9 ms·
60 years after Gemini, newly processed images reveal details
- laborcontract 1y agoNote: this has nothing to do with Gemini, Google's latest image editing model.
- OJFord 1y agoWhich, had it been around anything close to 60 years, could have been confusing!
- randomtoast 1y agoThe name comes from Latin "gemini" meaning "twins," referring to the mythological Dioscuri, Castor and Pollux, sons of Leda. In mythology, Pollux was immortal, Castor mortal; their story is connected with themes of brotherhood and sacrifice. Project Gemini was NASA's second human spaceflight program (1961-1966), preceding Apollo. It developed spaceflight techniques such as orbital rendezvous and docking, essential for the Moon landing. Gemini is also a lightweight internet protocol and associated ecosystem (the Gemini Protocol), designed as a middle ground between Gopher and the modern web (HTTP/HTTPS), emphasizing simplicity and privacy. It is also the name of Google's multimodal AI model, successor to Bard (announced 2023).
- CobrastanJorji 1y agoGoogle supposedly merged two of their AI teams, "DeepMind" and "Brain," and named the resulting team "Gemini" because it came from two things. Which is kind of weird as a metaphor because merging two things isn't really how twins work, but it does sound a lot better than "Google Reorg."
- JdeBP 1y agoBut it is connected to the Internet protocol of the same name, which uses 1965 as its well-known port number (although IANA has not heard about this yet).
- isoprophlex 1y agoNo amount of computational smartphone photography can match, in my eyes, the clarity and contrast and intensity of whatever analogue medium these were captured on. This looks gorgeous. I'm extremely tempted to splurge on this, and the Apollo, books...
- lm28469 1y agoMedium format film (120, 6x6), Hasselblad cameras. I personally think we're barely starting to match the quality of medium format film with modern medium format sensors https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/camera-hasselblad-70mm-gemini/nasm_A19770556000 https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/camera-hasselb...
- tecleandor 1y agoFilm in big formats is incredible, gives great images even on shitty cameras...
- kjkjadksj 1y agoThese hasselblads not shitty cameras. A holga is on the other hand, and the images are shitty as a result despite being medium format.
- tecleandor 1y agoWasn't talking about those cameras umin particular, but about bigger format film in general. Even on shittier cameras, like a Holga 120 leaking everywhere with a plastic lens, the results with medium format film is always surprising and gives you a lot of leeway.
- bbatha 1y agoDepends on how you define quality. While medium and large format photography are extremely high resolution that’s not the only factor. Space age lenses were significantly lower resolution than the film. Modern mirrorless lenses are starting to come close to being able to out resolve film but still aren’t there. Meaning that you get more functional resolution out of modern digital. Digital also beats the pants off film for dynamic range and low light. That said the noise (grain) and dynamic range fall off in film are more pleasing than digital to most eyes. So it’s not all about technical specs.
- echelon_musk 1y ago> Gemini 5, ended just two weeks ago, in 1965 1965 was two weeks ago?
- FartyMcFarter 1y agoYep. I'm trying to find tickets for the next Beatles concert as we speak.
- tjpnz 1y agoOne of those missions lasted just shy of 14-days. Boggles the mind given the size of the Gemini capsule.
- djmips 1y agoI like this, it's really cool - especially the stack images from 16 mm film. The first image (first selfie in space on Gemini 12) is very artistic but I like the original better in that example - just look at the specular highlight before and after.
- svelle 1y agoI understood it less as an attempt of improvement and more as an alternate version of the same shot. Where you see more of Aldrin and other smaller bits that were less visible in the original and rightfully iconic shot.
- jl6 1y agoThe headline before/after image is astonishing, almost in-credible. I can't see how the left image was restored into the right. It looks like there is substantial new detail on the right that I can't see anywhere on the left. I can only assume that the image on the left is a low resolution scan produced for this web article, and that there must be a much better scan somewhere else.
- xandrius 1y agoWell that photo must have come from a negative film, which can have an astounding amount of detail, even old film. So, what improved is probably our digitalization tools and with some post, you can reveal a lot of detail.
- imdsm 1y agoIt must be. The amount of detail is incredible, and even trying to extract data from the before picture, it doesn't come close to what you see in the newly processed image. My attempt: https://i.imgur.com/QZDDEB5.png https://i.imgur.com/QZDDEB5.png
- xandrius 1y agoOf course because you don't have access to the original data. Imagine: 1. Film -> Method 1 -> Photo #1 2. Film -> Method 2 -> Photo #2 Instead you tried: 3. Photo #1 -> Method 3 -> Photo #2 Which instead gives you a badly edited Photo #1. You don't have the source code, so to speak.
- kiicia 1y agoAbsolute least they did is to rescan original film with newer type of scanning process/device into higher resolution and bit depth „digital negative”. You cannot replicate that from low quality jpeg image.
- ncr100 1y agoI keep seeing a small dog in the helmet. Looking at it "correctly" the man's image is obvious. I enjoy image-art for this 'eye of the observer' opportunity.
- t1234s 1y agoIf you are ever able to make it to the KSC visitor complex in Cape Canaveral they have mock-ups of both the Gemini and earlier Mercury capsules you can get in as a size reference. They are both incredibly tight. It's amazing during Gemini 7 they spent 14 days crammed in the capsule testing systems, doing EVA activity along with normal human activity (eating, sleeping, bodily functions). All while being seconds from death at any time if things go wrong. These early astronauts were men of a different caliber.
- KineticLensman 1y ago> They are both incredibly tight. ISTR an astronaut saying that you didn't 'get into' a Mercury capsule, instead you 'put it on'.
- psunavy03 1y agoNot too much different than most tactical jets, to be honest.
- teachrdan 1y agoYou don't stay in a tactical jet for 14 days...
- KineticLensman 1y agoNobody stayed in a Mercury capsule for 14 days, although Gordon Cooper's flight (the last and longest Mercury) lasted 34 hours
- teachrdan 1y agoSorry for the misunderstanding, I was referring to the longest Gemini mission.
- Aardwolf 1y agoI don't seem to find anything resembling washrooms on a mercury capsule, how was that managed during those 34 hours?
- dostick 1y agoAnyone knows if those new photos are published on NASA images site? If they are public domain..
- Gormo 1y agoThey're credited to NASA in the Ars Technica article, so they are likely public domain.
- martinclayton 1y agoFabulous, obviously. I found the headline image confusing - thought it was a Sontaran (Dr. Who baddie) in there! Aldrin's face and the earth reflection are quite confusing to the eye.
- qingcharles 1y agoDid they rescan the negatives for this? He mentions having access to RAW files at one point, but it's not clear.
- pgreenwood 1y agoAll the photographs from Mercury, Gemini and Apollo are public domain. They've been previously re-scanned with modern equipment and all of the RAWs are publicly available for free: https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/ https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/
- qingcharles 1y agoThank you for that! It gives all the details. Interesting they used a HR-500. When I was scanning for Universal I was using a Hasselblad which has a much higher resolution. (although usually the film stock itself was way lower "resolution" than the scanner could image)
- ecoled_ame 1y agoPhotography and 1960s NASA. Best combo
- CobrastanJorji 1y agoWhat does "stack hundreds and hundreds of frames to bring out incredible detail" mean, technically?
- all2 1y agoThere are algorithms in computational photography that effectively "stack" multiple images of the same thing in order to achieve a kind of 'super-resolution'. It's been a bit since I've done any of that, so I do not recall, but my hazy memory says its pretty straight forward linear algebra (and has the concomitant drawbacks that algorithms of this type have).
- dredmorbius 1y agoThe 16 mm film format mentioned is usually a motion-picture, rather than still, camera format, generally shot at 24 frames per second (FPS), though values from 8 to 48 FPS were fairly common. Presumably the stacking was of 100s of frames would involve combining several seconds (8.33 seconds would be 200 frames of film at 24 FPS) to generate a higher-resolution image. Success would depend on how much camera and subject movement occurred over that time, though image stabilisation should help somewhat with the former. I suspect a clearer explanation of the process was omitted from the article, perhaps due to poor editing.
- dredmorbius 1y agoOh, and "image stacking" is the technique of combining multiple images within a single frame, allowing for greater clarity (as in here), removing noise (frequently applied in astrophotography), or depth-of-field / focal-plane stacking. This almost always implies digital image processing, and depending on the goal / intent, various filters or masks may be applied. De-noising typically relies on including only visual elements appearing in most (but not all) frames of the stack, eliminating glitches such as satellite flares, meteors, terrestrial-based light sources, aircraft, sensor noise, or even radiation spots. "Take Better Night Sky Photos with Image Stacking" <https://photographylife.com/night-sky-image-stacking https://photographylife.com/night-sky-image-stacking> "Focus Stacking" (Wikipedia) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_stacking> Again, from TFA the source was motion-film footage from fixed-position cameras which could be used to generate images with much greater resolution than any individual frame. Note that 16mm film grain is typically fairly large, but with stacking and post-processing, smaller details can be inferred.
- themadturk 1y ago"These missions are now forgotten by most Americans, as most of the people alive during that time are now deceased." I'm still here! I was ten years old during most of the Gemini era. I remember this stuff. I haven't forgotten.
- pgreenwood 1y agoIn case anyone wants to have a go at doing this for Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo; all of the RAWs are publicly available for free: https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/ https://tothemoon.im-ldi.com/ All the of the photographs from these missions are public domain and always have been.