Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Telecaster on April 04, 2019, 05:00:10 pm
-
In fact a black hole probably doesn't look like anything…but the area surrounding its event horizon may look very interesting indeed. The Event Horizon telescope, a multinational coordinated group of radio spectrum telescopes, attempted two years ago to create images of two black holes, one at the center of (relatively) nearby galaxy M87 and the other at our Milky Way's center. On April 10th they'll be announcing results of the attempts, and presumably also showing an image or two. The fact that they've scheduled a press conference suggests they've got something cool up their sleeve…but we shall see. (The folks involved are annoyingly keeping their lips tightly zipped.)
A short piece: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/04/the-event-horizon-telescope-may-soon-release-first-ever-black-hole-image?
-Dave-
-
Maybe the announcement will be that Amazon is offering to sell black holes. :D
-
When taking spherical panoramas in a small room, you end up with a black hole (nadir) in the bottom centre of the image (where was the tripod). If you take a second panorama just one step to either the side, you get another black hole, this time in another position. Combine the two images and the black hole disappears.
-
When taking spherical panoramas in a small room, you end up with a black hole (nadir) in the bottom centre of the image (where was the tripod). If you take a second panorama just one step to either the side, you get another black hole, this time in another position. Combine the two images and the black hole disappears.
Oh so that's how they do it. Thanks.
-
Oh so that's how they do it. Thanks.
Well, someone may come up with another black hole example, but I wanted to keep the discussion clean.
-
Well, someone may come up with another black hole example, but I wanted to keep the discussion clean.
What's unclean about a bottomless pit?
-
To answer the OP's question, it seems highly likely that a black hole looks pretty much like any other black hole: black.
-
To answer the OP's question, it seems highly likely that a black hole looks pretty much like any other black hole: black.
+1.
-
To answer the OP's question, it seems highly likely that a black hole looks pretty much like any other black hole: black.
Not to physicists.
-
Not to physicists.
Obviously not, Robert. To them everything looks like a possible new Law for the discovering and eponymous naming.
Rob
-
I saw a news item today that suggested they will be posting the first photograph of a black hole tomorrow.
I guess they are waiting for the picture to come back from the drug store.
-
Obviously not, Robert. To them everything looks like a possible new Law for the discovering and eponymous naming.
Rob
That's right, they're in for the glory. :)
-
Most importantly, for such a photoshoot they should use the ETTR method.
Hear! Hear!
All my photos of black holes are underexposed!
;)
-
Black or not, most importantly, for such a photoshoot they should use the ETTR method.
-
Black or not, most importantly, for such a photoshoot they should use the ETTR method.
Just a well meant joke ;)
-
The photo (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/black-hole-image-live-first-photo-event-horizon-telescope-time-date-a8862851.html)
-
What a significant milestone, well done to the team.
-
The photo (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/black-hole-image-live-first-photo-event-horizon-telescope-time-date-a8862851.html)
Disclaimer: I frequently achieve black hole images when I use my catadioptric 500mm Nikkor.
-
A mix-up between the black hole photo and one of the scientist's snaps of their breakfast bagel, perhaps?
-
That's right, they're in for the glory. :)
Some are, but who's to begrudge them? There's precious little money in being a scientist.
-
Some are, but who's to begrudge them? There's precious little money in being a scientist.
Unless you manage to come up with a sensible invention.
A neighbour's father came up with a solution to keeping swimming pools healthy and clean: his family has never looked back, and for the next fifty years probably never will.
Jerry Hall recounts a shoot wth Norman Parkinson for Town and Country, where they were shooting in an amazing property and, on asking from whence the wealth to produce such things, was told the grandfather had invented the can opener.
Ain't always rockets that count.
Rob
-
In fact a black hole probably doesn't look like anything…but the area surrounding its event horizon may look very interesting indeed. The Event Horizon telescope, a multinational coordinated group of radio spectrum telescopes, attempted two years ago to create images of two black holes, one at the center of (relatively) nearby galaxy M87 and the other at our Milky Way's center. On April 10th they'll be announcing results of the attempts, and presumably also showing an image or two. The fact that they've scheduled a press conference suggests they've got something cool up their sleeve…but we shall see. (The folks involved are annoyingly keeping their lips tightly zipped.)
A short piece: http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/04/the-event-horizon-telescope-may-soon-release-first-ever-black-hole-image?
-Dave-
That's Awesome
-
The 'hole' of the black hole does not seems to be as black as it should ; probably flare...
Also i find the composition a bit to wide..so i have enhanced it a bit... ;)
-
Out of this world!
-
Unless you manage to come up with a sensible invention.
That's always the case, for scientists and anyone else.
-
Some are, but who's to begrudge them? There's precious little money in being a scientist.
Speaking as an academic scientist, two things are clear:
- most of us could be making far more money in industry or such, but ...
- we have a lot more fun and job satisfaction doing what we are doing.
-
... i find the composition a bit to wide..so i have enhanced it a bit... ;)
Yes; as usual, 3:2 shape sucks—and this is surely a classic case for a classic square. But with an effective aperture of about 10 billion mm, the bokeh is predictably stunning and diffraction is well controlled.
Part of the challenge here is the greatest post-processing effort of all time, taking almost two years.
-
Yes; as usual, 3:2 shape sucks—and this is surely a classic case for a classic square. But with an effective aperture of about 10 billion mm, the bokeh is predictably stunning and diffraction is well controlled.
Part of the challenge here is the greatest post-processing effort of all time, taking almost two years.
So true!
-
Nice explanation of the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMsNd1W_lmE&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMsNd1W_lmE&feature=youtu.be).
-
As a piled higher and deeper guy (in chemistry) I read trough the sequence of posts and found myself laughing out loud at some of the responses/retorts and enjoying the imagination that could see the funny side of applying routine responses to traditional images to the making of a remarkable image.
I hope the physicists in the group have a sense of humour because my guess is the posters who made me laugh mean no disrespect to physics of physicists.
So, good on the physicists (and the young woman who is reported to be a key player in the development of the algorithms used); give us more photographs of extraordinary physics.
Ciao,
Doug
-
I hope the physicists in the group have a sense of humour because my guess is the posters who made me laugh mean no disrespect to physics of physicists.
So, good on the physicists (and the young woman who is reported to be a key player in the development of the algorithms used); give us more photographs of extraordinary physics.
I'm definitely on the pro-physics side—and as a computational scientist, a particular fan of the mathematical contributions of computer scientist Katie Bouman (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/11/katie-bouman-black-hole-photo) to the post-processing.
I must admit an error above though: the angular FOV is so narrow that the diffraction spot size corresponds to about the Schwarzschild radius (event horizon size) of the black hole, so the softness of the image is probably diffraction.
Aside: So yes, some detail is visible at scales smaller than diffraction spot size: there is is a gradual slide into softness and reduced contrast (lower MTF), not a "brick-wall" limit to resolution.
-
I'm definitely on the pro-physics side—and as a computational scientist, a particular fan of the mathematical contributions of computer scientist Katie Bouman (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/apr/11/katie-bouman-black-hole-photo) to the post-processing.
Can you speak to how much the pictures matches "what it would actually look like?"
I assume you'd need eyes that saw in the radio part of the spectrum, and obviously you'd need to be in the right place and so on. But, how far removed from our notion of "seeing" would you have to be, to perceive this thing in roughly this way?
I am thinking of those pictures of "individual atoms" which really cannot, even in our imagination, be "perceived" in that way. Those things are just data visualizations that are, essentially, metaphors that allow you to visually think about certain aspects of the atom.
-
Can you speak to how much the pictures matches "what it would actually look like?"
I assume you'd need eyes that saw in the radio part of the spectrum, and obviously you'd need to be in the right place and so on. But, how far removed from our notion of "seeing" would you have to be, to perceive this thing in roughly this way?
I am thinking of those pictures of "individual atoms" which really cannot, even in our imagination, be "perceived" in that way. Those things are just data visualizations that are, essentially, metaphors that allow you to visually think about certain aspects of the atom.
Just a guess: it also gives of lots of visible light—and up to high energy X-rays and gamma rays—but only sub-mm microwaves can be detected with the “earth scale” aperture needed to get enough angular resolution and signal strength. So from close enough it might look similar to the eye, but the high energy radiation might kill you when you are that close.
-
They aways warn you not to come too close when photographing a black hole ;)
-
Hey! I guessed right! It's BLACK!!! :D
-
A longer explanation by Katie Bouman: https://youtu.be/P7n2rYt9wfU (https://youtu.be/P7n2rYt9wfU).
-
Hey! I guessed right! It's BLACK!!! :D
But it's not a hole, Eric: it's an overripe apple on black velvet, a classical still life subject. A tripod would have helped.
I finally have my appointment with the opthalmists tomorrow at 12.45hrs. Prelude to cataract removal, I hope. If so, I hope they do my right eye first: using it on the little D200 today (found an Excalibur in white) I again became aware of the difficulty I experience in some light conditions when I attempt to read the exposure info. below the image on the viewfinder screen. It doesn't much happen on the D700, but then the 50mm ain't the focal length I really want, though the smaller sensor is an elegant if cheap way of getting there.
Rob
P.S.
I may have found a shapely car, but I double-blew a better subject: as I was walking down to the marina I was passed by a couple of joggers. She was about 5'8" with perfect, straight dancer legs and neat gluteal muscles in what looked suspiciously like pale green underwear. I was wearing my shades, camera off. I cursed myself for not expecting the unexpected. Fifteen minutes later, the same pair (of joggers) ran right across my face, which was still wearing glasses...
Guess which opportunity I would rather have seized. Hint: not the car.
I guess I'm not really a street fighting man.
-
But it's not a hole, Eric: it's an overripe apple on black velvet, a classical still life subject. A tripod would have helped.
I finally have my appointment with the opthalmists tomorrow at 12.45hrs. Prelude to cataract removal, I hope. If so, I hope they do my right eye first: using it on the little D200 today (found an Excalibur in white) I again became aware of the difficulty I experience in some light conditions when I attempt to read the exposure info. below the image on the viewfinder screen. It doesn't much happen on the D700, but then the 50mm ain't the focal length I really want, though the smaller sensor is an elegant if cheap way of getting there.
Rob
P.S.
I may have found a shapely car, but I double-blew a better subject: as I was walking down to the marina I was passed by a couple of joggers. She was about 5'8" with perfect, straight dancer legs and neat gluteal muscles in what looked suspiciously like pale green underwear. I was wearing my shades, camera off. I cursed myself for not expecting the unexpected. Fifteen minutes later, the same pair (of joggers) ran right across my face, which was still wearing glasses...
Guess which opportunity I would rather have seized. Hint: not the car.
I guess I'm not really a street fighting man.
There's newly introduced law prohibiting taking pics like this in the UK!
;-)
-
There's newly introduced law prohibiting taking pics like this in the UK!
;-)
Holy smoke! Am I sure I want to go back?
Carnaby Street and Kings Road must be turning in their graves; Cool Britannia, we salute your past glories! R.I.P.
Sharia round the corner.
;-)
-
There's newly introduced law prohibiting taking pics like this in the UK!
;-)
Only if using a tripod or a flash.
-
Enough! Time to return this thread to photography:
-
Thats why i bought a D850!
-
Enough! Time to return this thread to photography:
+1000!
:D
-
Enough! Time to return this thread to photography:
For a Canadian site it is scandalous that the Tim Horton's version was missing.
https://www.timhortons.com/ca/en/menu/donuts.php
-
Resulting images from my recent stress test. Third row from top, first image on left.
-
Interesting to see all the variations between the heart scans. I have had the nuclear stress test, but they gave me just a written report, not the images. In Canada.
-
Two heart attacks and two stents later, you forget about the science and just go with the flow, on the basis that che sera, sera.
Preventative measures? Don't eat great food, don't drink anything nice; don't have too much sex (which beta blockers may take away from you anyhow, depends); don't develop high pressure in your eyes because the beta blocker-laded eye drops for that will combine with the betas for your heart and cut blood pressure even more, and so the blood rush to your digestive system will leave your brain - literally - cold and empty, making you faint into your lunch plate. It took years - again, literally - for the doctors to give up and hand me non-beta eye drops; maybe they cost more, no idea. Smoke? If you still do that, ignore my advice above and go Havana and die younger. It'll serve you bloody right. Think of how many other people's meals you will have ruined with your smokescreens!