22 ms·
Earth Restored – 50 restored images of earth released
- ranguna 5y agoBeautiful shots.
- protoman3000 5y agoUnbelievable that all life there ever was, is contained on this little marble.
- driggs 5y agoGiven the scope of the universe, and aided by the perspective of photos like these, many would certainly describe this idea - that life has only ever existed and will only ever exist on Earth - as "unbelievable".
- mattvot 5y agoDon’t just look at the photos. Read the commentary. Adds an extra level of awe.
- shash7 5y agoGreat photos, and a great website too.
- vegetablepotpie 5y agoIt's hard to believe that it's been over 50 years since humans have been outside of low earth orbit. It's like we sprinted forward so fast, going from horse drawn carriage to space flight in a generation, only to get frightened and recede back from the highest point, never to go back. Granted there has been an enormous amount of innovation in the last 50 years, but by some accounts we've been going backwards. Humans are no longer capable of mach 3 flight, or making Roman concrete. I think we assume that technology will keep progressing. We assume Moore's law will continue into the future and we forget that there are people behind the progress. The technology that produced those pictures are gone, we might be able to take ones like them again, but never with the same rockets and never with the same photo-chemical processes. Progress is fragile, not inevitable and everything we have can be lost in a generation just as easily as it was made.
- 2III7 5y agoIf you had the money, you could rent a rocket from SpaceX and send a film camera to take more pictures. But what would be the point?
- flohofwoe 5y agoYou really need to take the power and "reality distortion effect" of propaganda during the Cold War into account. Massive projects were started without much rational sense just to beat the other side in an imaginary race (and a very concrete military race). What's the point of landing a man on the moon, if the technology to do so was so rushed and held together by duct tape that it wasn't useful for anything else? What's the point of the Space Shuttle if launches were more expensive than disposable rockets? What's the point of the Buran, if the Soviets didn't feel like they need an answer to the space shuttle "just in case", even though they couldn't see any point in the shuttle design (except as a nuke carrier)? Etc... etc... the list goes on for both sides. I rather have slow and steady progress that actually makes economical and scientific sense in the long run. PS: I thought the secret of Roman concrete had been cracked long ago (a certain type of volcanic ash)? But it's just not economical to produce large quantities since modern sky scrapers are not expected to "survive" for thousands of years anyway (and AFAIK the Romans didn't know much about the special properties of their concrete either, it more or less was a "happy little accident").
- leadingthenet 5y ago> since modern sky scrapers are not expected to "survive" for thousands of years anyway And maybe that’s a problem! Why exactly are we not building beautiful landmarks that will survive eons like the Romans did? We have a throwaway culture, and nobody ever dares question it.
- WJW 5y agoI think you are suffering a bit from survivorship bias here. Way less than 0.001% of Roman buildings are still standing and the ones that remain have been continuously maintained over the centuries. If humanity will keep maintaining the White House for centuries it will look just as good in 4021 as it does today.
- ascar 5y ago> "I was guided throughout by two principles: - be true to the photographs - be true to the Earth [...] The main changes I made were: [...] - adjusting the black point until the background of space appears truly black" These shots are beautiful, but is making the background completely black really doing reality justice? In our unfortunately light polluted night sky we can barely see the stars, but shouldn't the astronauts see the earth within a shimmer of billion stars? Or is the source material not showing stars due to a lack of exposure?
- flohofwoe 5y agoA bright moon surface and fully lit Earth hanging in the sky is also a sort of "light pollution" for the human eye ;) (at least it will cause the pupil to close and let less light through, tuning out the dim stars, same effect why there are no stars in the moon photos). Of course I haven't been to the moon so far and can't really know what the sky actually looks like during "moon day" :)
- enriquto 5y agoI'm pretty sure that some images have had the blue color enhanced. The oceans look a dullish gray from space, not blue.
- astroflask 5y ago> In our unfortunately light polluted night sky we can barely see the stars, but shouldn't the astronauts see the earth within a shimmer of billion stars? No, you have to be in the night side, or looking into the void (no Earth surface visible, definitely not the Sun in sight, not any part of your spacecraft being shined upon) for your eyes to adjust to the darkness and then you get to see the stars. Being near the Moon, I'd add "no moon surface" to that list. > Or is the source material not showing stars due to a lack of exposure? I'm not sure there... Film behaves differently than image sensors. Maybe if we had access to the negatives you could do some chemical magic to bring in detail. I don't know how hard/destructive that could be on the negatives, as film isn't a medium I've ever really used. Grew up in the 90's with a few film cameras, but digital took over before I had the chance to seriously get into photography and was also far cheaper (so, easier to pick up as a hobby for a teenager). Now I'm into digital image processing and that's a totally different beast on its own.
- tubabyte 5y ago> Collins, who remained in orbit on the Command Module, is behind the lens. Every other human is in front of it. This caption is so powerful.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- enriquto 5y agoClimb a hill and take a photo of the floor with your telephone. If there are no planes/spatial stations nearby, then you'll have the same thing.
- willis936 5y agoIf you have a 179.99 degree wide angle lens.
- enriquto 5y agoNot sure how does the lens angle change the front/back position of the objects around it. But still; cheaper than a whole space program ;)
- willis936 5y agoI was thinking the meaning of the caption was ray tracing light through the lens from a single point on one side. I suppose you could stick your head in a fishbowl that is sitting on the ground to get the same effect, as long as there are no planes or manned spacecraft directly above you. Technically you can do that with a planar lens if you stick your eyeball onto the lens.
- yoavm 5y agowell technically, everyone else would still be in front the lens regardless of how wide it is.
- runj__ 5y agoI cried a little at the the shot of the lander and earth from the command module, the thought of every single other human in the same frame is just too much.
- abhayhegde 5y agoSite seems to be down.
- timdaub 5y agoI always wonder what happens to you psychologically when you see something like this. As one of the astronauts I mean. Surely, once you've returned, nothing will be as it used to.
- Leszek 5y agoIt's called the "overview effect": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_effect
- squarefoot 5y agoI can get just a tiny grasp of the power of that sight just by looking at the photos, and can't imagine what would be like experiencing it in 1st person. This brings the hope that one day when every human would be able to experience it, we'll create a utopistic Trek-ish reality in which people suddenly become less selfish and put the common good above idiocies such as nationalism or the pursuit of immense wealth at the expense of others. Hopefully one day seeing the Earth from orbit will become sort of a rite of passage for kids.
- ernopp 5y agoI wonder how we could get more people to experience this effect... Something like what Stewart Brand did by pushing for and publicising the first whole earth picture (in part via the Whole Earth Catalog) but more for the internet age. I was toying with an idea of a site called "Get Some Perspective" where you'd start off with a FPS view and as you scroll you gradually zoom out, eventually to the whole observable universe. You could send this link to people if they're being short-sighted, callous, etc and hopefully instill a bit of the Overview effect in them...
- bboreham 5y agoPrior art: the “Total Perspective Vortex” https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex
- 5y ago
- temptemptemp111 5y agoHaha is that what they're calling it now? "Restored"?
- faebi 5y agoBeautiful. I would like to buy them as posters. Is it possible to buy these somewhere?
- st_goliath 5y agoIn case you are interested in more photographs from the Apollo missions, back in 2015, NASA released a whole digitized archive: https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums The link is from a hand full at the bottom of the article, where it also lists other archive overview pages and leads to ~15k scanned photos.
- astroflask 5y agoFrom the lengthy blog post under the images, it'd seem he used those archives. I have the impression that I've seen these pictures as TIF files instead of JPGs somewhere (the Internet Archive perhaps?), but I can't remember precisely now. Maybe the author used those, as I imagine they'd give a bit more leeway and flexibility in a restoration effort.
- mzz 5y agoThere’s so much more art in nature itself than it is art. By the way, his book “The Precipice” is quite worthwhile to read!
- petee 5y agoMy first reaction was that this was a set of AI generated photos of what earth looked like if we hadn't been developing it, like restored to nature. But I certainly wasn't disappointed. Very beautiful
- matsemann 5y agoI once saw a video (reenactment but original voices maybe?) of how one of these images was taken. How the earth appeared over the horizon and they scrambled to find a camera or so. Anyone knows which video I'm talking about and could help me find it? Edit: finding out the picture in question had a name, Earthrise, made it easier to find. Here's the video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-vOscpiNc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-vOscpiNc
- pimlottc 5y agoWow, what a great video, very cool how they combined the original photos, mission audio and 3D models of the lunar surface. Thanks for the link!
- sizzzzlerz 5y agoMissing is the Voyager 1 image looking back to Earth from 4 billion miles, the one referred to by Carl Sagan as "the pale blue dot, a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam". It doesn't have the resolution these images have but it's impact on our civilization is over-whelming.
- dieortin 5y agoWould you happen to have a link?
- pomian 5y agoHere is one: https://www.planetary.org/worlds/pale-blue-dot https://www.planetary.org/worlds/pale-blue-dot
- richthedev 5y agoHere's one https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pale-blue-dot-revisited https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pale-blue-dot-revisited
- loudlambda 5y agoHow does this picture make any sense? Europe, Asia, Both America's, and Australia all fit on the other half? https://static1.squarespace.com/static/562652dbe4b05bbfdc596fd7/t/604cf3cea0288525902203fc/1615655904969/AS17-148-22727.jpg https://static1.squarespace.com/static/562652dbe4b05bbfdc596...
- projectileboy 5y agoThe Pacific Ocean is enormous.
- shawncampbell 5y agoYes, they do. Try orienting the globe for yourself here: https://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/physics/solarSystem/InteractiveEarth/interactiveEarth.html https://www.echalk.co.uk/Science/physics/solarSystem/Interac...
- loudlambda 5y agoYou're right! But with my globe at home, and that site you listed, at the same angle I can clearly see part of India and Australia, it's weird that they don't seem to show up in this picture.
- roywiggins 5y agoIf you get closer and widen the lens, you will see an arbitrarily small portion of the earth as you approach it.
- alexjudson 5y agoKeep in mind that you are not seeing a complete "half" of the earth in this picture. As your distance increases, the effective horizon encompasses more of the surface. Only at infinite distance would you see exactly half of a sphere (mathematically speaking). Try taking a picture of your globe closer and closer to the surface and watch as less of the surface is visible in each.
- Razengan 5y agoUgh, cannot zoom in or save on iOS (easily, but I better not mention how in case they disable that workaround too)
- jordemort 5y agoAs a kid, I really wanted to be an astronaut. I didn't make it, although I did go to Space Camp. It's mostly something I don't think about anymore, until I see pictures like this - looking at the entire planet just floating there in space does something to my brain. I hope space tourism will become accessible to non-billionaires in my lifetime!
- quercusa 5y agoBy middle school I knew I'd never be an astronaut but I would have really liked to go to Space Camp.
- ThinkingGuy 5y agoAmazing article and incredible pictures, but this one line has me scratching my head: "Only 24 people have journeyed far enough to see the whole Earth against the black of space" The Apollo missions from 8 through 17, with the exception of Apollo 9 (LM test in Earth orbit), all reached lunar orbit, even if 8, 10, and 13 didn't actually land. Each carried 3 crew members. Doesn't that make 27 people?
- roywiggins 5y agoThree crew members went twice.
- ThinkingGuy 5y agoI’d overlooked that fact. Thanks for the reminder!
- pmarreck 5y agoI can't stand SPA's. I can't link anyone to any specific photo because the URL doesn't update when the view does. Beautiful photos though
- proc0 5y agoSo stars are not visible from space? I'm assuming not because they're not in the pictures, but because there are no pictures of just stars from space, which I assume would be a point of interest for any astronaut. That is weird, and I wonder if almost every single sci-fi scene in space should have no stars as well.
- evan_ 5y agoStars are visible in space but the Earth is so bright that if you expose it properly, the stars are underexposed. It’s basically the same reason we don’t see the stars in the daytime: the sun is much brighter.
- proc0 5y agoRight but does that mean astronauts don't see stars because it's always "daytime" in space? If we can see the Milky Way in the night sky of remote places away from cities, then the atmosphere must be playing a huge role in allowing us to see stars. I'm just wondering if those night skies are also visible in space, perhaps from the dark side of the moon.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> then the atmosphere must be playing a huge role in allowing us to see stars. It does not. The Earth blocking out the light from the Sun (and the side of the Earth facing it) does. Of course, that also works in space, and stars are visible in space: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/stargazing-from-the-international-space-station https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/stargazing-from-the-inter...
- proc0 5y agoAh nice, thanks. I would think these would be as popular as the dark background earth ones, but maybe I just missed them.
- quercusa 5y agoThis is a great line: >With great foresight, NASA equipped the astronauts with some of the best cameras ever made — specially modified Hasselblads, with Zeiss lenses, and 70mm Kodak Ektachrome film.