wow wtf GIANT UFO Around The Sun,Sept 5, 2013 | |
Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 33360181 United States 09/08/2013 09:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Any input on this one? [link to img802.imageshack.us] Quoting: Aye-aye [link to img21.imageshack.us] [link to img849.imageshack.us] [link to img541.imageshack.us] [link to img850.imageshack.us] [link to img203.imageshack.us] [link to img12.imageshack.us] [link to img24.imageshack.us] Credit goes to HiramA [/youtube] [link to youtu.be] Thanks. Just for the record - I don't believe this explanation. I don't care; just for the record, I'm right. Last Edited by Astromut on 09/08/2013 09:15 AM |
Aye-aye User ID: 21993314 Bulgaria 09/08/2013 09:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
One-Eye User ID: 46506690 United States 09/08/2013 09:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ADO User ID: 44596398 Chile 09/08/2013 10:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't care; just for the record, I'm right. I saw the video, and this is not related to this thread. In this case you said this shadow is the result of a previous image of a planet (mercury) on the same position 15 days before. Wich is odd, but you show it, so it is possible, but also could be a coincidence. The question is, is there another example of this CCD shadow planetary calibration before? Another question, why the image you use to calibrate is worst quality than you are calibrating? ADO |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 46512507 United Kingdom 09/08/2013 10:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 33360181 United States 09/08/2013 11:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I don't care; just for the record, I'm right. I saw the video, and this is not related to this thread. In this case you said this shadow is the result of a previous image of a planet (mercury) on the same position 15 days before. Wich is odd, but you show it, so it is possible, but also could be a coincidence. The question is, is there another example of this CCD shadow planetary calibration before? Another question, why the image you use to calibrate is worst quality than you are calibrating? Yes to the first question, I've encountered this exact same thing before but to be honest SOHO annoys me and I don't feel particularly inspired to go find another instance. To the second question, what do you mean? The image I'm comparing to is already calibrated. It's analogous to the STEREO images discussed above; the raw fits files do not show the heliosphere at all prior to calibration, just a lot of glare from the sun. Here's what I mean, this is what an uncalibrated coronograph image looks like (this one from STEREO): No heliosphere, plenty of solar glare. They then use raw frames from a previous day to calibrate the current raw frame. The end result are the jpgs you see online. For the purpose of showing that it's just Mercury I'm comparing post-calibrated images to post-calibrated images, but you can still see it's a match. |
Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 33360181 United States 09/08/2013 11:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
ozymandias User ID: 46236273 United States 09/08/2013 11:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36182365 United States 09/08/2013 04:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1634496 United States 09/08/2013 04:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | For the stereo spacecraft the situation is more complex; it's more like a running average, so it takes longer to work itself out when something changes with the particles on the lens. :nut::nut::nut: :nut::nut::nut: :nut::nut::nut: I Laika your collection of SpacePups! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 31691726 United Kingdom 09/08/2013 05:15 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |