As I understand it,
That is not Hubble's "Pillars of Creation", but an artists impression of an image taken by hubble. In fact, all of those spectacular Hubble images are not actual images, but sexed-up versions.
Hubble hasn't got colour camera's.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 20:41,
Reply)
Dude,
You are entering the realms of wearing a tin foil hat.
It's real. It's not exactly what you would see with your eyes... but no photo is.
"Hubble hasn't got colour camera's" is so fucking ignorant, it's hard to know where to start. It detects stuff from ultra-violet to infra-red.
But hey, I'm just another NASA shill, right? Jesus fuck.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:00, Reply)
Eh?
WTF sort of response is that?
I merely state a few facts.
fact: hubble hasn't got colour cameras.
fact: these images are not 'made by hubble', they're colourized impressions.
That's it, no more, no less. I'm not making any remarks regarding the validity of these images or the type of headwear I prefer. Since when is stating facts ignorant and the hallmark of a flat earther?
Are you of your meds again?
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:16,
Reply)
Oh, ffs.
hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.cat=topten&id=93
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:34,
Reply)
He's right you know
Those colours aren't there.
To quote the wikipedia page: The photograph was made with light emitted by different elements in the cloud and appears as a different color in the composite image: green for hydrogen, red for singly ionized sulfur and blue for double-ionized oxygen atoms.
So it's a false colour image. It's constructed by putting different filters looking for different elements in front of a greyscale CCD and stacking the results. It just so happens that the result looks a bit pretty.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 21:32,
Reply)
No shit sherlock
Is any picture what you see with your eyes? You said "False colour" - OK, show me a true one. Anything, ever. Any pic that actually looks identical to real life. Go on, I'll wait.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:28, Reply)
Dude,
They arbitrarily chose a colour to represent specific elements.
You're now claiming photographs don't look identical to real life?
Ignoring facts and calling people who don't comply with your simplistic views silly names might get you elected in the US, but that shit doesn't fly here.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:39,
Reply)
Show me a photo that looks the same as what I see with my eyes
Cockwomble
PS I'm English
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:52, Reply)
You really can't take criticism can you? That's a false colour image. No amount of whatabouts is going to change that.
I don't have the equipment here to prove it, but I'd be willing to bet good money that a photo out my window by my DSLR would look a fuckload closer to real life than one created by stacked hydrogen, sodium and oxygen filters.
(
evil_andy Stick stick stick stick sticky sticky stick stick, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:48,
Reply)
"I don't have the equipment here to prove it"
ie I'm talking shite; I have zero evidence, but here's what I chinny-reckon.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:54, Reply)
Straight from the Donald J. Trump school for debating.
You need to seek professionel help. Seriously.
(
Tusk knows where you live, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 22:58,
Reply)
tbh, both of your arguments
...are superseded by asking why those images are missing the obligatory b3ta pink colourisation and 3-pubes-per-ball quotient.
(
Prestidigitus will set this 'ere black puddin on you, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 23:08,
Reply)
"That's a false colour image"
Show me a real colour image then.
Any photo, ever, that looks like what we see with our eyes.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 3:44, Reply)
Most digital imaging done with telscopes use monochrome sensors,
I think you can get higher resolution and better sensitivty that way. Colour images are formed by taking a number of images using different filters. You can still construct an accurate colour image using this method but, as others have pointed out, that is not the case with this image. I'm not sure I would call it an artist's impression though.
(, Sun 29 Jul 2018, 23:16, Reply)
It's not "monochrome"
They grab what they can, any wavelength -according to design specs.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 0:18, Reply)
When I say monochrome I mean the sensor just reads out intensity.
It can't generate colour images by itself, filters are required.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 1:06, Reply)
Can't it? Why?
It detects light of various waveforms.
That's colour, to you.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 1:22, Reply)
yes
but the sensor itself doesn’t capture colour information, only the intensity of all light in a broad spectrum that is permitted through interchangeable filters. thus you could capture a hi res frame of ‘red’ light, by filtering all but red frequencies. then a frame of ‘blue’ light, then ‘green’. add them together and you’ll have something like an rgb image of the field. visible light isn’t as important as radio and xray though. these can be turned into some very pretty ‘colour’ images. but i expect you know this already.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 10:33, Reply)
You could say the same thing about our eyes
Cones detect light within a certain band
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:07, Reply)
Then that information is processed by our brain.
Perception is individual and relative to previous experience.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:18,
Reply)
Sure; same thing for Hubble
Colour is light of different wavelengths. Hubble can detect different wavelengths. It processes that information. It can see colours.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:23, Reply)
Hubble is likely to be more consistent in its colours than we are.
The function of our cones varies.
I think we've been left arguing on the same side.
(
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector., Mon 30 Jul 2018, 15:59,
Reply)
ok, so the point being made, since it apparently still eludes you,
is that the hubble’s ‘retinas’ consist only of ‘rods’, sensitive to the combined intensity of a broad spectrum of frequencies, specific colour information is not discernable, which is where filters come in.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 21:53, Reply)
So what?
Colour is light of different wavelengths. Hubble can detect different wavelengths. It processes that information. It can see colours.
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 22:53, Reply)
so you’re coming across as a belligerent dunce
by debating an important, albeit academic point about the way colour information is (post-) processed
here's a succinct cnet article to help you out
(, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 23:16, Reply)
Here's an interesting article:
https://www.space.com/8059-truth-photos-hubble-space-telescope-sees.html
Some context. 'Colour' doesn't actually matter when viewing the depths of space; it's scientifically a bit trivial. The universe isn't the light show in Star Trek: The Next Generation's opening crawl, it's measured more scientificaly on gravity and radiation. So adding a bit of spice to something the other end of telescope photographing something untold light years away to humanise it to our experience of existence is completely within the confines of cool. So yes, if we we a species were ever in the position to be in a spacecraft literally looking at the Pillars of Creation up close, i'm sure visually there would be a colour feast for our eyes; plus grayscale photographs tend to loose their impact of the heavens, given space is essentially black.
Or something, i've woken up two hours before schedual for some reason
(
Jahled Three shades of black, Mon 30 Jul 2018, 6:33,
Reply)