The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)

Page: 1 ... 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352 ... 913
Online now: Google [Bot], Metacell
Post Reply
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
How much false color goes into space photos these days?


"false color" doesn't mean that they use whatever color to make it look pretty, it means that the color is not on the original picture. The basic color comes from red-green-blue filters, and I believe that by analyzing all the data of any given space object they can estimate what color something should be, so I believe this "false color" images are very close to the real color, because science.
chikie The same deviled egg
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
How much false color goes into space photos these days?


"false color" doesn't mean that they use whatever color to make it look pretty, it means that the color is not on the original picture. The basic color comes from red-green-blue filters, and I believe that by analyzing all the data of any given space object they can estimate what color something should be, so I believe this "false color" images are very close to the real color, because science.

False color has nothing to do with what color something should be and everything to do with different levels of reflectivity / emissivity of the surface at different EM wavelengths. Many picture making sensors at least straddle the visible and near-infrared bands, while lots also look at stuff like X-rays, ultraviolet, and thermal-infrared bands.

It has nothing to do with how the object "looks" and everything to do with the physical properties of the object's surface. Only when you're looking at a true color image do the colors correspond with real colors. Assigning different bands to different colors emphasizes different characteristics that help scientists with their analyses.

This is why lots of satellite photos of earth have vegetation in red. Chlorophyl is very reflective in the near-IR (that is, in the infrared spectrum but close to the visible). Assigning that band from the satellite as "red" makes vegetation very visible if you're trying to do some sort of vegetation analysis.
justine Elitist Beer Lover
User avatar
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Start the engine!

:evil:
macnuke Afar
User avatar
user posted:
Start the engine!

:evil:



hell yes.. it will be warmer for them with the engine running
juice Inadvertently correct
User avatar
People like you are why I do not allow my cat to go outside.
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
chikie posted:
ukimalefu posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
How much false color goes into space photos these days?


"false color" doesn't mean that they use whatever color to make it look pretty, it means that the color is not on the original picture. The basic color comes from red-green-blue filters, and I believe that by analyzing all the data of any given space object they can estimate what color something should be, so I believe this "false color" images are very close to the real color, because science.

False color has nothing to do with what color something should be and everything to do with different levels of reflectivity / emissivity of the surface at different EM wavelengths. Many picture making sensors at least straddle the visible and near-infrared bands, while lots also look at stuff like X-rays, ultraviolet, and thermal-infrared bands.

It has nothing to do with how the object "looks" and everything to do with the physical properties of the object's surface. Only when you're looking at a true color image do the colors correspond with real colors. Assigning different bands to different colors emphasizes different characteristics that help scientists with their analyses.

This is why lots of satellite photos of earth have vegetation in red. Chlorophyl is very reflective in the near-IR (that is, in the infrared spectrum but close to the visible). Assigning that band from the satellite as "red" makes vegetation very visible if you're trying to do some sort of vegetation analysis.


Whatever the technical reason, my understanding is that most of outer space looks pretty boring to the naked eye, as much as we want it to look like science fiction.

:(
Metacell Chocolate Brahma
User avatar
The Milky Way looks pretty cool to me when away from smog and city lights. Does our atmosphere intensify it?
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
"younger sister of Dakota"?

human waste, I still think of Dakota as that precocious little kid in "Taken".
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
wtf they're frigging kids man
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
"c'mon, rump roast, don't you quit on me! Clear!"

:: bzzzt ::
TOS
User avatar
Mustapha Mond posted:
chikie posted:
ukimalefu posted:
Mustapha Mond posted:
How much false color goes into space photos these days?


"false color" doesn't mean that they use whatever color to make it look pretty, it means that the color is not on the original picture. The basic color comes from red-green-blue filters, and I believe that by analyzing all the data of any given space object they can estimate what color something should be, so I believe this "false color" images are very close to the real color, because science.

False color has nothing to do with what color something should be and everything to do with different levels of reflectivity / emissivity of the surface at different EM wavelengths. Many picture making sensors at least straddle the visible and near-infrared bands, while lots also look at stuff like X-rays, ultraviolet, and thermal-infrared bands.

It has nothing to do with how the object "looks" and everything to do with the physical properties of the object's surface. Only when you're looking at a true color image do the colors correspond with real colors. Assigning different bands to different colors emphasizes different characteristics that help scientists with their analyses.

This is why lots of satellite photos of earth have vegetation in red. Chlorophyl is very reflective in the near-IR (that is, in the infrared spectrum but close to the visible). Assigning that band from the satellite as "red" makes vegetation very visible if you're trying to do some sort of vegetation analysis.


Whatever the technical reason, my understanding is that most of outer space looks pretty boring to the naked eye, as much as we want it to look like science fiction.

:(

The simple fact is even when limited to the visual range that astrophotography is doing two things that human eyes cannot:
1) in effect opening an eye's pupil to the size of whichever instrument is being used, so a fully dark-adapted iris being about 7 mm in diameter would be, in effect, enlarged to up to 10.4 meters for the currently largest telescope, and
2) storing the gathered light for as long as days at a time when the eye's retina refreshes its imaging in terms of milliseconds.

The fact that one can see color at all when one looks at Jupiter through a 40mm set of binoculars is due to the first difference above ([40mm/7mm]^2≈33 times the light-gathering of the human eye alone). If and when humans bodily get to Jupiter, the planet will be a dull grey with some hints of color.

I got to see the Orion Nebula through a 17-inch (432 mm) telescope. Even with just over 3800 times the light-gathering that that light-bucket gave me I got to see a bright green object.
Mustapha Mond Daring to be stupid
Send private message
We never should have come down from the trees. :(
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Xerox, huh? Did they make production or are those just mockups?

And, damn, things have gotten rough for R2 lately. He used to pilot space fighters. Now he's helping with the virgin drift.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
user posted:
Xerox, huh? Did they make production or are those just mockups?


Don't know, I just found the images. But something did exist, I've seen other pics, and Steve Jobs saw something... and here we are. ::uses the 'mouse' to move the on-screen pointer and 'click' the submit 'button'::
obvs Social Distancing Grandmaster
Send private message
As someone who has participated in a Xerox design project, I can confidently say that if Xerox had been a major seller of GUI-based computers, everyone would have loved them. Every time anyone pointed out any good design ideas, someone would say "Well the designers thought that was the best way to do it, and they know best," or "Well that's never going to happen." And things would have gone on in the way that they apparently always have. Or would have gotten shittier. Because Xerox loves to make things shittier.

And you know how your Mac can handle voice dictation? With a Xerox machine, your machine would dictate everything to you! Including that you have to dress like a McDonald's employee!

And you know how your Mac can speak to you? A Xerox-designed computer would speak to you too! -In a condescending and glib way, so that you always understood that even though you'd already repeatedly done the type of project you were working on and even though it hadn't, it would make sure that you understood that it knew better than you.

And after you'd finished working on your Xerox-designed system, you'd come back and find out that it had just thrown out all of the work you'd done. There wouldn't be any explanation, of course; it would never be spoken of or addressed. NOT ONE of your contributions was worth becoming part of the final project, despite the fact that the Xerox machine, despite its experience and supposed acumen, has the writing ability of an epileptic two-year-old on heroin.

I'd say "Order one today!" but in Xerox world, computer orders you!
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Oh, yeah, I tried to run a Xerox commercial printer two years ago. I couldn't figure out - even after reading the slight documentation available - how to get two-sided printing to line up.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
I never tried Siri or Dictation in OS X 10.10.whatever, or google whatever or the game character name Microsoft used trying to be cool... but I still don't believe voice recognition works.

I'll believe in it when it's like Star Trek or HAL 9000. OK, maybe not HAL 9000.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
the game character name Microsoft used trying to be cool

It's an insult seeing as they got the rights to the name by buying out a Mac gaming company.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
user posted:
ukimalefu posted:
the game character name Microsoft used trying to be cool

It's an insult seeing as they got the rights to the name by buying out a Mac gaming company.


Even if you ignore that, it's still an insult if you've played Halo and liked it. I only played the first one and part of the second one, and after seeing Windows phone demos, I can say it may sound like her but nope, that's not Cortana.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
And you don't get to see her fine glowing blue butt.
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
I never tried Siri or Dictation in OS X 10.10.whatever, or google whatever or the game character name Microsoft used trying to be cool... but I still don't believe voice recognition works.

I'll believe in it when it's like Star Trek or HAL 9000. OK, maybe not HAL 9000.


Siri/iOS dictation works surprisingly well. I use it all the time.
dv
User avatar
Alexander Supertramp posted:
ukimalefu posted:
I never tried Siri or Dictation in OS X 10.10.whatever, or google whatever or the game character name Microsoft used trying to be cool... but I still don't believe voice recognition works.

I'll believe in it when it's like Star Trek or HAL 9000. OK, maybe not HAL 9000.


Siri/iOS dictation works surprisingly well. I use it all the time.


This.

It works fine for text dictation, and controlling the built in apps (weather, calendar, reminders) works fine if you keep your sentences simple.
TOS
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:
Image


"honey, i was totally not looking at porn, i swear!"
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
TOS posted:
ukimalefu posted:
Image


"honey, i was totally not looking at porn, i swear!"


Image
TOS
User avatar
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
Back in high school someone kept sneaking that game onto the computer lab computers.

Which was sad because it was the mid 90s.
Geesie Couldn't hit it sideways
User avatar
"This is what one year's worth of Beijing pollution looks like":

Image


Well, 256 days (the above being a 16*16 grid). The blogger posts his daily images (along with the pollution index) here (or at least until the Chinese central government shuts him down).
Alexander Supertramp this was uncalled for.
User avatar
ukimalefu posted:


Image


I remember that. Also, dig the prominent print button.
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Even more dig the prominent PANIC button.
dv posted:
Alexander Supertramp posted:
ukimalefu posted:
I never tried Siri or Dictation in OS X 10.10.whatever, or google whatever or the game character name Microsoft used trying to be cool... but I still don't believe voice recognition works.

I'll believe in it when it's like Star Trek or HAL 9000. OK, maybe not HAL 9000.


Siri/iOS dictation works surprisingly well. I use it all the time.


This.

It works fine for text dictation, and controlling the built in apps (weather, calendar, reminders) works fine if you keep your sentences simple.


Private marketing group i'm in has a Skype chat going 24/7, several use siri for dictating posts.
The results are often about like those cell phone text autocorrects you see online.
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)

Page: 1 ... 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352 ... 913