×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

The Night Sky In 800 Million Pixels

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the it's-stars-all-the-way-down dept.

Space 120

An anonymous reader recommends a project carried out recently by Serge Brunier and Frédéric Tapissier. Brunier traveled to the top of a volcano in the Canary Islands and to the Chilean desert to capture 1,200 images — each one a 6-minute exposure — of the night sky. The photos were taken between August 2008 and February 2009 and required more than 30 full nights under the stars. Tapissier then processed the images together into a single zoomable, 800-megapixel, 360-degree image of the sky in which the Earth is embedded. "It is the sky that everyone can relate to that I wanted to show — it's constellations... whose names have nourished all childhoods, it's myths and stories of gods, titans, and heroes shared by all civilisations since Homo became sapiens. The image was therefore made as man sees it, with a regular digital camera." The image is the first of three portraits produced by the European Southern Observatory's GigaGalaxy Zoom project.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (5, Informative)

Announcer (816755) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575531)

I can't believe it's already been Slashdotted! I was able to grab it on Coral, so now their servers have it, and should handle the load.

Here is that Coral link to this article:

http://www.sergebrunier.com.nyud.net/gallerie/pleinciel/index-eng.html [nyud.net]

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (2, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575547)

The Coral link isn't loading for me, either... I found a scaled down version [freerepublic.com] that gives readers a decent idea of what it looks like, though.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (2, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576157)

Wow, who ever thought that the simpletons on Free Republic would give a shit about stars?

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576241)

my kingodom for a mod point.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (2, Funny)

uncqual (836337) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576593)

They were probably looking for God (or angels or Heaven or, more likely, pornographic constellations).

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (2, Funny)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577089)

It's the enormous amounts of tedium in doing this that caught their attention.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (4, Funny)

The Redster! (874352) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575593)

M-M-M-Multi-Slashdot!

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575729)

Priceless! :)

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

KDingo (944605) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575831)

It's just barely getting by! It looks like if he were to provide the full res version as a downloadable, it would be 4.42GB large. It would have been nice if there were say a wallpaper-sized version instead of that dinky thumbnail though.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (4, Informative)

Announcer (816755) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575881)

It would appear that the Coral servers are acquiring bits and pieces as they are able. When I reloaded the link, I was able to see much more of the site than at first. Be patient... and try reloading in a few minutes.

It should be standard procedure when posting any article to Slashdot, to run it though Coral *FIRST*, so their servers can load and mirror everything. Then post the Coral link.

But that would be too easy.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#29578735)

In general I agree with you. However, in this case it wouldn't help out a ton. Coral would get the page and the fully zoomed out image, which would at least be something, but is not the purpose of this post...there are countless wide angle photos of the sky you can find all over the internet. It wouldn't cache any of the zoomed data unless someone manually went through and zoomed in on everything.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575969)

Reasonable bandwidth per user + slashdot article = certain carnage.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (2, Interesting)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576003)

Not to mention that people are probably actually clicking the article..

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576989)

The article is about really good graphics, as evinced by this picture. You think they're not gonna click or something?

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576903)

Reductio ad Slashdotium

--

Why? To show the armadillos that it could be done.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576629)

Someone links to a nearly 1 gig image file on the front page of Slashdot, and you can't believe it's slashdotted?? Really?

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 5 years ago | (#29578555)

When I saw the article, it was only about a MINUTE old, and had ZERO comments. No, I did NOT expect it to have *already* been Slashdotted. I'm glad I was quick enough to at least get the Coral servers to grab SOMETHING as the deluge began, so people could at least see a *portion* of the site before it's servers smoldered.

Re:Already slashdotted! Here's a Coral link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29580835)

When I saw the article, it was only about a MINUTE old, and had ZERO comments. No, I did NOT expect it to have *already* been Slashdotted. I'm glad I was quick enough to at least get the Coral servers to grab SOMETHING as the deluge began, so people could at least see a *portion* of the site before it's servers smoldered.

Ya know... sometimes we actually *do* want to RTFA.

Slashdotted before the first comment? (1)

SWFalken (1052228) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575533)

A new record for slashdot destruction?

Re:Slashdotted before the first comment? (4, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575571)

Here's a direct link to the full-size version of the image contained in my earlier comment: panoramic night sky view [scientificcomputing.com] . It is indeed absolutely gorgeous.

Re:Slashdotted before the first comment? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575933)

if that's full size i got one that's bigger [nasa.gov] .

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575553)

What is that super bright one below what I am guessing is the milkyway? If you zoom in on it, it still is large and dumping LOADS of light.

Re:wow (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29577087)

it's my cum, gleaming off of your momma's neck and chest.

Projection (1)

ZygnuX (1365897) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575577)

Does anyone know what kind of method they use to "stitch" together the images? What kind of projection they use, so the final imagen does indeed look like the milky way, and not stretched nor distorted?

Re:Projection (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575741)

Yeah its called ShoopDaWhoop

Re:Projection (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576215)

I'll be hiking out in the wilderness away from the lights of civilization next week and was thinking of taking shots of the night sky.

I have a film camera with bulb release and a good tripod, so taking long exposures with no camera shake won't be a problem. However, there are a couple things I am concerned about.

1) Film type. What should I go with? I was thinking of a low-grain slow film like Reala, but would a faster film be preferable?
2) Shutter length. What is the minimum shutter length to get a deep view of the sky but also avoid capturing the rotation of the earth?
3) Lens. Is there an ideal focal length? I was thinking wider is better to capture more of the sky and possibly some earth-based objects.

Any help? Thanks!

Re:Projection (2, Informative)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576317)

Go wide. And you'll have to go much faster than you think. Play around, but IIRC with no tracking you can only reasonably get about 20 seconds out of a 50 mm (35 mm camera) lens. Faster film gets you a deeper image but more grain of course. Most constellations fit nicely in the frame from a 50 mm lens.

Unfortunately, you won't get anything like this with film, at least not without an incredible amount of work and some really excellent tracking. Film rules for long exposures but digital is unbeatable for deep work because you can stack shorter exposures.

Since you're using film, consider exploiting it's strengths and get some star trail shots.

Re:Projection (2, Interesting)

Palpitations (1092597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576743)

1) It's been years since I did any work with film, so I'm afraid I can't help you there. I've just got a DSLR that I use now.
2) ~20 seconds. If you go very far beyond that, you'll end up with trails instead of nice clear shots. 30 seconds is passable, you'll just end up with tiny, tiny trails - probably not that noticeable unless you look closely. You may be able to stretch that out a bit more if you have near-superhuman vision, a geared tripod, and a steady hand, but I wouldn't count on it. That's not a bad thing though, there are some great images done that show the movement of the stars. Not every picture has to be tracked in order to be worthwhile.
3) Personal preference. I've taken some pictures at 18mm that I loved, and some at 200mm that made me just as happy. Experiment, and see what turns out catching your eye. Everyone has a different sense of aesthetics. What works for me may not work for you.

For any pictures you do take, I highly recommend the Astrometry group on Flikr [flickr.com] . It's a bot that will match up your images with a massive database covering the night sky, and tag major features in your images for you. I certainly don't know everything in the sky I'm looking at when I decide to take a picture, so being able to upload it and have all the major features identified is incredible. In my experience, the people behind it are great as well, and very willing to share the datasets they use.

That said, if you want to get serious about it, you should look at picking up an equatorial mount. It's high on my list, right after a nice intervalometer.

Re:Projection (1)

Palpitations (1092597) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576767)

Also, I hate to double post, but make sure you lock up the mirror on your camera if you have that option. Mirror slap is never good. I just picked up a nice Manfrotto tripod/head, but I still think it takes a few seconds for any vibrations to completely settle. Locking your mirror up should take care of that. It's a minor detail, but one worth mentioning.

Digital tracking? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#29578957)

After reading your message and the one about the relative strengths of film and digital, it occurred to me to wonder what you could do with digital tracking. Basically stitching together a LOT of shorter exposure digital shots and correcting for the motion of the earth algorithmically to synthesize a long exposure image. It seems like an obvious hack for someone with a digital back and a fixed scope.

Re:Projection (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 5 years ago | (#29578037)

> 1) Film type. What should I go with? I was thinking of a low-grain slow film like Reala, but would a faster film be preferable?
> 2) Shutter length. What is the minimum shutter length to get a deep view of the sky but also avoid capturing the rotation of the earth?
> 3) Lens. Is there an ideal focal length? I was thinking wider is better to capture more of the sky and possibly some earth-based objects

It is easy to estimate this. The sky (well...the Earth) rotates in about 24 hours: given the shutter length and the apparent distance of the stars from North (South if you live in the southern emisphere), you get the apparent rotation of your target. In order to avoid a blurred image, the apparent displacement must be smaller than the diameter of the circle of confusion [wikipedia.org] of your lens, which also depends from the focal lenght of your lens and from the f/stop you use. Shutter lenght and f/stops are also related to the film sensitivity you use. Excel is your friend...

From my experience (I like taking landscape night shots) I start noticing blurred images of stars while shooting with an exposure time longer than about 10 seconds and a 50mm lens. If you need a longer exposure, consider using a polar mount and a motor for tracking stars. Before shooting, look around for incoming airplanes, Iridium flares, or other flying objects: they can ruin your shots...

Re:Projection (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577955)

Towards the end of the web page they say that they stitched all the images together using this software [autopano.net] .
I personally use this free program [cs.ubc.ca] for photo stitching, but if you look around with google, you can find plenty of them to use.

Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (3, Informative)

edwebdev (1304531) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575579)

800 megapixels would be a very large resolution for a normal image of a simple subject like, say, a person. But when you consider that this image is covering 360 degrees of night sky, which changes nightly (constellations and planets rise and set just like the sun), the resolution is not so great. An exposure time of 6 minutes (during which everything is moving) goes to show how "blurry" even an 800 megapixel image of the night sky (an enormous subject) must be. This doesn't take anything away by the beauty of this project, but I think it's important to put sensational measurements such as "800 megapixels" in context.

On a different note:

In 2009, you photograph sky. In 2010, sky photographs YOU!.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (5, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575619)

An exposure time of 6 minutes (during which everything is moving) goes to show how "blurry" even an 800 megapixel image of the night sky (an enormous subject) must be.

He used a moving equatorial mount to correct for the earth's motion.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

edwebdev (1304531) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575705)

Whoops - thanks for the correction.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577411)

The motored tracking tripod/device is really needed for star shooting (what is actually easy to manufacture itself) because over 2 second exposure makes stars leaves trails.

For normal moon shooting even tribod is not needed, becase when moon is clear, it is like shooting on earth a subject on sunlight. 1/250 with F8 ISO 100 (So you can easily shoot by hand using 300mm focal lenght). Stars can be captured too with 4-8 seconds exposure, but you end up having trails on them and moon overexposured totally only as white blurry object.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (2, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575663)

I thought the same thing. This isn't a particularly impressive resolution for such a large subject. Check out the kind of detail we get of the earth [nasa.gov] : 21600 by 10800 pixels!

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575809)

I found even better ones [nasa.gov] .. a staggering 26000x26000! I can't find an image viewer that displays them properly without crashing X.. even feh won't take it

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576233)

ha! just got it to open in xzgv, its using 1.86GB of RAM.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576245)

.. a staggering 26000x26000! I can't find an image viewer that displays them properly without crashing X.. even feh won't take it

Try GQView - handles 21,000x21,000px tiff images fairly well. Takes a while to crunch it all but stays fairly responsive once the image is loaded.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

Draconmythica (1057150) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576781)

Well I can tell you it certainly doesn't end well on the windows side either if you choose to click "Set as Desktop Background" instead of the "Open With" option that lives right below. It ate right through all my glorious 8 gigs of memory and pegged my i7 for a good minute before I could kill explorer. I would not recommend it in the future...

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29577463)

Preview.app on OS X displays the part of it that shows fine, a chunk of South America. Otherwise the rest of the image is truncated somehow. There was no noticeable load time. It came right up in a couple nanoseconds but never loaded the entire image. I'll have to debug it. Core Image sucked down 2 GiB of RAM before crashing. Photoshop CS3 gave the same result as Preview.app so I'll have to see if that XWindows app a parent mentioned will compile for Darwin.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575789)

. This doesn't take anything away by the beauty of this project, but I think it's important to put sensational measurements such as "800 megapixels" in context.

If you want to put these measurements in context, you consider what is currently occurring in astrophotography, not the extreme resolution that can be achieved by photographing smaller subjects. The resolution is virtually irrelevent, the time taken and the measures with which to achieve it are far more crucial to this.

As you quite clearly have no knowledge of such a subject (referencing you point regarding moving, which is a trivial aspect for any astrophotographer using a tracking mount / autoguider, thesedays), you're not exactly the individual to "put it in context", now are you?

Blurred images can be attributed to a great number of factors that have nothing to do with resolution. For instance, on earth, we view "outside" through rather blurring atmospheric interference. Consequently as magnification increases, so does this effect. This leads to astrophotographers using stacked focus, and cherry picking good frames etc.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

edwebdev (1304531) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576029)

As the article and the 800 megapixel resolution referenced in the headline are targeted at a general audience, not astrophotography experts, and as I have a solid math/physics background, I'm in a perfectly comfortable position to help put a photograph's resolution in context. Most people who read the headline are not going to think of the resolution given in an astrophotographical context, but in comparison to the resolutions of the digital cameras they are personally familiar with.

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575979)

1,200 exposures. 6 minutes per exposure. Entire sky, northern and southern. What the hell does it take to impress you?

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577309)

The surface area of a sphere, is 4pi r*2, so those 800M pixels, match the surface of sphere 8000 pixels in radius, or 50132 pixels in circumference. So each pixel represents a square on the night sky about 26 seconds of arc in each direction. That isn't really very accurate, most objects in the sky are lot smaller than that. It might just have enough resolution to show some structure in the andromeda galaxy which is (178 by 63) arc min in size.

---

Astronomy Feed [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Awesome project, deceiving "resolution" (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577657)

For the night sky, 800 megapixels is impressive. But for earth, its not particularly big. go to gigapan.org and you'll find thousands of gigapixel images, including ones taken at night, requireing long exposures (even if nothing near 6 mins)

Slashdotted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575583)

Yeah the main link is down, still down in fact as i write this... that was fast, any idea how many hits that took before it collapsed?

it's all good (-1, Offtopic)

wesslen (1644543) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575635)

The next logical step in this process...360 degree zoomable 800 megapixel boobs FTW!

Re:it's all good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575703)

idiot

Re:it's all good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575845)

why don't people mod these kinds of shitballs down?

Re:it's all good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576139)

They do even if it is a waste of perfectly good mod points.

Re:it's all good (1)

wesslen (1644543) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576863)

The logic behind this joke is as follows: The pornography industry plays a large role in determining which technologies evolve and end up as industry standard (mini dv, blu-ray, to name a few). As such, the joke above was playing upon this unfortunate determinant by poking fun at the fact that pornography can play a role in high technology even though in this case it obviously wouldn't (thus hyperbolic satire). I apologize if mod points were wasted rating this down, I'll try to avoid being so crass and childish in my future posts.

So... (1)

Kranerian (1427183) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575637)

They go to all this effort to put massive, brilliant pictures online, but they forget to put it on a server remotely capable of handling it? Way to go.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575771)

Unfortunately, many hosting companies make bold claims about their capabilities without actually being able to deliver on those promises. In this case, the host appears to be ovh.com [ovh.com] (judging by whois info on the IP), providing a dedicated server. Of course, this does leave open the possibility that the server is badly configured for traffic on this scale.

Re:So... (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576143)

The server's still working. I doubt they expected the full force of slashdot. And this isn't like a normal posting, this is the sort of thing everyone will want to see for themselves.. And it can't help that it's a huge image.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577065)

You can't actually see the 800-megapixel image. You have to contact the photographer to get the full-resolution image

They have a couple of decent sized static images, some desktop sizes, and one that dynamically loads when you zoom in, ala google maps. I don't know if the last one goes to the full 800MP when you zoom.

Re:So... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576089)

Well... It's 800 Million pixels!

Did the post the raw file?

Stunning... The Live Version Anyway... (1)

BeaverAndrew (1645577) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575695)

That picture looked pretty impressive on display "in the Atrium of the Monte-Carlo Casino, Monaco." Unfortunately, it's no longer on display. It's an interesting story but I can't believe they paid someone to do this (if he did get paid which I assume he did).

Re:Stunning... The Live Version Anyway... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576111)

Yes, the live version of the night sky is absolutely stunning, but it's not on display in some atrium in Monaco.

Alternative Link [Astronomy picture of the Day] (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575731)

This image was also he asronomy picture of the day for Sept 26th

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090926.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Alternative Link [Astronomy picture of the Day] (0, Troll)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577279)

Funny thing is, that's not the picture. The photographer, Brunier, decided to lower every copy he released electronically to either 18MP max, or be that one zoomable version. The 800MP version is only available through him, only for professionals, and he holds the copyright.

What the dick pretty much did, was give the astronomical community something to clap about and use to get more of an audience, while getting his own name on it. He didn't do anything serious with this, like let other people have it, or use it.

Re:Alternative Link [Astronomy picture of the Day] (2, Insightful)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 5 years ago | (#29578935)

Yeah what a jackass. He spends 30 entire nights over 6 months doing photography (something that he appears to do as part of his profession) and then expects to maintain a little bit of creative control over his work? Pffft!

Sarcasm aside, grow up a bit. He's made the zoomable version available, and even aside from that 18MP is pretty darn good. It's a good quality image you are working with, and you could do quite a bit with it. I've made 40" long prints from 6.7MP images and they end up looking very good. You could do pretty darn good with an 18MP image. If you want to make a print for yourself, you could make a damn good one from that (he might not appreciate it, but he'd never know). If you just want to look at it, use the zoomable version. If you want to do more than that, you could at least expend the effort to stitch together screenshots taken while panning across the zoomed in image. Or better yet, get your ass down there for 6 months and take them yourself.

Re:Alternative Link [Astronomy picture of the Day] (1)

LuminaireX (949185) | more than 5 years ago | (#29581619)

Oh yeah, what an asshole. How dare he spend time and money to create something and not give it away! Moocher

Old News (0, Flamebait)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575735)

This was reported in Wired many days ago.

mod 0p (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575813)

Wi7l recaal that it risk looking even result of a quarrel troubles of Walnut play area Try not About outside to predict *BSD's

Oh my God. . . (2, Funny)

Adaeniel (1315637) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575885)

It's full of stars.

Re:Oh my God. . . (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575965)

Its been nice knowing you....

Re:Oh my God. . . (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576113)

More like "See you in a thousand years or so [wikipedia.org] ..."

Re:Oh my God. . . (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576141)

He was back in 2010. Thats one year away.

WHY release this on anything but a Torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29575927)

I may be uneducated on it, but, I understand torrents with 15 seeders are slow and torrents with 15,000 Slashdotters would be fast.

Re:WHY release this on anything but a Torrent? (1, Troll)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576635)

Because only criminals use torrents.

Re:WHY release this on anything but a Torrent? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577083)

No, there's no full-res version. You have to email the artist for it.

And just think... (1, Flamebait)

sympathy3k21 (1574255) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575957)

All this was put into the sky by God so that we wouldn't get bored at night! How nice of him!

Full Version Anywhere (1)

kidblast (413235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29575985)

Does anyone have a link to the full version somewhere?

I'll have to do some digging to see if I can find it . . .

Re:Full Version Anywhere (1)

kidblast (413235) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576011)

So it seems from other comments it might be in the range of a few gigs, I won't be holding my breath searching for it!

Re:Full Version Anywhere (2, Interesting)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577151)

You can't get it anywhere except the artist. I set him an email, and he sent a very prompt reply that it's for profesional use only, without actually knowing wether or not I was a professional.

I'm guessing that even though this project, GigaGalaxy Zoom, is done by the ESO, a intergovernmental organization, the image is just under license from the "artist" (in this case, "man with too much time for tedium"), so don't hold your breath about finding it anyway.

Re:Full Version Anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29578787)

Re:Full Version Anywhere (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29580339)

We were talking about the 800MP image, not the watered-down version.

Re:Full Version Anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29581021)

You can't get it anywhere except the artist. I set him an email, and he sent a very prompt reply that it's for profesional use only, without actually knowing wether or not I was a professional.

Well you're not a professional. You're just some troll whining on Slashdot. 7 posts on this topic. 5 with a negative tone.

Somehow I doubt very much that your email to the photog was written in a professional way.

Sora no Manimani (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576053)

Mihoshi would be proud.

Amateur (4, Funny)

Master Moose (1243274) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576063)

He didn't even use de-speckle on it.

ThankYouThankYouThankYou (5, Insightful)

T1girl (213375) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576279)

Most people who live in cities never get to see even a fraction of the night sky. Even thougb I live in rural Colorado where we can see the Milky Way fairly regularly, I want to thank you so much for sharing with everyone what we are missing out on, night after night. This is way better than TV.
Cheers.

Re:ThankYouThankYouThankYou (4, Interesting)

TheoMurpse (729043) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576453)

I was recently at Yosemite during the Perseid meteor shower, and I got to really look at the Milky Way "scar" for the first time with my own eyes. My parents have a house in rural Texas, but the visibility was nowhere near what it was smack dab in the middle of a wide open Yosemite field at midnight.

Re:ThankYouThankYouThankYou (4, Interesting)

dargaud (518470) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577479)

I spent a couple years in Antarctica [gdargaud.net] : clearest sky in the world by very far (see recent /. article about ridge A [slashdot.org] ). When I was at Dome C [gdargaud.net] , we would go lay down in the snow and watch the stars, never mind the sub -70C temperatures. The stars didn't twinkle at all (no turbulence) and appeared painted on a black ceiling. The main problem was getting back inside before you were frozen solid to the ground.

I had my own telescope, but my pitiful attempts at seeing anything were thwarted by the vexatious cold and my own incompetence at astronomy [gdargaud.net] .

Re:ThankYouThankYouThankYou (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29577271)

Splendid. For those of us who 'know nothing', it would be useful to have some orientation. Where is the so-called Pole Star or Southern Cross? Big Dipper/Plough? And which is the spot of the Hubble deep field?

Re:ThankYouThankYouThankYou (1)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577933)

Most people who live in cities never get to see even a fraction of the night sky. Even thougb I live in rural Colorado where we can see the Milky Way fairly regularly, I want to thank you so much for sharing with everyone what we are missing out on, night after night. This is way better than TV. Cheers.

Those of us temporarily taking up abode in the Iraqi desert also don't get to see much of the stars. The sand/dust that is always in the air is worse than looking at the stars just a mile from downtown Seattle! The dust in Iraq is far worse than any light pollution I've ever encountered while living in Seattle.

Google Map! (1)

sam0737 (648914) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576289)

Now I think it's about time for Google to include that. I am expecting it gives me an direction from Earth to a random star on M12 , with several mode of transport (Walk, Spaceship, Wormhole)

Streetview would be bonus.

Front texture? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576623)

Folks,
Anyone want to comment on what appears like a picture of the Milky Way shot through a water spotted sheet of glass. (What an amazing picture!) :)

Interpretation please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29576683)

Does anyone want to comment on why the picture looks like the Milkyway photographed through a water spotted piece of glass. (I would have been bored after 3 days... :( )

Grammar fail (1)

the pickle (261584) | more than 5 years ago | (#29576787)

I know I'm a couple hours late to the party, but this is just sad...

My RSS reader shows changes in feeds. The original RSS summary for this article had "its" without the apostrophe -- correctly, as anyone with half a brain knows. The latest RSS feed, and the actual story page, show "it's". Hint: if you can't replace "it's" with "it is" in the sentence, it's (yes, really) wrong.

Oh, yeah, and this is a really cool photo and etc.

p

Re:Grammar fail (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29579429)

"Hint: if you can't replace "it's" with "it is" in the sentence, it's (yes, really) wrong."

Your simple rule, it's got one little problem.

COPYRIGHT!! ARGH!! (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577093)

Sites are claiming copyright as a concern, so you need to contact the artist to get the pic. I know downloading it is almost impossible due to the size, but really, pictures of the stars? Isn't this just tedious work that wouldn't be covered by copyright?

Re:COPYRIGHT!! ARGH!! (1)

EdgeyEdgey (1172665) | more than 5 years ago | (#29580765)

If you don't like the copyright then there is nothing stopping you going out for 30 nights and taking 1,200 6-minute exposures.
Tedious maybe, but not easy.
Be thankful for copyright. Without it they may never have shared this picture with us.

IQ test (1)

dominious (1077089) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577359)

science space galaxy sky slashdotted

Which of these does not belong to the group?

Re:IQ test (1)

bronney (638318) | more than 5 years ago | (#29577851)

How do you fit a giraffe into a fridge?

Oblig quote... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 5 years ago | (#29578493)

My God, it's full of stars........
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?