5 ms·

The stars are our map. With them we can find our way when we get lost. Every night they shine down on us and guide our direction. How can you excuse not a si

The stars are our map. With them we can find our way when we get lost. Every night they shine down on us and guide our direction. How can you excuse not a single orientable picture?

euyyn 10y ago
And the stars are a pretty romantic thing too! But no matter how much I repeat it, I can't convince my camera to fill my night shots with stars.
- EarthIsReal 10y ago
  Soooooo beautiful!!!!!!!..... http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+stars+photography http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+... You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none If by "none" you mean "some", them yes. E.g: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/51486/iss028e018218_lrg.jpg http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/5148... Anything else? (Even if nobody had bothered to take Earth photos with stars in them, the idea that there would be a huge conspiracy to manufacture a whole fake moon landing and tons of fake images of Earth from space, but somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane).
    - EarthIsReal 10y ago
      >"some" Where?? That image looks unrelated to any men on the Moon. >somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes a lot more than putting bright spots on a fake picture to exactly align said dots and their intensity with our Universe, especially from multiple angles.
      - ben_w 10y ago
        > That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes zero computational power and zero software. We've been able to fake stars since 1650. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium It would have been utterly trivial in the 60s and 70s, even without a massive planetarium, just using multiple exposures. 'cause that had been known about since the "fairies at the bottom of the garden" photos of the victorian era. Stars in the background of the Apollo footage tells you nothing, at all. The photos of the footprints, from an orbiting lunar reconnaissance probe, says more. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M... Edit to correct spelling, fottage->footage
      - coldtea 10y ago
        >Where??? That image looks unrelated to any men on the Moon. You didn't ask specifically for star photos from the moon. I sent one from space. Not enough? Or do you think that it's OK, we can get to space, but somehow the moon is out of bounds? The few missions of men on the moon had limited time and better things to do than try to take multiple exposures (especially with the camera gear of the time) just to make pretty pictures. >That level of detail would take huge computational power. It takes a lot more than putting bright spots on a fake picture to exactly align said dots and their intensity with our Universe, especially from multiple angles. Actually, it's really trivial to do so in 3D space, doesn't take much of cpu, and tons of programs offer such "planetarium" functionality, where you can align everything, even moving around in time as you wish.
      - euyyn 10y ago

The stars are our map. With them we can find our way when we get lost. Every night they shine down on us and guide our direction. How can you excuse not a single orientable picture?

euyyn 10y ago

And the stars are a pretty romantic thing too! But no matter how much I repeat it, I can't convince my camera to fill my night shots with stars.

EarthIsReal 10y ago
Soooooo beautiful!!!!!!!..... http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+stars+photography http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&gws_rd=cr&q=night+sky+... You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none
- coldtea 10y ago
  >You'd think that with our history so closely connected with the stars (before urbanization limited your camera's view), someone would have made sure to take a couple of photos, even bringing additional lenses, for such a potentially interesting point of view.. Alas none If by "none" you mean "some", them yes. E.g: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/51486/iss028e018218_lrg.jpg http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/51000/5148... Anything else? (Even if nobody had bothered to take Earth photos with stars in them, the idea that there would be a huge conspiracy to manufacture a whole fake moon landing and tons of fake images of Earth from space, but somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane).
  - EarthIsReal 10y ago
    >"some" Where?? That image looks unrelated to any men on the Moon. >somehow they would not know how to add stars with Photoshop to said images is beyond inane That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes a lot more than putting bright spots on a fake picture to exactly align said dots and their intensity with our Universe, especially from multiple angles.
    - ben_w 10y ago
      > That level of detail would take huge computational power and software. It takes zero computational power and zero software. We've been able to fake stars since 1650. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetarium It would have been utterly trivial in the 60s and 70s, even without a massive planetarium, just using multiple exposures. 'cause that had been known about since the "fairies at the bottom of the garden" photos of the victorian era. Stars in the background of the Apollo footage tells you nothing, at all. The photos of the footprints, from an orbiting lunar reconnaissance probe, says more. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M168353795RE_25cm_AP12_area.jpg https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/584398main_M... Edit to correct spelling, fottage->footage
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Where??? That image looks unrelated to any men on the Moon. You didn't ask specifically for star photos from the moon. I sent one from space. Not enough? Or do you think that it's OK, we can get to space, but somehow the moon is out of bounds? The few missions of men on the moon had limited time and better things to do than try to take multiple exposures (especially with the camera gear of the time) just to make pretty pictures. >That level of detail would take huge computational power. It takes a lot more than putting bright spots on a fake picture to exactly align said dots and their intensity with our Universe, especially from multiple angles. Actually, it's really trivial to do so in 3D space, doesn't take much of cpu, and tons of programs offer such "planetarium" functionality, where you can align everything, even moving around in time as you wish.
    - euyyn 10y ago