being too dense.

To be fair, a similar criticism is often levied at Niel deGrasse Tyson as well that his modern persona is too laid back and slow and aimed at people not really paying attention, but some of his early astrophysics stuff was dense and cool and you still get those glimpses when he is advocating for astrophysics content.

(Relatedly, it's a part of why I respect Bill Nye's late career attempts at aging his attempted shows up and advocating for things like climate science in them, even if those messages and content density sometimes sadly falls to bad or mixed reviews. It is impressive to see him trying.)

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#267

Post by dylan604 »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #258
dylan604 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but the last time I checked a DSLR is not my eye. I have plenty of images from my telescope and various cameras. How you can conflate the 2 is beyond me. Comparing a long exposure from a digital sensor to what your eye can see is beyond bonkers and confusion of the topic at hand, or right in front of our eyes to keep it on subject

Your comment about the colour fidelity of deep sky objects is waay too sloppily written for you to get away with that tone! I mean, just look at what you wrote: > Using a telescope to look at things, one only sees a black and white image. as anyone who owns a telescope that can point at trees knows, you can definitely "look at things" and see them in colour (assuming you have normal colour vision).

Yes, because in a thread about the JWST, then moving to backyard telescopes, we all naturally assume we're pointing them at trees.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#268

Post by the_af »

WorldMaker wrote: post #265
the_af wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's hard not to get all philisophical and wonder about the size of space & time on cosmic scale Indeed! Never a bad time to re-watch Cosmos and (in my opinion) the awesome sequel(s) by Neil de Grasse Tyson. Is it weird to admit I even choke up during some of the episodes? (As an aside, why is it so hard to find the sequels to Cosmos in any streaming service. In my country it's not on Netflix, Disney+, Apple, HBO/M…

It should be one of the things that Disney owns outright today (from having bought some but not all of Fox/News Corp), so Disney+ is the natural home, but that version of Cosmos was a very expensive show so between the "Disney Vault" and Disney again remembering they can get revenue from lending shows to other services it does seem to be off Disney+ for the moment. JustWatch says it is streaming on ad-supported Free…

Thanks, JustWatch is indeed very useful!

I'm not in the US so Tubi doesn't work for me. Apparently none of the Cosmos series (original or the two sequels) is available in my country. Not even to buy.

I'm so thrilled! I cannot wait to NOT watch this anywhere legally!

Oh well, to the Bay it is.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#269

Post by NikolaNovak »

alistairSH wrote: post #263
cconstantine wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a wonderful niche/technical hobby, but it's not cheap. You could even say it's "pay to win". I didn't buy all of my stuff at once, and I had some mistakes, but I'd guess I use on the order of $10k in equipment.

Just to follow on, you can gets started with quite a bit less. My dad took a stab at some basic shots with his prosumer Nikon and a basic tracking tripod. That's still $1000 body, $1000 glass, $500 tripod, give or take. So far from cheap if you're starting from scratch. But if you already have a body and some glass, it's not a stretch. Or, if you're ok with hunting for used gear, the body and glass can be ~half off n…

I'm assuming that'd be a non-moving/automated tripod?

I have a d850 full-frame DSLR and either a 200mm 2.8 or 500mm 5.6, with some decent tripods; but earth's rotation tends to get me pretty quickly with any long-exposure photos :(

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#270

Post by cconstantine »

VikingCoder wrote: post #251
rkuester wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your picture is itself quite impressive. Do you mind sharing more about the equipment and process it takes to capture something like that? Edit: Oh, you can click through the image and see technical details. Very cool.

"Do you mind sharing more about the equipment and process" I'm sorry, but this is making me laugh so hard. I don't know a lot about astrophotography, but one thing I've experienced so far is that astrophotographers love to talk about their equipment and process. It's like asking a grandparent, "Oh, do you have pictures of your grandkids?" It kind of makes their day. :)

Haha, yeah. I could go on for hours. I've had to learn that most people really don't want a lecture series on the finer points of astrophotography. Seabass's comment was pretty much perfect; a bit of detail, but not so much to get lost in the detail.

I tried to write a quick comment on my process a couple of times before they posted, and each time I had way too many words on a small detail.

Post reply on HN