7 ms·

I compressed the full PNG via Guetzli (Google's high-quality jpg compressor) which took a couple of hours (now 15MB at 84% quality), so here it is: https://git

I compressed the full PNG via Guetzli (Google's high-quality jpg compressor) which took a couple of hours (now 15MB at 84% quality), so here it is: https://github.com/dvasdekis/images/raw/master/pillars.jpg https://github.com/dvasdekis/images/raw/master/pillars.jpg and https://mega.nz/file/BTdWSb6b#NHK9lAtGMIr1UxabLiC174ZvJWo7KSMPVvU32XuhOuw https://mega.nz/file/BTdWSb6b#NHK9lAtGMIr1UxabLiC174ZvJWo7KS... and https://www.mediafire.com/file/n0qjxogsp203z0w/pillars.jpg/file https://www.mediafire.com/file/n0qjxogsp203z0w/pillars.jpg/f... The original crashed Windows when set as desktop background, but this one works.

rootw0rm 4y ago
Gorgeous, thank you for sharing
fsckboy 4y ago
> so here it is you posted 3, are there any differences or just different URLs? and thanks!
- dvasdekis 4y ago
  Just different urls in case they get bandwidth limited
mlindner 4y ago
That image has some amount of artifacting around all the stars so I wouldn't advise you to use it. You'll get a lot more quality out of the image just downrezzing and then saving it with a higher jpeg quality setting. Also I'm not sure why Google would take hours to find a jpeg quality setting. That's a really trivial thing and should only take seconds on a desktop with something like imagemagick. If you have a faster machine it works no problem to just view it directly: https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GFNMZESKZKXBMWGER9E0Z19G.png https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GFNMZESKZKXBMWGER9E0Z19G.png Downloaded in less than 30 seconds and firefox handled viewing/panning/scaling it without issue. On an M1 Macbook Air.
- vidarh 4y ago
  > Also I'm not sure why Google would take hours to find a jpeg quality setting. That's not what they're doing at all. It's optimising the encoding step to produce smaller files at a given quality setting.
Tepix 4y ago
> The original crashed Windows when set as desktop background, but this one works. It's better to scale it down to the display resolution instead if that's what you want to use it for.
- dvasdekis 4y ago
  I have 2x 4K monitors, one vertical, so Windows turns most 4K images into a blurry mess as it tries to fit them widthwise and lengthwise. This, on the other hand, still looks stunning.
wdfx 4y ago
Anyone else noticing the fairly common circularish structures in the top left of the image? It's like an uncanny number of stars are placed in circular arrangements. Is this due to some gravitational lensing effects around some of the objects in that area (some of which are visible)?
- dnadler 4y ago
  I'm not sure I see what you're describing, but it's unlikely to be gravitational lensing. That requires truly massive gravitational fields and distances to have a noticable effect (eg. large clusters of galaxies). It's probably more likely due to gravity causing stars/dust to drift towards each other, causing clumps and voids.
sylware 4y ago
thx. Because your links are noscript/basic (x)html browsers friendly... nasa one... not so much...
nominusllc 4y ago
I'd just like to say I appreciate you for providing a diverse selection of file lockers. Thank you fair stranger.
raymondh 4y ago
Thank you.

rootw0rm 4y ago

Gorgeous, thank you for sharing

fsckboy 4y ago

> so here it is you posted 3, are there any differences or just different URLs? and thanks!

dvasdekis 4y ago
Just different urls in case they get bandwidth limited

mlindner 4y ago

That image has some amount of artifacting around all the stars so I wouldn't advise you to use it. You'll get a lot more quality out of the image just downrezzing and then saving it with a higher jpeg quality setting. Also I'm not sure why Google would take hours to find a jpeg quality setting. That's a really trivial thing and should only take seconds on a desktop with something like imagemagick. If you have a faster machine it works no problem to just view it directly: https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GFNMZESKZKXBMWGER9E0Z19G.png https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01GFNMZESKZKXBMWGER9E0Z19G.png Downloaded in less than 30 seconds and firefox handled viewing/panning/scaling it without issue. On an M1 Macbook Air.

vidarh 4y ago
> Also I'm not sure why Google would take hours to find a jpeg quality setting. That's not what they're doing at all. It's optimising the encoding step to produce smaller files at a given quality setting.

Tepix 4y ago

> The original crashed Windows when set as desktop background, but this one works. It's better to scale it down to the display resolution instead if that's what you want to use it for.

dvasdekis 4y ago
I have 2x 4K monitors, one vertical, so Windows turns most 4K images into a blurry mess as it tries to fit them widthwise and lengthwise. This, on the other hand, still looks stunning.

wdfx 4y ago

Anyone else noticing the fairly common circularish structures in the top left of the image? It's like an uncanny number of stars are placed in circular arrangements. Is this due to some gravitational lensing effects around some of the objects in that area (some of which are visible)?

dnadler 4y ago
I'm not sure I see what you're describing, but it's unlikely to be gravitational lensing. That requires truly massive gravitational fields and distances to have a noticable effect (eg. large clusters of galaxies). It's probably more likely due to gravity causing stars/dust to drift towards each other, causing clumps and voids.

sylware 4y ago

thx. Because your links are noscript/basic (x)html browsers friendly... nasa one... not so much...

nominusllc 4y ago

I'd just like to say I appreciate you for providing a diverse selection of file lockers. Thank you fair stranger.

raymondh 4y ago

Thank you.