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

a reply to: CreationBro

Im far more interested in betelgeuse as well...

a reply to: intrptr

*Slow claps* unfortunately the cookie jar is empty on account of all the troll semen acruing on your posts... try back after a hipster buys this location and opens up vegan friendly gluten free alternatives.... they will serve snowflake shaped kukeys

a reply to: gortex

Aren't stars boring? If we can see the surface of a star that far away, why not the surface of some of the planets orbiting stars that are closer?

a reply to: carewemust

The brightness of the parent sun washes out the orbiting planet.

It's like holding a match next to the sun and then attempting to take a photo of it...sorry a digital representation of it.

a reply to: MuonToGluon


That's too bad. I suppose civilizations in other star systems wouldn't be able to see Earth clearly. I guess we'd better get some fast spaceships invented so we can go see for ourselves what's out there.

a reply to: carewemust

While we cannot take an actually clear image of the planet (up close good detailed image), we will very soon be able to do spectograph of the atmosphere to determine the composition I.E Oxygen/Nitrogen/Methane levels etc.

With that we could determine if a planet is habital, could contain life from the bio signature etc.

James Webb telescope will be assisting with that next year, and because of it's n-infrared hardware it will be able to do a lot more then what the hubble is capable of.

While JWT is launching in 2018, expect to wait until 2019 for it to start operations, it will take some time to get to it's sun orbit, and for it's instruments to be tested.

originally posted by: intrptr
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.

You're still doing it.

By the way, your definition of photograph (if you even have one) sucks the light craptastic.

Sirius does fascinate me too.

My interest in Betelgeuse is its timely proximity to "popping" so to speak.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: gortex

Aren't stars boring? If we can see the surface of a star that far away, why not the surface of some of the planets orbiting stars that are closer?

Size matters. It's the same reason Hubble can photograph galaxies in great detail, but cannot make out Apollo hardware left on the Moon.

originally posted by: Jaellma
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.

I once owned a Celestron 8 " Schmidt Cassegrain Reflector, no matter how hi the magnification, the Dog Star just became ever more brilliant a dot. I agree, they should image some closer stars...

a reply to: Dudemo5

By the way, your definition of photograph (if you even have one) sucks the light craptastic.

By the way, that 'image' of a star in the OP sucks.

originally posted by: intrptr
By the way, that 'image' of a star in the OP sucks.

Not nearly as bad as your comment.

So I take a photo of the moon with my digital camera and telescope, even print it out, it is now no longer a photo, but a digital representation of what the camera sees, even if it matches what my eyes see.

Nearly every photo for the past 16 years is now only a digital representation, they are no longer photos.

Oh yes, your definition and edge is craptastic.

a reply to: MuonToGluon

;quote]Nearly every photo for the past 16 years is now only a digital representation, they are no longer photos.

Thanks for agreeing with my original statement, sort of.

a reply to: intrptr

The word photo is a generic term that encompasses images taken with a capture device that takes a still image.

...your argument is invalid.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MuonToGluon

Nearly every photo for the past 16 years is now only a digital representation, they are no longer photos.

Thanks for agreeing with my original statement, sort of.

It's called sarcasm.

Why are you trolling this thread so much?

Modern CGI = computer generated imagery.
Old CGI = chemically generated imagery.

Both involve photons hitting a medium (silicon or silver halide) from which an image is constructed. I fail to see a functional difference between the two.

Back on topic - yeah a great image!

a reply to: wildespace

Not to mention he is dead wrong in his argument:

Definition of photo- :

relating to or produced by light


And a digital camera requires light to capture an image, even if the light has been processed via software before storage on memory.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Modern CGI = computer generated imagery.
Old CGI = chemically generated imagery.

Both involve photons hitting a medium (silicon or silver halide) from which an image is constructed. I fail to see a functional difference between the two.

Back on topic - yeah a great image!

CGI is "computer generated imagery", so obviously it's not applicable to the old method of using chemicals and film.

Even in modern terms, CGI isn't applicable to digital photography, it's applicable to creating images (or 3D models) in a computer (akin to painting a picture). Digital photography captures a real scene, thereby producing a real image of something. CGI, on the other hand produces a completely made-up/imagined image, aka artwork.

Damn, this thread is giving me a headache.

a reply to: wildespace


Yeah - I know. I was being petty in response to some prior pettiness!!!


In fact, seeing as it's the digital part that one user seems to have problems with, the irony is that digital cameras actually use analogue sensors to register the charge before the data is passed though a analogue to digital convert for storage - just like scanning a photographic print!

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: MuonToGluon

Nearly every photo for the past 16 years is now only a digital representation, they are no longer photos.

Thanks for agreeing with my original statement, sort of.

It's called sarcasm.

Why are you trolling this thread so much?

Because my original statement was trolled by ten members, even though they agreed wth it sort of...

But its me, so pounce.

Troll and be trolled.