Best Ever Image of a Far away Star's Surface Captured

To photograph the surface of a far away star you first need a very large telescope , luckily the European Southern Observatory has a very large telescope and have captured the first ever image of a far away star's surface , the star in question is the red supergiant star Antares which is about 620 light years from Earth and here it is in all it's unprecedented detail.

Using ESO’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer astronomers have constructed the most detailed image ever of a star — the red supergiant star Antares. They have also made the first map of the velocities of material in the atmosphere of a star other than the Sun, revealing unexpected turbulence in Antares’s huge extended atmosphere. The results were published in the journal Nature.
To the unaided eye the famous, bright star Antares shines with a strong red tint in the heart of the constellation of Scorpius (The Scorpion). It is a huge and comparatively cool red supergiant star in the late stages of its life, on the way to becoming a supernova

A team of astronomers, led by Keiichi Ohnaka, of the Universidad Católica del Norte in Chile, has now used ESO’s Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) at the Paranal Observatory in Chile to map Antares’s surface and to measure the motions of the surface material. This is the best image of the surface and atmosphere of any star other than the Sun.
www.eso.org...

Give it a few years and we'll be counting extra-solar sunspots.

You do realize thats a digital representation, not an actual photograph?

a reply to: intrptr

The VLTI is a unique facility that can combine the light from up to four telescopes, either the 8.2-metre Unit Telescopes, or the smaller Auxiliary Telescopes, to create a virtual telescope equivalent to a single mirror up to 200 metres across. This allows it to resolve fine details far beyond what can be seen with a single telescope alone.

I'd say it's a composite.

a reply to: gortex

Yah, you know what I meant... its CGI.

a reply to: gortex

If that's 620 light years, I'd love to see such detail on our closest stars. We have some 56+ stars within 16 light years from us. The closest 5 being some 4 light years away.

Personally I'd like to see more science on the ones we 'might' be able to get to within a short period of time. Unlikely I know.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gortex

Yah, you know what I meant... its CGI.

CGI implies that it's an artist's rendition. It's not. It's a stitched together digital photograph.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: gortex

If that's 620 light years, I'd love to see such detail on our closest stars. We have some 56+ stars within 16 light years from us. The closest 5 being some 4 light years away.

Personally I'd like to see more science on the ones we 'might' be able to get to within a short period of time. Unlikely I know.

It's 883x the radius of the Sun and 550 light years away. Other stars might be 1 light year away, but still the same size as the Sun. So this is the best option.

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gortex

Yah, you know what I meant... its CGI.

CGI implies that it's an artist's rendition. It's not. It's a stitched together digital photograph.

People will argue that definition forever, just to be disagreeable.

Its not a photograph.

Edit: Heres the difference...

Before and after Pluto...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: intrptr

The VLTI is a unique facility that can combine the light from up to four telescopes, either the 8.2-metre Unit Telescopes, or the smaller Auxiliary Telescopes, to create a virtual telescope equivalent to a single mirror up to 200 metres across. This allows it to resolve fine details far beyond what can be seen with a single telescope alone.

I'd say it's a composite.

It is both layered and composite by the look of it;

"They did this using the VLTI with three of the Auxiliary Telescopes and an instrument called AMBER to make separate images of the surface of Antares over a small range of infrared wavelengths."

It's fascinating...just makes you wonder more!

People will argue that definition forever, just to be disagreeable.

So don't do that.

Its not a photograph.

You're doing that.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gortex

Yah, you know what I meant... its CGI.

CGI implies that it's an artist's rendition. It's not. It's a stitched together digital photograph.

People will argue that definition forever, just to be disagreeable.

Its not a photograph.

Edit: Heres the difference...

Before and after Pluto...

The "After" image in your example is an artist's conception that was done prior to New Horizons flyby images.

The "Before" image is based on real photons of light from Pluto that were captured by the Hubble telescope and used to build up an image out of layers on information.

The Hubble image was created using a process called "dithering", but the process used actual visible light images, overlaid and offset from each other, to create the finished image:

The Hubble images are a few pixels wide. But through a technique called dithering, multiple, slightly offset pictures can be combined through computer-image processing to synthesize a higher-resolution view than could be seen in a single exposure. "This has taken four years and 20 computers operating continuously and simultaneously to accomplish," says Buie, who developed special algorithms to sharpen the Hubble data.

The "After" artist's conception used the Hubble "before" image as a base on which to create the artist's conception.

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: gortex

If that's 620 light years, I'd love to see such detail on our closest stars. We have some 56+ stars within 16 light years from us. The closest 5 being some 4 light years away.

Personally I'd like to see more science on the ones we 'might' be able to get to within a short period of time. Unlikely I know.

It's 883x the radius of the Sun and 550 light years away. Other stars might be 1 light year away, but still the same size as the Sun. So this is the best option.

I think Betelgeuse may actually be the best candidate as it is larger and at 440 ly roughly, closer to us.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yah okay well i guess you got me there, all cameras have 'imaging chips' in them, don't they? All of it is software except for the lens.

originally posted by: intrptr

You do realize thats a digital representation, not an actual photograph?

No, it still amounts to a photographic image.

The four 8.2-m Unit Telescopes (UTs) and the four 1.8-m Auxiliary Telescopes (ATs) are the light collecting elements of the VLTI. The UTs are set on fixed locations while the ATs can be relocated on 30 different stations. The light can be re-combined for either three (triplet) or four (quadruplet) telescopes depending on the beam-combining instrument. After the light beams have passed through a complex system of mirrors and the light paths have been equalized by the delay line system, the light re-combination is performed by the near infrared instruments AMBER or PIONIER.

www.eso.org...

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gortex

Yah, you know what I meant... its CGI.

CGI implies that it's an artist's rendition. It's not. It's a stitched together digital photograph.

People will argue that definition forever, just to be disagreeable.

Its not a photograph.

Edit: Heres the difference...

Before and after Pluto...

The "after" Pluto is some guy's artistic impression (it doesn't even correspond to the New Horizons images).

The OP's image is an optical photograph (albeit a digital one and formed from combined light from several telescopes).

Now, here's what a CGI impression based on data looks like:

www.youtube.com...


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: wildespace

No, it still amounts to a photographic image.

Photoimage, photograph.

Neither are 'real', as in real to the eye.

If you looked at Pluto with the naked eye, even close up, it would be too dark to see it. If you looked at the sun with the naked eye, it would be too bright to see it.

a reply to: wildespace

The OP's image is an optical photograph (albeit a digital one and formed from combined light from several telescopes).

'Digital' optics....

and filtered.

originally posted by: CreationBro

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: gortex

If that's 620 light years, I'd love to see such detail on our closest stars. We have some 56+ stars within 16 light years from us. The closest 5 being some 4 light years away.

Personally I'd like to see more science on the ones we 'might' be able to get to within a short period of time. Unlikely I know.

It's 883x the radius of the Sun and 550 light years away. Other stars might be 1 light year away, but still the same size as the Sun. So this is the best option.

I think Betelgeuse may actually be the best candidate as it is larger and at 440 ly roughly, closer to us.

Sirius is even closer, roughly 8 light years, has a companion, much more interesting.

a reply to: intrptr

I have yet to see an up close and stationary video of Sirius. The ones on YouTube are from household cameras, telescopes etc but I am sure the establishment has much clearer and stable versions of this near star.

a reply to: intrptr

So you're trashing this thread over a stupid little argument with the word photograph, and a digital image?

How about you don't do that and enjoy the cool image?