Leaked email from NASA

Wow.

Actually just the option export for web in photoshop is enought.

.

I'm calling her

Are you suggesting that NASA should not hire anyone to convert raw image data to web-compatible formats, or have any graphics on their websites?

does never a straight answer really have more photo shop artists than scientists would not surprise me if they did

sorry mate but lmfao you really went there do you realise the grief this comment may cause you lmmfao

Yes, I really went there. I don't think many people understand that NASA's probes and rovers generally do not take simple JPG images that can be natively displayed online. It's the same sort of misunderstanding that lead to a lot of the confusion around the "ISON flying V" image. People thought NASA was concealing it since it looked "over-exposed and covered up" if you opened the file up in a quick viewer at default settings.

Hubble, like most of NASA's probes, records high bit depth raw images that cannot be natively displayed in a browser. You have to clip the histogram or stretch it or do HDR processing in image editing software in order to convert it to be properly displayed online. I don't think most people understand this, so it's a teachable moment.

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/27/2016 02:04 PM

Is that why they can take a picture of two black holes colliding a trillion light years away, but there is not a single 24x7 webcam of the earth from space? And not just NASA but spaceX, the military, the satellite companies, etc. Think about it. Sattelites themselves are delivering tens of thousands of video feeds. From cartoons, to TeVee Shows, to Movies on Demand. To scientific and spy imagery. That is terabytes/sec of bandwidth.

But we don't have a 720i camera of the place we all live?

[link to epic.gsfc.nasa.gov]

!!NOT!!




.

Any dimwitted monkey can do that stuff you mention .. their requirements for "ARTISTS" do make their work seem suspicious.

Alright then... prove it. Do it yourself:
[link to archive.stsci.edu]
Here's a page of Hubble raw data. Convert the raw data to a usable and well-adjusted JPG image of this object.

Man that looks fake. Its like stop motion claymation from the 1960s. No sun, no stars, no lighting effects. Which means they have a supercomputer filtering all that out, or ...

No, but they shouldn't use the eraser or airbrush tool.

pine it

...so why don t advrrtisr about this if it s logical ;-)

Never a straight answer

Was that supposed to be english?

Of course, I meet your goalpost, you call the evidence fake. Predictable.

Or you're just a fucking moron who thinks the sun and stars should be visible in a picture from a satellite at the L1 Lagrange point photographing earth? The sun is BEHIND the spacecraft, at all times, how would the sun be in the picture, eh dumbass? And since the picture is of the fully daylit earth, how would the camera properly expose the earth and still be able to capture dim stars in the same photo? Lighting effects? Adding lighting effects would be pointless and fake. Good lord, you did more to debunk yourself than I ever could.

.

You do realize that converting RAW images and getting all the calibrations (color, overall exposure, cutting the histogram) right is not something that a monkey could do?

I shoot photographs in RAW and whenever a client needs to have colors (e.g. company logo) and exposure just right, I can spend hours working on a single image set - even if there's no retouching involved and the lighting was set up correctly. Calibration for space images is even harder.

And what exactly would count as retouching? Non-linear histogram curves to optimize the contrast? Adjusting the color balance? Erasing detector artefacts, dust, damage in the optics? Filtering out detector noise both in color and intensity regimes? Sharpening the image by modifying the pixels at edges? Correcting for optical aberrations by morphing the entire photo? Making everything so that the images can be stitched together?

Last Edited by Dr. Moran on 05/06/2016 08:01 AM

NASA is just one big expensive cover story. It's a big waste. Decades of research have uncovered what they're hiding and why so it's only for the sheeple now who are dumb and blind anyway making it a bigger waste. We've had interplanetary antigravity craft for what 30 years now? Give it up already! I'm not surprised in the slightest they hire more Photoshop atrists than scientists which is what the email is about. Fakers. "Mainstream" science is a farce and it's been proven over and over. Actually it's a religious cult.

TRUTH

Preach...

^ THIS ^

Done my share of bitmap massage while working for the DoD in the pre-web days for the 8086 set.

Still applies today, only Gordon Moore's law has really taken it 1000x fold.

Thanks! It is the truth and I went easy on them. They're a bunch of mindless zombies; zero personal thought. My admiration goes to the real scientists who stood up to these charletons and had their careers ruined; they're the real scientists!

Like this guy. "You found something against our religion? FIRED!"

[link to losangeles.cbslocal.com]

Or the scientist who made the mistake of finding cocaine in mummies.

[link to www.druglibrary.org]

"I got a pile of letters that were almost threatening, insulting letters saying it was nonsense, that I was fantasising, that it was impossible, because it was proven that before Columbus these plants were not found anywhere in the world outside of the Americas."

YOU BETTER NOT CHALLENGE OUR RELIGION WITH YOUR SCIENCE OR YOU'RE FIRED!

the most boring leaked email ever.

NASA has zero credibility given all the times they've been busted photoshopping/faking/black boxing images and video. This tread is just a "haha" again poking them a little because they hire more fakers than scientists. Well I guess their scientists are just college educated fakers which are worse because they're brainwashed. At least the photoshoppers are cognizant of what they're doing.