I often think about what an amazing time it is to be alive and how amazing all the tech we have at our fingertips is.
But I am also incredibly saddened by the fact that I was probably born just shy of routine space travel.
I can not even imagine how amazing it would be to look down on earth and see it in its entirety. Hopefully my kids or my grandkids will be able to achieve my dream and do exactly that.
Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
271–280 of 419 posts
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might misunderstand how ISO works on digital cameras. (I did.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSvHBG7X0w
Good grief, that video suffers the YouTube-ism of "ramble on about how you don't understand X" for way too long. Video alleges people think ISO makes the sensor "more sensitive or less sensitive". (I … don't think this is common? But IDK, maybe this is my feldspar.) (The video also quibbles that it is "ISO setting" not "ISO" … while showing shots of cameras which call it "ISO", seemingly believing that some of us bel…
[deleted]
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#273What is that bright star like object on the bottom right? Is it Venus? I’m guessing it’s Venus because it’s much brighter than a star would be.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
1/4 exposure time so 250 ms of light. the light is coming from all the light sources in the universe, plus the moon, plus the sun's rays refracting through the atmosphere which happens even at night. The natural blue light is coming from the oxygen in the atmosphere but it's so overwhelming in that spot that it turns the light pure white. The red/orangish is coming from particulates and the green/red from aurora. My…
> the light is coming from all the light sources in the universe, That's highly incorrect. I have many lightsources that aren't contributing to any photons in that picture. For example my refrigerator light.
I turn off my refrigerator light after I close the door by reaching in and pushing the button. Don’t you?
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#275Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#276Why is the old image so much more blue? Did pollution increase cause this change in color over time?
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#277Why is the old image so much more blue? Did pollution increase cause this change in color over time?
One was taken during daylight on film, which needs to be processed and scanned, the other one was taken at high ISO during night time on a digital camera.
So much interpretation is done on colour on each step of the way that it's not surprising the colours are looking different.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#278Comparing the final two images of taken of earth in 1972 and 2026 respectively; does the 2026 (left) image look murkier and less crisp to anyone else? Surely our camera gear is exponentially better now? Is the reason for the new image being ‘murkier’ due to light, pollution or something else?
> Surely our camera gear is exponentially better now
They are better, but not exponentially. You can't beat physics, film cameras can still compete in terms of dynamic range and resolution, the optical elements haven't changed that much. The 1972 photo was taken on medium format film, which is twice the size of the sensor area in the modern one, which means more photons and less noise. The recent image was take at a really high ISO, which adds to the noisiness.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd have probably shot it wide open at f/2.8 rather than cranking the ISO up to 51200. One of the reasons the D5 supposedly was chosen was because of its high dynamic and good low light performance. It can go up to ISO 3,280,000: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D5 The D5 has been used on the ISS, including EVAs, since 2017, so is a known quantity: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cameras_on_the_Interna…
The good low light performance was amazing for its time (10 years ago), and it still holds up decently today. But let's not kid ourselves -- it has been clearly surpassed by modern backside illuminated CMOS sensors like the one on the Z9. EDIT: sorry, it seems I'm wrong. I just checked https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm and while the Z9 has the clear edge with 2 more stops of dynamic range at low ISO, the…
Was hoping to hear from the person at NASA who made the choice and why.
Re: Artemis II crew take “spectacular” image of Earth
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the D5 is a great camera it's ~10 years old. Wonder why they didn't go for the Z9 which is its modern mirrorless equivalent.
They did bring the Z9: https://petapixel.com/2026/04/02/a-nikon-z9-made-it-aboard-t... But yeah the grainy photo of the Earth with the D5 at ISO 51200 shows the shortcomings of the ancient DSLR. Still, great shot.
How does the age of the camera influence physics? The only thing that really helps would be increasing the aperture.