Outer Space Photos

Just telling it like I see it.

 

Telescopes can’t take photos of stars!
Absolutely correct.

you need an imaging sensor.......
(Sorry couldn’t help that)

It’s all about luminosity.
The planet is brighter than the star.

sure, point a fast (f1.8) lens and fire away, high iso. That’ll get you something. But.....
Not really very good.

add a tracking mount. (Something like £350-600) then you get better.

but you still need Noise frames and a lot of images of what appears to be blackness, stacked in something like sky stacker.

It boils down to what the camera itself is able to resolve.
I tried to get into Astro photography but found the equipment cost vs use amount to be way too far apart.

 

my picture of Jupiter. With about £200-300 (at the time) in gear. The camera is now worthless. The telescope new cost £150.
Jupiter

 

Too sciencesy for my taste!

 

Sciency, Is that even a word?

 

iPhone photo of stars not even full night yet.

Apple 1
NASA 0

 

Google 1
NASA 0

 

Alright so looks like camera phone can take photos of stars. So that's a myth.

$500 camera phone takes better photos than $2.87b Hubble telescope.

What's the next excuse?

 

You can take a pic of stars with your phone with special apps and filters. The app delays the shutter time so the light of the stars will be taken in. Not standardly.

I guess if you disregard why and of what the Hubble takes pics of

 

can you photograph molecules with a cell phone?

 

You know the term cell phone didn't make sense to me at all at first. I even associated it with a phone booth more so than with a mobile phone.

 

the word cell really describes the network and the device together.
Cellular network - Wikipedia

I had a flash back to when I was growing up and got these books to better understand computers and technology.. They were pretty interesting..
https://www.amazon.com/Time-Life-Books-Understanding-Computers-Volumes/dp/B000UUX462

 

I was cleaning out a house for work a few years ago and picked up a few of those books. I got some of the ones from that series and a space one.

 

That's how we WIKI back then..

 

And this is exactly why you'd think that a multi billion dollar camera in space would work sufficiently enough to take pictures as good as a camera app on a mobile phone.

My actual "pfff" moment in all this isn't the fact that the stars can't be seen in a photo, I completely understand why they aren't, I do a little photography too so I get it and I know what you're saying, my problem is if we have the technology to launch cameras and telescopes into the universe, then we have the technology for those cameras to do better than what we are told they do.

It's like the whole landing a man on the moon thing. It just seem retarded that we could land a man on the moon but we can't make a camera that sees a planet and the stars at the same time. Like you just have to scratch your head at that stage, it doesn't make sense.

I have noticed sometimes when take photo of TV you miss things or there's a static line or something, so what if what we see in space is just a holographic universe or whatever they call it? And when the telescopes take photos they just register static frequency and the stars are not visible? Now that makes more sense that billion dollar cameras that have flailing apature problems.

 

Coming from the person who couldn't figure out how to get in their car in a simulated Race.

 

No, we worked out why and it's was a technical glitch on the part of over 6700 iracers trying to get into 30 24hr servers. I wasn't the only person stung by the problems.

So you can go and get fucked.

 

It was an alcohol lock, wasn't it? :-D

 

Annunaki upset with her temper

 

I just think it's cute that VG is our little astronaut. So fuckin adorable.

Also I quit playing the guitar.