PDA

View Full Version : there is super telescope nobody knows about



vergentbill
2007-Dec-16, 08:45 PM
Its the rc optical systems 20 inch at kitt peak visitors station.

whats special is that it has ion milled mirrors; no scratch and dig; no scatter.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n3344.html

click on the picture to get full resolution. if you download this picture and adjust the contrast(down) and and brightness(up) you will see 90% of this galaxy noone has seen before.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/m51rolfe.jpg

there is a whole archive to explore, I've found things nobody knows is there

Tuckerfan
2007-Dec-17, 01:37 AM
Oh. I thought that this would be about the Vatican's telescope. (http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo/R1024/VATT.html)

Saluki
2007-Dec-17, 02:49 AM
You have demonstrated that at least two people know about it, yourself, and the person who created the site. Now, Tucker fan and I know as well. Your thesis is shot.

Occam
2007-Dec-17, 03:15 AM
Those are some rather odd claims, vergentbill. Are you saying that by playing around with the contrast and brightness (not exactly advanced image processing), you have seen things that the webmaster and the astronomers have not seen?

vergentbill
2007-Dec-17, 08:37 AM
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n1337cremer.jpg
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n2683matthews.jpg

Swift
2007-Dec-17, 02:13 PM
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n1337cremer.jpg
http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n2683matthews.jpg
Nice pictures, so what. As Occam asked, what exactly is your point?

vergentbill
2007-Dec-17, 03:04 PM
Nice pictures, so what. As Occam asked, what exactly is your point?

Download them, open them photoshop is best. Pull the contrast down and the brightness up. You will see a planetary nebula that is not on the charts. In photoshop you can play with the "curve". You can boost the bottom end without blowing out the top. If you don't have photoshop. Is there a way to post pictures without a url? If not I could email them to someone who can.

NEOWatcher
2007-Dec-17, 03:17 PM
Download them, open them photoshop is best. Pull the contrast down and the brightness up. You will see a planetary nebula that is not on the charts.
If you started with a jpg, then you have already started with an invalid image. The jpg is optimized for viewing...not for information. jpg introduces anomolies into a picture.

vergentbill
2007-Dec-17, 03:23 PM
I checked with the telescope operator, these are on the original data. Jpeg stairstepping does not look like this. Can someone help me post these pictures?

Swift
2007-Dec-17, 04:42 PM
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8339/n1337cremerjx4.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=n1337cremerjx4.jpg)
Ok, in Microsoft Office Picture Manager I decreased the contrast and increased the brightness. I put the picture on imageshack.us (which you could use too). It now looks like a bad, washed out picture. What does this show?

vergentbill
2007-Dec-17, 06:35 PM
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8339/n1337cremerjx4.th.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/my.php?image=n1337cremerjx4.jpg)
Ok, in Microsoft Office Picture Manager I decreased the contrast and increased the brightness. I put the picture on imageshack.us (which you could use too). It now looks like a bad, washed out picture. What does this show?

put the contrast all the way down and the brightness all the way up
look in the lower right.

NEOWatcher
2007-Dec-17, 07:38 PM
Download them, open them photoshop is best. Pull the contrast down and the brightness up. You will see a planetary nebula that is not on the charts...
Ok; let's assume for the moment that there is something to see on the photograph.
Why do you think it is a planetary nebula?


I checked with the telescope operator, these are on the original data.
Have you also asked the operator what other possibilites can explain this?

Swift
2007-Dec-17, 08:05 PM
put the contrast all the way down and the brightness all the way up
look in the lower right.
You're kidding, right? This is a joke. Ok, attached is the photo. And no, that's exactly what happens when you do as described. Personally, I think its a polar bear in a snowstorm.
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8246/n1337cremer2cz3.th.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=n1337cremer2cz3.jpg)
Now, why don't you do it and upload it to a hosting site and post it. Here, I'll make it easy... http://www.imageshack.us/

NEOWatcher
2007-Dec-17, 09:08 PM
You're kidding, right? This is a joke. Ok, attached is the photo. And no, that's exactly what happens when you do as described. Personally, I think its a polar bear in a snowstorm.
Or maybe it's the Brown's vs the Bills, and should be in the NFL thread?

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-17, 10:49 PM
Its the rc optical systems 20 inch at kitt peak visitors station.

whats special is that it has ion milled mirrors; no scratch and dig; no scatter.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/n3344.html

click on the picture to get full resolution. if you download this picture and adjust the contrast(down) and and brightness(up) you will see 90% of this galaxy noone has seen before.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/m51rolfe.jpg

there is a whole archive to explore, I've found things nobody knows is there

No matter how good the optics are, you're going to run into theoretical limits. Under the same atmospheric conditions, a 30 inch will gather more light than a 20 inch, and both will have resolution limited by atmosphere (though there are a few tricks that can sometimes work around that). Are you suggesting that this scope is better than Hubble, or large earth based scopes?

Mike_c130
2007-Dec-18, 03:02 AM
Or maybe it's the Brown's vs the Bills, and should be in the NFL thread?

No it shouldn't...

Browns vs. Bills will not be spoken of...

Veeger
2007-Dec-18, 03:35 AM
Are you suggesting that this scope is better than Hubble, or large earth based scopes?

I would suggest its a whole lot better than my small earth-based telescope! :)

I think many of the published images we see from these telescopes and the HST are color enhanced and tweaked to an extraordinary degree to bring out details which are not otherwise obvious. By the time we see them, they're often brightly colored and contrasted but certainly not as they appear at the eyepiece nor even in the original pixels.

If I'm not mistaken the original formats are probably FITS, which is capable of carrying a lot of image information but most of the FITS viewers I have seen produce lousy images. (Probably because they're not color enhanced and tweaked.)


-Veeger

Swift
2007-Dec-18, 05:10 AM
By the time we see them, they're often brightly colored and contrasted but certainly not as they appear at the eyepiece nor even in the original pixels.

Of course eyepiece and pixel are inconsistent, since most modern research telescopes don't have eyepieces, and just have pixels. This is certainly true for the HST.

Veeger
2007-Dec-18, 11:33 AM
Go Browns!

TrAI
2007-Dec-23, 03:10 AM
put the contrast all the way down and the brightness all the way up
look in the lower right.

In most image processing software, pulling down contrast gives an image of even color, a surface where every pixel is of the same value, that means that the resultant image would have no features what so ever. What would be more to the point was, since these images only have data in the lower half or third brightness levels, using something like the photoshop fuction "Levels" to expand these to the entire range of possible brightness levels.


I checked with the telescope operator, these are on the original data. Jpeg stairstepping does not look like this. Can someone help me post these pictures?

There is generaly always loss when converting to JPEG, and these images do show JPEG artifacts quite clearly, JPEG unvariably messes up low contrast parts of images. Mapping the image data to another color or brightness range should be done on non-lossy images, JPEG is optimized for viewing, and not any future editing.

Also, most imaging formats generaly used have 8 bits of brightness, something that is fine for normal uses, but most imaging systems are capable of higher resolutions. I have not really used stacking software, so I do not really know much about them, but in theory it would be possible to convert a range of images in a raw data format to an image in a format that have many more levels of brightness, like 32 or even 64 bits.

The bottom line is, you can't use JPEG images intended for web viewing as the source image for this sort of analysis. Images in a format intended for analysis(for example FITS data files) created from the original data and processed in software intended for analysis(not image processing) would be much better...

Oh, and mapping image data to other ranges of levels or colors to improve contrast is a well known process, you are not the first to think of it, so saying no-one has seen certain features before may be assuming to much...

Van Rijn
2007-Dec-23, 07:21 AM
I would suggest its a whole lot better than my small earth-based telescope! :)


Yes, or mine. However, my point was simply that there are theoretical limits, and a 20 inch scope can't match many professional (and some amateur) 'scopes, "ion milled mirror" or not.

vk3ukf
2007-Dec-23, 12:05 PM
Greetings all,
I have placed an animated GIF on my website of the image n1337cremer.JPG.
I have also placed just the still images there as well. If this is not the image that vergentbill was talking about, please name the actual image that has the supposed nebulosity on it and I shall process that one as well.

Hopefully the images will appear below, if not, cut and paste the links into your browser.


IMAGES REMOVED DUE TO DOWNLOAD DELAY.


See this page for the original, processed and animated images.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3ukf/Baut1.html


Cheers, Kev.

TrAI
2007-Dec-23, 01:43 PM
Greetings all,
I have placed an animated GIF on my website of the image n1337cremer.JPG.
I have also placed just the still images there as well. If this is not the image that vergentbill was talking about, please name the actual image that has the supposed nebulosity on it and I shall process that one as well.

Hopefully the images will appear below, if not, cut and paste the links into your browser.

...
Original

...
Processed

...
Animated GIF

Cheers, Kev.

Hmmm... You probably shouldn't hotlink images like this, not everyone have the bandwidth to download a couple of mebibytes everytime they reload the thread. It would be better to link to a page hosting the images, really...

vk3ukf
2007-Dec-23, 06:53 PM
G'day TrAI,
quite right to, I'll make the pics smaller in dimensions and filesize before posting on the forum, or like you say, pop up a page on my site, and link to that if I want to leave them big.
I must not forget from where I came, I was a dial up user once too.

Kev.

cjl
2007-Dec-23, 10:23 PM
Heck - I'm not even on dialup - I'm on 150kb hotel internet right now, and those took a while to load.

vk3ukf
2007-Dec-26, 02:51 PM
Hi, I edited the animated gif, it is a lot smaller. That, I think, was the main reason it all took so long, the stills are only a few tens of KB. Hoping that is much better.

Swift
2007-Dec-26, 03:21 PM
Hi, I edited the animated gif, it is a lot smaller. That, I think, was the main reason it all took so long, the stills are only a few tens of KB. Hoping that is much better.
Still pretty slow, even on my high-speed line at work. I think a link to your website would be better.

vk3ukf
2007-Dec-26, 04:31 PM
Jobs done, that's much better, at least I now have a template to make this sort of thing less of a chore.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3ukf/Baut1.html

Now we can get back to business.

What's with the nebulosity??

Cheers, K.

Swift
2007-Dec-26, 04:45 PM
Jobs done, that's much better, at least I now have a template to make this sort of thing less of a chore.

http://www.qsl.net/vk3ukf/Baut1.html

Now we can get back to business.

What's with the nebulosity??

Cheers, K.
Very nice. I suspect, however, we will never hear back from the OP about either your work or mine.

mugaliens
2007-Dec-30, 08:03 AM
Still pretty slow, even on my high-speed line at work. I think a link to your website would be better.

Hmmmm... Took me about 2.5 seconds.

Then again, I'm on broadband.