P900 and stars

[Anonymous No.9542664]

Why do stars look like this through the lense of a p900

And why are all the NASA photos of stars and planets all enhanced with photoshop

Not looking for conspiracy theories saying that just curious

[Anonymous No.9542677]

>>9542664
Not how they look at all.

Clearly the only reason would be defunct digital processing if not straight crackpot.

[Anonymous No.9542682]

Probably because consumer grade optics weren't designed to take good pictures of stars from ground level.

[Anonymous No.9542683]

Could be an imaging problem that resulted in something cool but that is not a normal example

[Anonymous No.9542777]

>>9542683
It seems to be happening on every ones p900

Pic related is from a friends camera

And I've been looking on YouTube and most look like this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DbLu9fcQI4w

I understand what you sort of mean though the camera most capture all them light waves in a different way compared to specialised cameras

What do they really look like from high powered NASA type cameras or telescopes? Any good images of them what haven't been shopped a little for that hint of aesthetics they like to add on to most photos ?

Btw I haven't used one of the p900s

[Anonymous No.9542834]

>>9542664
>Why do stars look like this through the lense of a p900
Because the P900 is a shitty camera.

[Anonymous No.9542836]

Oh, I found this video which is probably better explains it. Basically the dumb fucks operating those cameras can't even focus properly (probably focusing somewhere near the closest focusing distance instead of near infinity) which causes the light to scatter a lot onto the sensor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dICIKYn5w4w

Knowing how to use your tools is important.

[Anonymous No.9542840]

>>9542664
Distortion from the lens and from atmospheric refraction. The lens on the camera isn't perfect, so it distorts the shape of the basically point light source that a distant star would appear to be from such a small lens. Atmospheric is far less uniform in density and temperature than the camera lens, and further distorts the image. Dust in the air easily discolors the light.

Pic related is best pic of distant star we have. Spoiler: it looks a lot like the sun. Now of course, not all stars look so much like our sun, but besides change in color or size, most likely look basically the same.

[Anonymous No.9544022]

>>9542664
The stars in those videos are out of focus and the rippling effect is caused by turbulence in the air.

I made a video to demonstrate this effect by placing a white LED 200 meters away and pointing one of my telescopes at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfCpC5sYJsc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq_tDTNOnck

If a point light source (such as a star) is out of focus it will also take same shape as the aperture.

[Anonymous No.9544049]

>>9542664
i didnt know bright green stars had such variation in colour.

[Anonymous No.9544062]

>>9542836

[Anonymous No.9544083]

>>9542664
use a telescope faggot not a goddamn camera.

[Anonymous No.9544105]

No consumer grade telescope, let alone a small camera lens can resolve an image of a distant star and it has nothing to do with the quality of the optics like some of you have stated but about the size of the telescope mirror or lens. It's about angular resolution.
Angular resolution is the ability of an optical system to separate point light sources. Lets say we have two stars on the night sky that are really close together. With a really small telescope those two stars will look like a single point of light no matter how much you magnify the image and if you magnify the image enough you will see that the point of light is surrounded by faint concentric rings. This is what's known as an airy disc which is just an interference pattern of light and it's the same principle as that experiment were you shine laser light through a small slit. The slit is the lens or mirror in this case. Diffraction of light. Anyway, lets switch to a bigger telescope. Suddenly you can differentiate the two stars from each other because you have increased the optical opening and thus increased the angular resolution.
Stars are such tiny objects and you need a REALLY big telescope in order to resolve an image, otherwise it will just turn into an interference pattern on your camera sensor or retina (if you are visually observing through the telescope) and if you put the airy disc out of focus, which is what the stars are in those p900 videos, the interference pattern will be more pronounced.

This is why you get a better view of Jupiter for example or some of the smaller craters of the Moon through a bigger telescope than a smaller one and it's also the principle behind why you can see the ISS with your naked eye even though it's far away. You're not actually resolving an image of the space station with your eyes because the human pupils are too small, you're just looking at an airy disc.

[Anonymous No.9544107]

>>9544083
see>>9544105

[Anonymous No.9544115]

>>9544107
get a bigger aperture faggot.

[Anonymous No.9544117]

>>9544115
If only I was rich. Big telescope mirrors cost a fortune.

[Anonymous No.9544134]

>>9544117
don't be a fucking poorfag

[Anonymous No.9544137]

>>9544134
Good advice. Thank you.

[Anonymous No.9544156]

>>9544062
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.9545191]

>>9542664
>>9542777

[Anonymous No.9545205]

>>9542664
>Not looking for conspiracy theories