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

271–280 of 310 posts

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#271

Post by alistairSH »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #269
alistairSH wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

I think it's rotating, but doesn't have a secondary camera as described above. Maybe he spent more than $500, but I tend to doubt it, but I'm also not sure of the specifics beyond he's using a crop-frame Nikon DSLR with a lens he already had for birding (I think).

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#272

Post by mrexroad »

cconstantine wrote: post #270
VikingCoder wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Nonsense! Just one more story, please?

(Thanks for sharing!)

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#273

Post by cconstantine »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #269
alistairSH wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :(

I've seen some pretty impressive stuff done with a relatively cheap / simple DSLR setup.

The basics of astrophotography aren't that expensive, but it gets exponentially more expensive to meaningfully "zoom in". Because DSLRs with typical lenses are pretty zoomed out you can get away with much cheaper gear. You might look into getting a "star tracker". It's like a telescope mount for a camera; it'll keep the still relative to the stars but because they don't need to be as accurate they're far cheaper to make. They'll probably work just fine for your 200mm 2.8 lens for a fraction of the cost of a mount.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#275

Post by zolland »

travisjungroth wrote: post #235
zolland wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the universe was created by a higher being applies to every religion, but does not invoke faith? If you were to believe that theory at all it would require faith. How else could you believe it? No matter what you call it, there is a leap of faith.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, here's the definition of faith from Merriam Webster that I think applies: a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust The first thing is you don't have to "believe" in the idea I outlined to use it. It's just a condition under which a probabil…

Yes, if we had direct contact with the higher being that created our universe, or any proof of their existence, humans would no longer require faith regarding the existence of God...

How would you use this theory if you didn't believe it held any truth? You certainly can't draw any corollaries from it. If it is actually a relevant condition worth considering, then you must believe it to be tenable to some degree.

There's a condition where when I kick a ball, just before I touch it, the ball actually invisibly flies to the moon and back and then moves forward. It would be a condition under which Newton's laws fail... but I would have to actually believe in that condition to some degree to use it. It is also similarly unfalsifiable. With current observations it is scientifically untenable, and believing in that condition would require faith.

Any model can be proven incomplete if you conjure up unfalsifiable conditions that exist outside its domain and believe in them.

> b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof

For you to use the theory of creation in any meaningful way you must believe it is tenable. For you to believe it is tenable, without being faithful, there must be proof. Proof of this existence comes in many forms, where is your proof? Morality? Reason? Those aren't entirely scientific proofs...

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to censure or disprove creationism and the metaphysical systems built upon it, they are very important and super interesting... but I don't think any of them are without a bit of faith, and they are certainly beyond science's capabilities. This is why I was saying it was interesting that science could invoke faith in some way.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#276

Post by peeters »

xcv123 wrote: post #199
peeters wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I don't know if I'm more impressed by their level of detail from a $10 billion telescope or your level of detail from a consumer-grade telescope!

The James Webb image shows a level of detail we have never seen before. Hundreds of galaxies in the background that are invisible on the consumer grade telescope. Here's the full resolution image: https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/im...

Oh, don't get me wrong, I am absolutely astounded by the JWST's level of detail and am in awe of the pictures it takes. And they are obviously far more detailed than the OP's. I also think it was a worthy expense. I was just noting that my awe of both is comparable when you normalize for cost!

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#277

Post by peeters »

stoobs wrote: post #242
xcv123 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The James Webb image shows a level of detail we have never seen before. Hundreds of galaxies in the background that are invisible on the consumer grade telescope. Here's the full resolution image: https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/im...

I'm quietly chomping at the bit for a Webb full deepfield survey rather than the hint of it we saw in 2022...

If this post is to be believed, a full deepfield survey would take four thousand to fourty thousand years. https://www.reddit.com/r/jameswebb/comments/wrwsfc/how_long_...

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#278

Post by nonethewiser »

skilled wrote: post #137
rpigab wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the only place where intelligent life was ever possible in the universe is being actively made impossible to live in by intelligent beings, which means after they're gone extinct, there'll be no intelligent beings to appreciate its beauty?

Buddhism is deeply rooted in reincarnation and the progression of a common person to an enlightened being through different ranks over the span of multiple lifetimes. I am pretty sure there is a dimension of life that we have yet to discover and learn about. And for the time being Buddhism is the only “religion” that openly discusses this progression. Hinduism has the same but in my experience it’s a lot more reserve…

How does this comment relate to the comment it's replying to?

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#279

Post by nonethewiser »

sktrdie wrote: post #264

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…

It reminds me there is still so much to explore, although the threshold for exploring is so high.

For context, I mean in comparison to earth. Consider that only 500+ years ago civilizations were discovering new land masses with unique flora and fauna. Discoveries that fundamentally changed the entire world as they knew out. Those sorts of discoveries are gone and that's rather depressing.

But that is virtually nothing compared to the wonders out there in space. Unfortunately much of it is destined to be barren, unlike earth, and travel is kind of an unsolvable problem at the moment and perhaps forever. But the potential is unfathomable.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#280

Post by nick238 »

HenryBemis wrote: post #63
itishappy wrote: post #10

Wow. The NIRCam image is probably going to be the most exciting new photo, but I can't get over how well MIRI reveals the internal structure of the nebula. NIRCam: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2024/04/Horsehead_... MIRI: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2024/04/Horsehead_... Comparison: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2024/04/Slider_Too...

And when 'zooming in' and seeing the top 2/3 of the photo ( https://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/im... ) I am super amazed that all these small discs showing are galaxies. GALAXIES (sorry for the caps). How tiny are we (Humans, Earth, Solar system)... less than a speck of dust in the Sahara. I used to look up in space when I was growing up and there wasn't any light pollution to the small town I…

I kinda had an out-of-body experience when watching the Kurzgesagt video on The Largest Black Hole in the Universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FH9cgRhQ-k

Watching the zoom-out to picture ultra-massive black holes is surreal.

Post reply on HN