/sci/ - Science & Math

stars are incredibly, incredibly hard to see with most cameras at normal exposures, almost every picture or video you see involving stars is because it's a timelapse with longer exposure times. Also note that this is streamed so there's some good compression on that footage. When the 5k raw footage gets uploaded directly you -might- see jupiter, maybe.

modern video cameras just suck cock in low light, that's how it is

>>9499062
Okay gotcha, I guess I have never used any serious photography equipment. I just know that if I take my cold first generation smartphone outside and take a picture of the sky they will come out just fine. And compression I suppose could factor in you may know more than me, I just don't see how. But I do appreciate your comment. I will have to look more into that I have become quite curious since I saw this.

>>9499064
> I just know that if I take my cold first generation smartphone outside and take a picture of the sky they will come out just fine
bullshit. post a pic. i guarantee you'd only see jupiter and even then, only with like a full second exposure

>>9499053
FTFY

>>9499070
M*

>>9499068
Well I know for a fact that I have seen more than Jupiter, I'm not going to post a pic because, well because I'm far too lazy mainly. But you could still be right who knows maybe it was a freak picture. If this thread go somewhere I will dig it up.

>>9499073
you might have been seeing some stuff that wasn't stars in the pic, like landing jets which have incredibly bright lights that are way brighter than even jupiter from tens of miles away

>>9499077
That could be a possibility. I'm quite positive they were stars as there were hundreds of them and, well pretty star-like. Not being facetious, I will actually try and upload it. I have to charge this old piece of junk first the battery never works. One sec

>>9499062
>>9499068
>>9499077

Kek, look at this good goy working so very hard to maintain his masters tricks.

Face it, there are no actual pictures of the world that aren't composites. And don't link me that geosynchronous orbit or satellite that supposedly gives real-time pictures. It's literally 240p pixelated garbage that still looks photoshopped. You know what I would do if I wanted to limit all pictures of the world? I would make sure that no pictures were received from any of the Thousand satellites out there safe but one. And on that one satellite I would make it shity as hell and as far away as possible, like where geosynchronous orbit supposedly is.

>>9499079
Even if you showed this guy your picture off your phone, it wouldn't make him budge in the slightest. People like this are absolutely set in their ways and thinking outside the box is simply not possible anymore.

>>9499083
can't tell if flat earther or just denying this particular instance

>>9499077
All right here it is, cropped out my house but left that area of Interest. I'm pretty sure these are stars.

>>9499091
wow, i'm deeply impressed actually. kinda tiny though
do you live way out in the middle of nowhere with very little light pollution?
did you check what exposure settings it has? like did it snap the pic instantly or did it take a second to do something after you hit the take image button

>>9499097
although, here's the challenge;
do that again but take a video instead of a photo. feel free to let it sit there staring at a star field for a while. see if you can see any stars.

>>9499097
Heh, man I always take pictures like this. Didn't know it was special. As for settings, I'm pretty sure I just turn off flash. Nothing else, and it's an old phone so doesn't have really any snazzy effects. Probably takes your standard amount of time maybe half a second to a second. And I'm really not to rural at all. I would say I'm closer to Urban than rural. Which I suppose that long-winded way to say suburbs.

>>9499101
Yeah I guess I could try that sometime. I guess it just still leads me more clueless as to why some of these photos from space never have stars. Especially since they are not even dealing with the atmosphere.

>>9499103
Too* I swear Google is trying to make us look dumb why does it autocorrect to horrible grammar. But yeah just regular phone. Regular picture settings.

>>9499106
you can test that but adding a bright light source into your photo and trying to take the picture again, even something reflecting bright light, it'll wash the hell out of your quickly taken photo, let alone video
also, colors look wrong in space due to the intense contrast since there's not atmospheric light scattering. everything looks freakishly sharp. Often nasa will color correct official photos by turning the color dials up so the photo doesn't look weirdly cold.

>>9499111
I had all kinds of porch lights and spotlights right around where I cropped. But yeah who knows. And in reference to what you said about NASA, that's what exactly what I'm talking about. They take all of their photos and run it through their touch-up team and do god-knows-what we never see anything wrong. And if they did release something that they claim was wrong how in the hell can we trust them that it truly is. It's not like there is any real oversight as to what they are doing. Someone had to actually hack into the place one time because no one knows what the hell is going on.

>>9499112
Wrong=raw

>>9499112
it's more like nasa puts out what they're doing all the time but it's so catastrophically boring and long winded that people fall asleep
ever watched nasa TV? that's their press event group, those are the people trying to make things interesting

>>9499053
they never had stars in the picture because ever since they began faking the stuff they realized that if they were going to have a bunch of bogus pictures from bogus missions that it would be far too hard to calculate how the Stars would look from each position on each photo and get it right each time. This was before computers were where they are now, but regardless even if they could do it now they have to continue with no stars to be consistent. The whole thing is absolutely retarded.

>>9499115
Yet another valid point I guess. I just see valid points on each side and considering we have no access to anything at all, just what they released to us. It's hard to tell with any certainty what is actually going on. And considering the government lies to us about it each and every other thing I don't have any faith in this being any different.

>>9499117
>that it would be far too hard to calculate how the Stars would look from each position on each photo and get it right each time
that's actually super easy compared to having a realtime earth simulation that matches current cloud behavior over the entire earth accurately every second

getting an accurate star field from any given point is something you can do on an android app

>>9499053

>even when standing in the middle of Times Square at night you can make out at least one

And think how dim all those lights in time square are if they are turned on during the day. You know when a streetlight gets stuck and stays on during the day, it's barely visible. Yet at night it's almost enough to completely overwhelm the stars. Now consider how bright the earth in full, pitiless sunlight is.

>>9499053

>>9499125
he's right, see
>>9499111

if they wanted to fake it all, they could fake it way better

>>9499125
*I thought this was pretty funny too. It's almost like he's rubbing it in our faces.

>>9499126
Yeah, but isn't that exactly what you would say? If you are making horrible fakes constantly. I know I would say it, I would say I would so horrible I could definitely do it better if I could fake it. I mean literally that's exactly what I would say.

>>9499129
well, think about what you're suggesting
again, see
>>9499119
why make such an accurate earth then forget to color correct or put in stars?

Forgot something else.

I heard him say that the thing would only broadcast for 12 more hours or something like that I don't know the exact number. But he said that it's too bad because there won't be enough battery for it to get a full picture of Earth as it fades out of the frame. And that is just out of the ridiculous, he shot a brand new expensive car into space and he couldn't add a series of 100 lithium ion batteries to keep it going for a week or two? Like seriously?

>>9499053
My question is, where is the ship?
This picture is an artist's humorous rendition, nothing more.

>>9499124
>Now consider how bright the earth in full, pitiless sunlight is.

I suppose you could be right, but that's just delving into something that is speculation. I am going on what I know. And I do not have a reference point for how bright the Earth truly is as we hardly have any real images that aren't Composites and anything to reference it against. I still find it utterly ridiculous that out of all of the satellites that have left near earth orbit, only one or two have actually looked back to take pictures of the earth, like seriously one or two I would do that every single God damn time

>>9499136
eh, it's a test payload, they just wanted some cool earth shots and the transit away from earth isn't that interesting. plus you'd need more and more powerful radio transmitters on the car plus more and more sensitive receivers on earth to detect it as it moves away

>>9499144
You may be right, but I'm just going off what he said. And he said that it had to do with the batteries dying and that's it just the batteries.

>>9499143
>And I do not have a reference point for how bright the Earth truly is

Have you ever gone outside during daytime?

>>9499148
Of course. But I have never seen the Earth from hundreds or thousands of miles away outside of the atmosphere.

>>9499139

Underneath. It's sitting on top of the third stage, which you would know if you looked at the pictures of the module being assembled.

>>9499150
Op here, that was somebody else. I am not realizing that it may be hard to distinguish myself from other posters now and I have enjoyed our conversation this far. I will continue to respond but I will try to identify myself so as not to confuse any further responses. I appreciate your patience with this I assume it must be annoying if you truly believe in the globe model and what we have been told. I just don't.

>>9499157
wtf

>>9499053

dont forget about the mars pictures. They literally increased the red amount by 100 fold.

It just looked like a typical desert on earth then they had to jack up the redness for what they claimed was PR value.

. The truth is it was bullshit from the beginning

>>9499169

They literally still don't know what the color is. Scientists are having debates about it to this day. Utter nonsense to be honest, how in the hell does this kind of stuff happen. This kind of crap usually happens when information is based on lies.

Why is no one taking into a account the light from not only the sun but the light reflected back off the earth

>>9499083
>And don't link me that geosynchronous orbit or satellite that supposedly gives real-time pictures. It's literally 240p pixelated garbage that still looks photoshopped. https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
A new picture every 10 minutes in high detail from geosync.
This satellite is completely ignored by flat earthers for obvious reasons.

>>9499091
You're trying to take pictures of the stars though.
Try to take a picture of that light so that you can see the bulb inside it and then see if you can see the stars.

>>9499186
it's basically impossible to reason with flat earthers and various denialists because they are always moving goalposts of what evidence they'll accept. It's essentially not worth the breath to debate with them since it'd take to long to get anywhere.
their world view is
>everything nasa says is a lie
>everything the government says is a lie
>everything any expert that disagrees with me says is a lie
once you're in that mindset it's basically impossible to get back out because no evidence can possibly convince you of anything

>>9499136
It's probably actually the batteries on the second stage.

>>9499053
>>9499064
A little more explanation (than you might want, but, this is the copypasta I wrote, so)...

Have you ever taken a picture with a camera where you could set ASA, shutter speed, and f-stop? Take a reading during the day. Typically something like ASA 200, speed 1/250th, f 5.6. Now use those settings on a dark night and point the camera up at the sky and shoot. Unless you happened to be pointing at maybe Venus or Jupiter you will see nothing but black, and perhaps a hint of something terrestrial illuminated by local light. You would however see the Moon and even some detail on it. It is illuminated by the same Sun. From Earth orbit, you would use the same daylight settings to take a picture of the Earth below. You will not pick up any stars. The dynamic range of sensor chips is always improving, so it may be possible someday.

>>9499202

Big Camera is part of the network of misinformation.

>>9499212
the worst part is, i can't tell if you're serious or not

>>9499129
>If you are making horrible fakes constantly.
You would put the stars in the picture.

>>9499053
Stars are too dim to be seen in the camera while there is something far brighter in the frame. It auto adjusts its sensitivity to whatever is brightest and everything else gets darker as a result. For something as dim as stars, you need to take a long exposure without anything else brighter than them in the frame.

In order to get both stars and something else in the same frame you need to do exposure bracketing. That's taking long and short exposures then using software to join both of them to make an HDR image that shows both the bright and dark stuff at the same time.

With video, the camera doesn't do that and just goes off whatever is brightest. That's why when something even brighter comes on screen it is super bright then the camera adjusts and tons down the light sensitivity. You can see this happening in this webm as the bright Earth comes into view. It is almost pure white until the camera tones down the light. at the same time, the car and Starman all get darker.

If you could see both the moon and stars in a video and the moon looked normal instead of super bright and washed out it would mean it was fake, like what you see in Hollywood movies.

>>9499064
Turn your flash on then put your finger in frame somewhere. Suddenly no more stars.

>>9499357

t. Big Flash

So on a related note, how hard would it be to spot this with a telescope? Not talking about one that has its own building mind you, but one that anyone could own.

Is it close and big enough to spot or would searching the skies for it with a personal telescope be a lost cause?

>>9499387
Now it is pretty much a lost cause because it's already on escape trajectory from Earth. Probably pass the Moon in a couple days.

>>9499421
How about a few hours after launch. Would it have been possible then?

>>9499157
The Earth is on the opposite side, so the horizon obviously gets distorted the opposite way. They did fuck up the booster landing cams though, I'll give you that

>>9499436
Possible. People got photos of the second second stage burn with shitty cameras.
One problem, though, was that it was in a 7000km orbit, not a low earth 300odd km orbit, that would have made it much harder to catch.

Light pollution? Same reason why u can see shit for stars in Chicago but can see the Milky Way in the desert. Fuckin tard

>>9499470
No, just exposure settings, and possibly resolution + scaling.
If it is captured in a high resolution, like 4k, and then scaled down to 1080 or even 720, then stars that are captured might be all but lost.

>>9499212
WTH is "Big Camera?"

>>9499212
>Big Camera

>>9499387
I now desperately want to see images of it flying through space. Someone get the hubble on this!

Simple. Your eyes are far better than most cameras.

>>9499662
That's not true. At all. Any decent camera can pick up stars, its all about the exposure setting

>>9499664
your eyes have a far greater dynamic range than any sensor you can slap onto a dslr or cellphone. its all about dynamic range you can achieve on video. photos do not count, your eyes do not use long time exposure, or exposure bracketing, they can do this stuff on the fly since they have such a wide dynamic range. still limited, but much greater than a camera sensor

>>9499662

Do astronauts see the stars when they're in space or is all black to them as well? I'm curious about this for a while now.

>>9499816
only on the dark side of the earth. since the earth is so brightly illuminated by the sun that your irises are limiting the light like on daytime, so you wont get blinded. as soon you get to the night side your eyes adjust, and you can see the stars

>>9499851

Nice, must be quiet a view.

Musk didnot have time to repaint studio walls. Each time the launch delayed (and it delayed alot) he had to repaint them to resemble current sky.

Use your logic and healthy scepticism, bros

>>9499083
You can pull photos off weather satellites with a dipole antenna and some freeware

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjClTnZ4Xh4

>>9499157
>Different vid feeds?...
Yes, one's from the left booster, the other from the right.

>>9499053
Go outside on a night when there is no moon. Notice the stars.

Now wait a bit, and go outside on a night when there is a full moon. Notice how many fewer stars you see.

This happens because having a big, bright light source in the sky your eyes adjust to that so you are not blinded by glare, the bright light is tolerable but you can't see faint ones as well. So you see fewer stars.

Now imagine that the moon was four times as big and very. very much closer -- and you have the Earth, a huge bright object filling much of the sky. Do you suppose you'll see more stars, or fewer?

>>9499064
>I just know that if I take my cold first generation smartphone outside and take a picture of the sky they will come out just fine

Try it.

Take a picture some moonless night.

Now take a picture including a full moon.

Let us know someday down the road how that works out.

>>9499149
>But I have never seen the Earth from hundreds or thousands of miles away outside of the atmosphere.


No, but you can see the moon, a smaller object, further away. From the effect the moon has on how many stars you can see in a night sky, you can at least understand that a camera, set to record images of a car and a planet in sunlight, will not likely pick up stars.

>>9499180
And the car.

>>9499169
>It just looked like a typical desert on earth

>Implying Earth deserts are all the same color.
>Implying lighting conditions do not ever change the apparent color of something.
>Implying pictures will look the same when produced by different cameras, reproduced in different ways for different purpose.

Good Lord, man, ado you actually expect that an image reproduced for display like the one on the lower right will look the same as a photo somebody took of a projection screen in a lighted room?

no one would ever allow them to do such a stupid fucking thing

>>9499816
>>9499851

You might want to see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

>>9500251
Pretty sure they're joking.

>>9500332

Bitch please

Honestly I never go on /sci/ but my flat earth friend was trying to say it was fake so I copy and pasted stuff from this thread to prove him wrong.

>>9499053
I don't know if you'll believe me, but I watched the live stream for several hours, and during moments when the sun was not casting light, and most of the video footage was nearly pitch black (Happened every so often), you'd end up getting certain shots where you'd see plenty of starts in the background, and what even looked like shooting starts zip by in the distance real quickly... look up the footage, and see if you can find what I'm talking about.

>>9500251
>Space is space, on the moon or in low Earth orbit
Wrong

>>9499053
Maybe it can't see the stars...

BUT THERE'S NO CITY LIGHTS ON THE DARK SIDE OF EARTH

FAKE!

>>9500391

Oh okay I guess we can ignore everything they said then.

>>9499091
Pretty good, my cell phone camera can barely get an image of the moon thanks to all the fucking light pollution

>>9500421
No. The conditions are not equal.

How come you can't see stars at all on Earth during the day or at night?

>>9499053
Go take a picture of the night sky. Do you see stars?

>>9500574
>How come you can't see stars at all on Earth during the day or at night?

Is that a real question brainlet?

>>9499197
>>everything nasa says is a lie
>>everything the government says is a lie
>>everything any expert that disagrees with me says is a lie
>once you're in that mindset it's basically impossible to get back out because no evidence can possibly convince you of anything

uh, but everything they say IS a lie. Or are you too complacent in your Brave New World? Go pay your taxes and get to work on time got. And remember you are a useless Speck of dust in the middle of nowhere everything is bigger than you and you are insignificant. Catch the nightly News at 11 and learn what your opinions should be.

>>9500782
also once you spend too much time down in deny-all-evidence land you start making posts like this
eventually you'll be quoting the bible out of context

>>9499252
All of that tech garble is just hot air when the retard OP already posted a picture with his shit phone that shows plenty of stars in the frame. And it looks like he took that picture within the atmosphere, I'm assuming he wasn't floating in space. A smartphone taking a picture of stars in the middle of the city through miles of gas can see hundreds of stars, yet elon musks camera literally sitting in space with nothing in between it in the stars cannot even see one. And don't tell me that the earth is so bright it blots it out, because unless you have some actual data on the brightness of earth from that point in space then you are just going off of speculation.

>>9500795
What a groundbreaking points right there. I've literally never thought of that. Here's a hint, once you wake up to all of the lies you are constantly cognizant about trying not to think everything is a lie. Yet people like me who see through the BS always get this response that we think everything is a lie. When the opposite is the case, I am very very careful and do lots of research before I make my mind up on something. I don't think most things are lies, I think that I don't know for sure about most things. Unlike you who apparently has a concrete opinion on everything. That's ignorance right there.

>>9500817
tell ya what; create an experiment to unequivocally prove the earth is flat. You should be smart enough to do this
until then, please put on a trip

Flat earther BTFO pseudo-science lovers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SznaMGoMR9Q

Yeah... I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2McHJP2kjGs

nuff said

>>9499851

You don't even have to wait till you're on the night side of the earth. Just go to the night side of the ship, making sure that there are no illuminated parts of the ship in view, and peer through a window, completely shielding your eyes from the interior lights.

>>9500807
>earth is so bright it blots it out
>speculation

Doesn't it at least seem reasonable to you? I mean try to expose the moon and the stars in the same frame, it doesn't work.

>>9499125
>"You can tell it's real because it looks so fake, honestly."
I fucking love this guy 10/10 my sides are in orbit with the car

>>9499197
I do believe in the commonly accepted theory that touching a high amperage current will stop my heart, as I've read accounts of it happening and also have observed the various effects a current has on material.
Never accept anything you can't or haven't personally observed, basic science.

>>9500913
that's actually a really horrible way to do any kind of science, because common sense and personal experience are terribly subjective, inconsistent ways to measure things or predict phenomenon.

>>9500937
Measure, yes; predict, no.
Intuition based on experience is literally everything when it comes to where to look for the next clue.

>>9499053
It's literally the same reason you can't see stars during the day, the sunlight doesn't just disappear when you're in space

>>9500807
Here's a photo I took. If the moon is in frame, I simply can't get the stars to show up and still have the moon not look like a bright white sun.

Yes, the Earth and even the car are so bright they screw up the video camera and prevent it from being sensitive enough to see the stars in video.

The Moon reflects approximately 11% of the sunlight striking it.
The Earth reflects approximately 37% of the sunlight striking it.

I work as a software dev/optics engineer for a company that develops action cams/drone cameras/VR cameras and such. Sometimes my job feels so pointless I want to give up - decent photography and video is all done by DSLRs, and the rest is pretty much all handled by automatic algos, including Auto Exposure and HDR stuff. My job is mostly refining the last 5% of the image quality that wasn't handled by smart algorithms by setting up the base values for less smart algorithms. It's tedious, it's boring, it requires loads of dicking about with both hardware and software, and the results are next to negligible.
And then I stumble upon a discussion such as this one.
>'I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT ALL WORKS AND SO IT'S ALL LIES'.
Yeah... I still have a lot of work to do. Gotta go.
Can't believe you idiots are my biggest inspiration in months.

And a tl;dr on the correct answer: your eyes are amazingly sensitive and also amazingly good at what's called 'bracketing' for cameras. CCD and CMOS sensors are shit. If something bright is in the frame you won't see something faint (like, you know, STARS ON THE DARK SKY, 4000 OF THEM VISIBLE WITH THE NAKED EYE, THAT HAVE A COMBINED ILLUMINANCE LEVEL OF 0.002 LUX)

>>9499053
>>9499064
It has everything with the dramatic difference in dynamic range, Cameras perform very poorly with DR compared the the eye, this poorer sensitivity means the sensor can't physically pick up the stars to to the limitation of MP size and density, though thanks to new developments in sensor wafers, cameras have been improving dramatically in the last decade
the only way to can easily pick up stars is with long exposure shots though, since the sensor is exposed for long periods of time to light, it;s better able to pick up light from starts (those long exposure shots are taxing on the sensor, and take anywhere from minutes, to hours, where our eyes can do it instantaneously)

>>9501613
>THAT HAVE A COMBINED ILLUMINANCE LEVEL OF 0.002 LUX)

How can you tell what the luminance is if you can't detect them with a camera? I'm just asking questions. Freedom of speech. Sovereign Citizen.

>>9501674
Nobody is saying it's impossible to detect stars with cameras you mouthbreathing mongoloid cretin.

>>9501674
You can't detect them with a camera IF THERES ANOTHER BRITGHTER OBJECT IN THE FRAME. You can always adjust shutter time and sensitivity and you'll see fuckloads of stars on a clear moonless night even if there's some (not much) light pollution in your area.

>>9500353
Why are you friends with a potato?

>>9499091
You used a flash, didn't you?

>>9500807
He did not post a picture that shows a large bright light source and stars.

There are plenty of photos of stars taken from space. Google "Hubble telescope" to see a few tens of thousands of such images..

i saw some stars in some of the footage, but with the side camera and when earth was not in the frame

>>9501687
Well, you can do it even if there is a brighter object in the frame but that object is going to get seriously blown out and possibly swamp out the surrounding dimmer objects.
Point is if you want a bright object in your frame to look visible then you have to expose for it and not for the dim objects.
You can try and get both with a composite HDR image, but not really while moving.