{"id":2633,"date":"2021-10-26T13:40:35","date_gmt":"2021-10-26T13:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=2633"},"modified":"2021-10-26T13:58:08","modified_gmt":"2021-10-26T13:58:08","slug":"comment-on-hubble-vs-amateur-astrophotography","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/?p=2633","title":{"rendered":"Comment on Hubble vs Amateur Astrophotography"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Hubble vs. Amateur Astrophotographer (27 Aug 2021) at <a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0QcJaD9klDc\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0QcJaD9klDc<\/a><\/p>\n<p>I had to look a bit, but eventually found a description of the camera and exposure for that original image of &#8220;Pillars of Creation&#8221; at <a href=\"https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/mission-and-telescope\/mission-timeline#h4-deab74a9-f038-4a74-9313-425d13e71747\">https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/mission-and-telescope\/mission-timeline#h4-deab74a9-f038-4a74-9313-425d13e71747<\/a> with more detail at <a href=\"https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/contents\/news-releases\/1995\/news-1995-44.html\">https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/contents\/news-releases\/1995\/news-1995-44.html<\/a> then some images at <a href=\"https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/contents\/media\/images\/1995\/44\/351-Image.html?news=true\">https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/contents\/media\/images\/1995\/44\/351-Image.html?news=true<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Like usual, Hubble media people dominate sharing on their site, so all they have are lossy JPEG images and the best are 1518 x 1497. ( Maybe that is why NASA media types released it April Fools Day 1995. And why they show a snooty disdain for the &#8220;public&#8221; who don&#8217;t know anything, so only need lossy images. And hide the &#8220;real&#8221; data behind many layers of jargon and sloppy documentation, only for paid scientists or insiders. Sorry, my patience for them is a little thin this morning.)<\/p>\n<p>The Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) has a brief history at https:\/\/www.stsci.edu\/hst\/instrumentation\/legacy\/wfpc2 and I gave up trying to find the raw data at <a href=\"https:\/\/archive.stsci.edu\/virtual-observatory#section-80254617-2136-4c4e-9769-75cf28857716\">https:\/\/archive.stsci.edu\/virtual-observatory#section-80254617-2136-4c4e-9769-75cf28857716<\/a> What a horrible mess.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wide_Field_and_Planetary_Camera_2\">https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wide_Field_and_Planetary_Camera_2<\/a> says that WFPC2 had four 800&#215;800 CCD sensors. The camera was probably designed and built back in the early 1990&#8217;s. And you are comparing to your camera, with its pixels, sensitivity, frame rate, stacking and registration to a raw 30 hour exposure back then? It is interesting they mention &#8221; non-scientific JPEG files&#8221; and then (real) &#8220;astronomers receive a raw scientific image package&#8221;. Nothing much has changed.<\/p>\n<p>WFPC2 was replaced by WFPC3 which has 2048&#215;4096 UV, 2048&#215;4096 visible, and 1024&#215;1024 IR.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wide_Field_and_Planetary_Camera_2#\/media\/File:Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg\">https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wide_Field_and_Planetary_Camera_2#\/media\/File:Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg<\/a> explains that the original Pillars was a composite of 32 images from those four CCDs with filters and false coloring. So it is not so much an image for human eyeballs (I call those &#8220;eye candy&#8221;), but the raw data from the original sensors &#8211; which could be reprocessed, compared and combined withe newer images and different sensors.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/search?q=%22pillars+of+Creation%22+OR+%22Messier+16%22+OR+%22Eagle+Nebula%22+OR+%22NGC+6611%22+OR+%22star+queen+nebula%22+OR+(%22M16%22+%22nebula%22)\">&#8220;pillars of Creation&#8221; OR &#8220;Messier 16&#8221; OR &#8220;Eagle Nebula&#8221; OR &#8220;NGC 6611&#8221; OR &#8220;star queen nebula&#8221; OR (&#8220;M16&#8221; &#8220;nebula&#8221;)<\/a> has about 1.21 Million entry points (Google, 26 Oct 2021) and many people who have gathered data, or who have an abiding interest.<\/p>\n<p>But those people and groups are like you &#8211; all sharing pretty pictures, And not really sharing, combining, calibrating, comparing, collaborating, calculating, modeling, simulating &#8220;real science&#8221; or technology or shared sensor data. Someone commented that you are not an amateur. But, until you actually begin to combine your raw and documented sensor data streams with others &#8211; your are not doing science. My impression from checking the Internet for some of those &#8220;scientists&#8221; who mention NGC 6611 (or its many aliases and codes) is they are just dabbling. Picking pretty pictures to share. If anyone does good work, but only shares &#8220;eye candy&#8221; still or video images, no real progress is made. It stays at the level of individuals doing their best efforts, and never accumulating knowledge for everyone.<\/p>\n<p>Maybe I am tired this morning, so I felt you were pushing to make this video hip and enthusiastic. But if it is intended to encourage collaboration, comparing, calibration, and &#8220;science&#8221;, it falls a little flat. I am glad you did this. But who can afford a Hubble camera in space, no matter how old. Or the kinds of cameras, computers, software and massive amount of time you are expending?<\/p>\n<p>If you can think of a better way, I am constantly looking.<\/p>\n<p>Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hubble vs. Amateur Astrophotographer (27 Aug 2021) at https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=0QcJaD9klDc I had to look a bit, but eventually found a description of the camera and exposure for that original image of &#8220;Pillars of Creation&#8221; at https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/mission-and-telescope\/mission-timeline#h4-deab74a9-f038-4a74-9313-425d13e71747 with more detail at https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/contents\/news-releases\/1995\/news-1995-44.html then some images at https:\/\/hubblesite.org\/contents\/media\/images\/1995\/44\/351-Image.html?news=true Like usual, Hubble media people dominate sharing on their site, <br \/><a class=\"read-more-button\" href=\"\/?p=2633\">Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,20,16,28,31,34,39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2633","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-sky-cameras","category-collaborative-model-and-data","category-internet-best-practices","category-internet-efficiency","category-open-algorithm-development","category-solar-system-colonization","category-visualizations-simulations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2633"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2638,"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2633\/revisions\/2638"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2633"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2633"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2633"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}