3 ms·

Isn't this why they always use the term "artist's impression" when they are colored?

recipe19 1y ago
I think that term is reserved mostly for actual artwork (renderings, paintings, etc). Some deep-space astronomy pictures are in completely made-up color, often because they're taken at wavelengths different than visible light and then color-mapped to look pretty. But the point here is even if you're taking images with a regular camera pointed at the sky, it's pretty much impossible to match "reality".
okanat 1y ago
There are different reasons for that. Things like black holes are really hard to observe even in other light spectrums. Same for other objects like planets. So the drawings are made in hypothetical expectations based on simulations rather than direct observations. Many observations come from scientific cameras rather than actual visible spectrum cameras discussed in TFA. They are not artist's impression like the first case. They will have a completely different view of the object so any visible-light predictions will have some guessing in it but the final picture will be not 100% you would see.
nwallin 1y ago
No. When you see "artist's impression" in a news article about space, what you're looking at is a painting or drawing created from whole cloth by an artist. This article is about how sensors turned signals into images. When you take pictures with a 'normal' camera, we've designed them so that if you take certain steps, the image on your screen looks the same as what it would look like in real life with no camera or monitor. This article is stating that with the cameras and filters they use for telescopes, that same process doesn't really work. We use special filters to measure specific spectral properties about an astronomical object. This gives good scientific information, however, it means that in many cases it's impossible to reconstruct what an astronomical object would really look like if our eyes were more sensitive and we looked at it.

I think that term is reserved mostly for actual artwork (renderings, paintings, etc). Some deep-space astronomy pictures are in completely made-up color, often because they're taken at wavelengths different than visible light and then color-mapped to look pretty. But the point here is even if you're taking images with a regular camera pointed at the sky, it's pretty much impossible to match "reality".

okanat 1y ago

There are different reasons for that. Things like black holes are really hard to observe even in other light spectrums. Same for other objects like planets. So the drawings are made in hypothetical expectations based on simulations rather than direct observations. Many observations come from scientific cameras rather than actual visible spectrum cameras discussed in TFA. They are not artist's impression like the first case. They will have a completely different view of the object so any visible-light predictions will have some guessing in it but the final picture will be not 100% you would see.

nwallin 1y ago

No. When you see "artist's impression" in a news article about space, what you're looking at is a painting or drawing created from whole cloth by an artist. This article is about how sensors turned signals into images. When you take pictures with a 'normal' camera, we've designed them so that if you take certain steps, the image on your screen looks the same as what it would look like in real life with no camera or monitor. This article is stating that with the cameras and filters they use for telescopes, that same process doesn't really work. We use special filters to measure specific spectral properties about an astronomical object. This gives good scientific information, however, it means that in many cases it's impossible to reconstruct what an astronomical object would really look like if our eyes were more sensitive and we looked at it.