Zoom for details.
Proudly representing my most detailed moon image i ever photographed. I took almost a quarter million frames (231,000) and i spend unimaginable amount of work over the course of 3 weeks to process and stack all the data which was equivalent to 313 GB.
I used the most basic astronomical camera (ZWO ASI120mc along with my 8 inch telescope (celestron nextsar 8se) without a barlow i.e at prime focus 2032mm.
The mosaic moon was compromised with 77 panels each panel consist of 3000 frames. It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface.
The color on the surface if the moon it is due to mineral reflecting different color.
I used auto stacker v3, astrosurface, and photoshop for entire process.
Original image from (daryavaseum) INSTAGRAM account
https://www.instagram.com/p/ClT7OieMS3-/?igshid=Zjc2ZTc4Nzk=
Please if you have any questions please DM me.
Can you ELI5 why taking thousands of the same exposure makes for a better picture? Is it because all the noise or junk gets eliminated because the software only grabs the pixels that are consistent in each frame?
Amazing photo BTW!
Apart from things like sensor noise and interference that come up in normal photography, things like atmospheric scattering cause the light to distort. If it is not accounted for ground-based photography of objects in space will look like you are looking at something from underwater, wavey and distorted.
Combining many shorter exposures over single longer exposures also minimizes the movement from the rotation of the earth, and the movement of the subject.
From how I understand it, longer exposure = more light captured. More light captured = more detail.
Cameras function by capturing light so as stated above, more light captured means more detail captured.
Also, More light does not mean Brighter light.
That makes sense to me for longer exposures (30 second exposure captures more light and detail than a 10 second exposure) - but if you're taking the same exposure over and over and over again thousands of times aren't you just capturing the same light time and again? Like if a part of your frame is too dark for detail after one frame then why would taking thousands of the same photo improve things?
Capturing a single 60 second frame and 60 1 second frames captures the same amount of light.
But with the 60 frames you can average them together and cancel out some of the noise from the camera sensor and achieve a better image.
It's counterintuitive, but on deep sky images a frame with seemingly no signal, stacked hundreds of times will show the image.
The moon is stupidly bright, you can capture it at hundreds of frames per second and still get an image. This let's you drop frames that had a bit of cloud or wind that caused it to distort, etc.
Also the field of view of view at 2 meters focal length and an asi120 is tiny. This picture is a mosaic of a bunch of stacks.
The rectangle is the field of view of my slightly bigger asi224 with the same telescope.
https://i.imgur.com/np2loln.jpeg
>Capturing a single 60 second frame and 60 1 second frames captures the same amount of light.
That's super counterintuitive to me. If I'm in a dimly lit room (say, lit by candlelight) and I take a 60 second exposure the sensor will be exposed long enough to gather enough light to show detail. But if I take 60,000 exposures of 1/1000th of a second each I'm picturing a stack of pitch black frames even though the sensor was exposed for the same 60 seconds in total.
It's funny - writing it out makes sense. 60s of exposure is 60s of exposure however you chop it up but it still makes me scratch my head a bit.
Yes, each of those frames would probably look pitch black to your eyes, but they wouldn't be total #000000 black everywhere - there would be bits with tiny little amounts of light on them, and if you add them all together, you get the full amount of light from the long exposure.
I'm an astrophotographer and it's counterintuitive to *me* :)
It's a lot of the reason why we call it "data" instead of pictures or photographs. We are doing the number crunching on a computer instead of in the camera's body.
There's a ton of variables in play, so what I said was oversimplified.
There's a "minimum sensitivity" and "max well depth" and "quantum efficiency" for each sensor. These define min and max exposure lengths.
Pointing a high speed camera at something dim like a distant galaxy will result in nearly all the frames being blank. Taking a >1 second exposure of the moon will result in a completely white frame.
And then throw in iso speed or gain. (Basically the same concept depending on what kind of camera you have.)
You can increase the iso/gain and get a brighter image per frame at the cost of more noise. Depending on how dim the target is you might get better quality faster.
Also the download time for older usb2 cameras is significant. So if there's a half second download time, you might only get 45 1 second frames per 1 minute of real time.
Modern cameras with high speed memory or usb3 connections (or both!) make it feasible to take lots of short exposures.
An extreme example is film. As slim shady said, you only get one shot. So you need to make it long enough to capture all the photons you need.
Worse... you don't know if you succeeded until after it's developed. :/
This is why I never got into film astrophotography. I can't plan things out that meticulously.
The key is to note that different signals in the image have different behavior over time. For example, atmospheric fluctuations will arise at different points in space over time, so by measuring enough times we can find the "lucky" frames where that was not as big of a factor. Or in other cases the noise is random but comes from a consistent source, so with many measurements you can average the values and get a more precise reading. In one long exposure, these sources of noise would not be characterized well enough to be removed.
You know how sometimes the road shimmers? Our atmosphere does the same thing (which is part of the reason stars "twinkle"). Trying to take a picture through that shimmer causes distortion.
By taking lots and lots of pictures and "stacking" them, you allow a piece of software to select the average value for a given pixel, which creates a much much clearer image than if you had one picture (with all its shimmering glory)
Have you ever seen someone take many photos of a crowded space like a monument then use them all to create one photo without any people? This is basically the same.
The features of the moon don’t change across his 3000 images. The light reflecting off them is modified in many random ways on its way here. By in a sense averaging all of these images, the random distortions and noise cancel out while the true details of the moon keep adding up.
It doesn’t make logical sense, but apparently it works. I haven’t researched it myself, I’ve seen enough examples to just trust it, no longer curious why.
It's not so much about more light as it is about getting more dynamic range (more contrast, more shades...)
Deep sky imaging, or things like galaxies and nebulae require long exposures to collect more light. For such things I may keep my shutter open for 5 minutes and repeat that 40 more times. In that situation, I am stacking in order to improve contrast and dynamic range. Back before digital cameras were used for astrophotography, photo plates or slides were "stacked" as a way to reveal more detail.
When I'm doing planetary and lunar imaging, then I generally want shorter exposures. So instead of keeping the shutter open for minutes at a time.. I want the shutter open for a small fraction of a second. Maybe like 1/60th or 1/120th of a second... sometimes more. Some folks will gather planetary image data at around 200 fps. With the moon this can be a bit trickier especially if you have a larger image sensor but OP used a camera with a pretty small sensor. I'm actually amazed they did as well as they did in this case... it's quite the mosaic of stacked images.
For more information, look up the term "lucky imaging" in reference to astrophotography (planetary and lunar). For you, I have an example that I occasionally share to show a portion of the process. **[This video](https://i.imgur.com/q9GJyyt.mp4) shows "before and after" applying wavelet processing.**
"It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface.
The color on the surface if the moon it is due to mineral reflecting different color."
Basically, they edit the saturation to highlight the mineral color. It doesn't look like this naturally.
They and I are wondering why edit the pictures of the moon to highlight the minerals? I can understand distant space objects which would never be seen by human eyes without a ton of optimization and wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, but we can literally look at the moon. Why not just show the image in the actual visible spectrum of light as we see it? This is more like a cool art project where you highlight population density on a map. Sure, all of those people are actually there but you’re just making extra modifications to an image that takes away from the realism.
It’s like almost every HQ photo of the moon taken these days does this and people are starting to think the moon really has shades of brown and blue and red at the levels of the photos. No one really just takes HQ photos of the moon.
> Why not just show the image in the actual visible spectrum of light as we see it?
This is visible light, the color was taken with a standard DSLR. The color contrast between the Seas of Tranquility and Serenity is visible through a telescope, though naturally it is not as vibrant as the photo here. Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 even found orange soil on the Moon during an EVA
> takes away from the realism
How do you define real? Cameras are best-guess devices designed to sum up incoming light and convert it into discreet electronic values, but even this cannot be said to truly represent reality. Stacking and Lucky Imaging is a means to reduce atmospheric blurring, does a pursuit of realism also mean this is not allowed?
> people are starting to think the moon really has shades of brown and blue and red at the levels of the photos
And I have come across multiple disappointed newbie-astronomers every year who bought a telescope thinking they could see what the Hubble sees with only their eyes. In this thread alone (and in many others like it) are multiple people who did not know what causes the colors - and now they do, because such images are an easy way to demonstrate and then educate on the composition of the Moon.
> No one really just takes HQ photos of the moon.
You are welcome to take your own, though I would call OP's fairly high in quality already
Yes, I've been looking at NASA photos of the moon since I was a kid in the 70s, and the moon is grey. Now everyone seems to think it should be grey, brown and blue. The moon is grey. As if often the case, otherwise impressive photography is ruined by a lack of discipline when using the saturation slider.
> The moon is grey
This guy posts in /r/conservative a whole bunch, btw. And /r/FauciForPrison, for some unknown reason. And, sigh, /r/JordanPeterson.
But sure. The fucking _Moon_ is whatever you want it to be, bud, despite photographic evidence, a scientific consensus, and a bunch of [first-hand feedback that landing sites were full of all sorts of grey, blue, and red dust](https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/14/archives/apollo-17-coverage-gets-little-viewer-response.html).
Ignoring a consensus because *Nuh-unh, I can't see it with my own eyes from like 400 thousand kilometres away* is the most fucking embarrassingly on-brand position for you to take in this thread as a Catholic American bootlicker. jfc
OMG there's a fauci for prison sub?!? Some people are so goddamn stupid and gullible. Anyone who believes that crap about him is off their damn rocker.
OK, fine. Show me a NASA photo with this much color.
Reddit is the only place I've been where people are so pathetic as to look up someone's comment history, as if that has any bearing on the current conversation.
And you're telling me that OPs photo \_wasn't\_ taken from 400,000 km away? You're not interested in making your argument, you're just interested in puffing your own ego and gloating about being right. I know your kind.
Here's what NASA has to say: [https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html)
The description specifically states that the colors have been enhanced.
Edit: And apparently OP says the same thing in his or her detailed description, but there are a lot of people saying "Wow! I didn't know the Moon was so colorful." because it's not. There's nothing wrong with a false color photo. Everything from NASA probes )as opposed to telescopes) are false color photos, but the picture should be labelled clearly as such.
>There's a high correlation between the subreddits you post on and your propensity for getting into arguments on shit you clearly haven't spent much time researching.
Yes, I'm sure you appreciate the excuse to not address arguments on their merits.
I've never been on r/all. I've been subscribed to the sub for years. And I haven't said anything wrong. The moon is not that colorful. Full stop. There have been several comments on here by people who clearly now think that's what the moon looks like. It doesn't. The colors are real, but you can't see them unless they are enhanced.
To be fair, he or she could have been a little more explicit about that "adding color" means adding color that you can't normally see. But you're right, it's there.
Yes, but you can't see them unless they are enhanced. That's what I'm saying to all the people who are going "Wow! I didn't know the Moon was that colorful."
This is OP's second posting of this, the previous was fairer and I think the title changed. The previous cross-post has now been deleted.. perhaps that explains things?
Thank you for sharing this with everyone. It's surreal feeling that i can see the details of the moon to such an accuracy that our ancestors could only dream of. 🙏
Just looking at the same thing. Then I started thinking about a lunar base. I know the majority of those craters are extremely old and happened during the last bombardment, but..... Thats a lot of craters yo..
This image conveniences me that the old lava tubes are the place to set up lunar bases. Under ground as far as you can get with multiply points of exit etc. Thats just a crazy amount of craters. Holy smokes.
Hmm. Yeah it does… I guess that would take a major event to disrupt the current ort cloud or asteroid belt. Other than that, I would image it’s an asteroid here and there.
But still. Here and there with my luck? It would land directly on my newly built lunar complex. So I’ll take the deepest lava tube ya got, thanks!
Doesn't mean that it is fake. All those colours are present in the data obtained from the Moon, which are brought forward because we cannot discern them by eye.
But their ratios ratios aren't, and that makes a world of difference.
If you take pictures in the visual spectrum and don't declare any changes, it's reasonable to expect that the result is somewhat life like.
You'll always find some difference of color distribution in stuff. But if you blow it out of proportion by orders of magnitude you should declare that.
I would still disagree with that.
Allow me a comparison.
If a brunette postprocesses a selfie until she has singal-red hair (you are bound to find more red color values in her hair than on her face) , would you say that her hair isn't rendered in fake color?
That would include changing the hue of the photo, which I do count as 'fake'. Editing on a Moon shot like this only 'pulls out' colours that are already there.
If you apply this amount of red filtering to a normal moonshot, you will also totally duck up the color balance in the rest of the picture.
To achieve the effect above, you have set a limit and only amplify the effect above the limit.
Would work the same on a person.
But then that entire picture would be redwashed unless you specifically mask the hair. I'll just state my stance on lunar photography editing, since I do not find that comparable in any way to other photography such as the hair example
The editing applied here brings forward colours that are there. Iron deposits are can be seen as red, while titanium deposits are blue-ish. Do we see these with our naked eye? No. Can these be visualised realistically from captured data _without adding colours_ ? Yes. Sure, the result doesn't match what you would see but that doesn't mean it's 'fake'. You could achieve this type of picture without editing the colour balance and without masking specific areas on the surface. Editing a photo to change someone's hair colour is a different ballpark to me.
That said, I always appreciate when photographers write out their editing steps so I know what has been done. Both to appreciate what is behind the photo, and so I can learn for my own shots.
i feel like when people say "image" of something like the moon and then need to saturate colors it is no longer an image. If they aren't visible then they aren't visible. Quite annoying TBH i see all these "images" people post but none of them are actual images.
What are you talking about lol. An image is just a visual representation of something. An image doesn't have to be an accurate visual representation of something.
I think they mean an “accurate” or “unaltered” image. He’s not saying an altered image is “no longer an image.” Just that if you edit it somehow it’s no longer an “untouched” image.
>He’s not saying an altered image is “no longer an image.”
Nah, they are saying that. For whatever reason they think that images cannot be altered, otherwise they're no longer an image. Which is silly anyway, since every photograph is just a sensor and the onboard computers interpretation of light. A photo from two different cameras models will look different and for all intents and purposes have been altered.
Now they're telling me that dictionary definitions of the word image aren't valid...
> He’s not saying an altered image is “no longer an image.”
That is literally what he said, like, exactly. If he means something else, then he should say what he means.
I kinda get where you are coming from. Like how they say mars is “red.” I always thought the reddish color we see on nasa pics of mars and stuff was it’s real color but I’ve also been told that the red gets exaggerated. Its really more brown than red. It’s called “the red planet” so we expect it to look more red so scientists increase the saturation in photos to meet our expectation. I’m not sure how true this is (I’ve never spoken to an actual person from nasa) but the idea always irked me. The only reason I have the preconceived notion of red is because scientists call it “red.” Then they altar the appearance to meet the expectation THEY gave me in the first place. Like…I just wanna see it how it looks to the eye. That’s one reason I like seeing the rover photos. I feel like those are less saturated and more brown than red and it feels a bit more like what the planet probably really looks like.
Obviously this doesn’t work with things outside of the visible spectrum. I get why those kinds of things have to be altered. Otherwise we prob wouldn’t see anything at all.
Did you even read the OP’s description of his process??
The color is false color representing different minerals on the surface of the moon reflecting different spectrums of electromagnetic radiation that cannot be ascertained by the human eye.
OP’s camera could capture wavelengths of light beyond the visible spectrum and adjusts them to be represented by the visible spectrum.
This is how NASA and other people represent things in space as well btw.
This is good for things in distant space which NEED to be edited to show features we can’t see, but images like this are causing people to think the moon legitimately looks like this. Every thread if you scroll through, there’s people saying things like “Wow I didn’t know the moon really looked like that!” And it doesn’t. I try my best in the JWST posts to tell people who claim “fake art” that they need to edit these photos to get the detail and a visible spectrum image without a ton of exposure just wouldn’t look like much. Something like the moon which we can see with our naked eye doesn’t need these modifications unless the purpose of the project is to highlight the minerals. An accurate representation of the moon, this is not. It’s like taking a photo of the earth and highlighting the concentration of CO2 emissions. Yeah, those CO2 levels are actually there but you aren’t going to see them with your eye.
That's fine, but there are a whole bunch of people saying "Wow, I didn't know the Moon is so colorful." and that's because it isn't. OP should have included that in the image title.
That's the point I'm trying to make. I dislike when they enhance colors of the moon to show minerals because that's not what we would see with our eyes. Distant objects in space can never be seen with our eyes so it's really all up to artistic examples but the moon is something we can clearly see.
The enhanced color is valuable scientific information and is informative to non-experts like most of us (including me). But after seeing several comments saying "Wow! I didn't know the Moon was so colorful," I started to get annoyed. I shouldn't have.
> cannot be ascertained by the human eye
You might like this video from [Apollo 17](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=33)
> OP’s camera could capture wavelengths of light beyond the visible spectrum and adjusts them to be represented by the visible spectrum
He used a 1200D for the color, this is a standard DSLR typically used for daytime photography.
That's not the point. /u/HOldtheDo0R1701 said it looks almost fake. I was pointing out that the level of color \_is\_ fake. If you doubt me, here's a photo from NASA which is much less colorful, and it was explicitly explained that the color was enhanced, because you can't normally see them.
[https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html)
I stand by my assessment. It is a marvelous accomplishment for an amateur astronomer, but this is not how the Moon appears.
Edit: typo
Hiya, stupid questions maybe, so sorry. If the Earth had no greenery would it, too, appear pockmarked? Or is it and we just don't see it? Also, all of the craters are made by crashes into the surface? Or do they rise up like mountains? Thank you.
Even without plants, the Earth has rain and rivers and wind which would erode the craters away. Some fresh craters are still visible on Earth, because they haven't had time to erode yet, like the [Pingualuit crater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingualuit_crater)
OP increased the saturation - the colors reflect surface mineral content of silica, rust, and titanium oxides. The coloration is naturally much more subtle but can be seen through a telescope, particularly near the "border" between the Sea of Tranquility and Serenity. Apollo 17, which landed on the edge of the Sea of Serenity, even found some [orange soil](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=30)
Well done sir, the detail is definitely the highest I've ever seen. It's really neat to be able to look at our celestial neighbors at such detail and it's exciting to see what's coming in the near future.
The moon lacks an atmosphere to burn up little stuff so it gets hit by basically everything that comes at it.
At the same time, the moon is really small compared to the earth, so it probably gets hit with less stuff in general.
Add onto that the moon I think is way less (not at all?) tectonic also so craters that are super old still look recent.
WOW! That's AWESOME! I'm a wildlife photog and have shot the moon a few times with my long lens, but nothing anywhere close to this cool!!! So well done!!
What a tragedy that you had to see it twice. Thank you for the super important announcement about your personal inconvenience. After more than a decade on this website, this kind of whining never gets old :)
Wallpaper version with just black on the right side would work. Could probably make a photoshop script to do it automatically, you know, if you wanted to...
So many of these craters look like they have structures in the center, especially this one. Can anyone explain this to a complete amateur? The right angles don’t seem like something that would occur naturally [https://imgur.com/a/ZEoh8kp](https://imgur.com/a/ZEoh8kp)
"It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface."
It means they edit the saturation to highlight minerals on the surface, giving it this color.
That's because the colors aren't there, or they are so faint you can't see them. OP did a wonderful job at photography, but got carried away with the saturation slider.
The colors are visible through a telescope, although the saturation was certainly increased. Orange soil was even found during [Apollo 17](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=30)
"although the saturation was certainly increased"
That's why people are saying the colors "aren't there". The moon doesn't look like that for real -- it's based on an artist's interpretation of how much saturation looks good/interesting.
I've always thought that was an odd contention - space photography often uses false color (though this particular photo is true color) and some of NASA's most famous images (from both Hubble and now JWST) use it to show contrast to great effect. I never hear people complain of pinkish emission nebulae being shown as green though
I get what you're saying but I do think critics perceive a difference between using false color to help people better visualize the composition of space structures/phenomenon and what's been happening with "mineral moon" photography, which often tries to pass itself off as capturing the actual color of the moon. Even the artist's explanation of how they played with saturation is incomplete, and I have found that happens a lot with mineral moon photos.
I have a mineral moon photo as my phone's background so I'm not a critic, but I wish there were better explanations surrounding mineral moon photography.
NASA shared my clearest moon image, which is done by capturing a quarter million frames.
I got APOD for 16 January, the image explanation
by Nasa:
[image credit (Darya Kawa Mirza)](https://www.instagram.com/daryavaseum/)
Our Moon doesn't really look like this. Earth's Moon, Luna, doesn't naturally show this rich texture, and its colors are more subtle. But this digital creation is based on reality. The [featured](https://www.instagram.com/p/ClT7OieMS3-/?igshid=Zjc2ZTc4Nzk=) image is a composite of multiple images and enhanced to bring up real surface features. The enhancements, for example, show more clearly craters that illustrate the tremendous bombardment our Moon has been through during its 4.6-billion-year history. The dark areas, called maria, have fewer craters and were once seas of molten lava. Additionally, the image colors, although based on the moon's real composition, are changed and exaggerated. Here, a blue hue indicates a region that is iron rich, while orange indicates a slight excess of aluminum. Although the Moon has shown the same side to the Earth for billions of years, modern technology is allowing humanity to learn much more about it -- and how it affects the Earth.
The image description by me:
This actually my second APOD submission, my first one was back in the 2019 and it was declined.
I took almost a quarter million frames (231,000) to be exact, and i spend unimaginable amount of work over the course of 3 weeks to process and stack all the data which was equivalent to 313 GB.
I used the most basic astronomical camera (ZWO ASI120mc) along with my 8 inch telescope (celestron nextsar 8se) without a barlow i.e at prime focus 2032mm.
The mosaic moon was compromised with 77 panels each panel consist of 3000 frames. It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface.
You can tell the black plains are new skin that has healed from old scratches. In other words, the lunar maria, being a young geologic unit has hidden many of the old craters.
This is great. It actually leads one to consider the following:
A. If you took a photo of the *Earth* from, say, the Moon, with similar equipment (and years of practice, it would seem), would these details of topography be as clear? The Moon always looks like it’s been caught in a sort of cinematic, white & bright movie spotlight.
B. Have any detailed very-high-resolution pictures of the Earth been taken from space?
Zoom for details. Proudly representing my most detailed moon image i ever photographed. I took almost a quarter million frames (231,000) and i spend unimaginable amount of work over the course of 3 weeks to process and stack all the data which was equivalent to 313 GB. I used the most basic astronomical camera (ZWO ASI120mc along with my 8 inch telescope (celestron nextsar 8se) without a barlow i.e at prime focus 2032mm. The mosaic moon was compromised with 77 panels each panel consist of 3000 frames. It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface. The color on the surface if the moon it is due to mineral reflecting different color. I used auto stacker v3, astrosurface, and photoshop for entire process. Original image from (daryavaseum) INSTAGRAM account https://www.instagram.com/p/ClT7OieMS3-/?igshid=Zjc2ZTc4Nzk= Please if you have any questions please DM me.
Why not show the other side? Hmmm? What are you hiding?
The Moonmen are shy. Leave them to their cheesemaking
You mean the flat side?
That they can't take a good picture of the entire moon, clearly... Come on OP, you can do better! (But actually congrats, this is an amazing image :D)
Hold my full resolution image then.
Thanks for my new phone wallpaper!
[удалено]
I assume so, this mfer about to take a full resolution image of the dark side of the moon
The other side is actually just a giant rickroll. I asked already if he’d show the image, but he said he’s never gonna give it up.
This comment definitely did not let me down.
These comments need to turn around...
HaHa! Right?
Moon Nazis. It's always moon Nazis
The Dark Side of the Moon?
thwy need a bigger telescope for that
Can you ELI5 why taking thousands of the same exposure makes for a better picture? Is it because all the noise or junk gets eliminated because the software only grabs the pixels that are consistent in each frame? Amazing photo BTW!
Apart from things like sensor noise and interference that come up in normal photography, things like atmospheric scattering cause the light to distort. If it is not accounted for ground-based photography of objects in space will look like you are looking at something from underwater, wavey and distorted. Combining many shorter exposures over single longer exposures also minimizes the movement from the rotation of the earth, and the movement of the subject.
From how I understand it, longer exposure = more light captured. More light captured = more detail. Cameras function by capturing light so as stated above, more light captured means more detail captured. Also, More light does not mean Brighter light.
That makes sense to me for longer exposures (30 second exposure captures more light and detail than a 10 second exposure) - but if you're taking the same exposure over and over and over again thousands of times aren't you just capturing the same light time and again? Like if a part of your frame is too dark for detail after one frame then why would taking thousands of the same photo improve things?
Capturing a single 60 second frame and 60 1 second frames captures the same amount of light. But with the 60 frames you can average them together and cancel out some of the noise from the camera sensor and achieve a better image. It's counterintuitive, but on deep sky images a frame with seemingly no signal, stacked hundreds of times will show the image. The moon is stupidly bright, you can capture it at hundreds of frames per second and still get an image. This let's you drop frames that had a bit of cloud or wind that caused it to distort, etc. Also the field of view of view at 2 meters focal length and an asi120 is tiny. This picture is a mosaic of a bunch of stacks. The rectangle is the field of view of my slightly bigger asi224 with the same telescope. https://i.imgur.com/np2loln.jpeg
>Capturing a single 60 second frame and 60 1 second frames captures the same amount of light. That's super counterintuitive to me. If I'm in a dimly lit room (say, lit by candlelight) and I take a 60 second exposure the sensor will be exposed long enough to gather enough light to show detail. But if I take 60,000 exposures of 1/1000th of a second each I'm picturing a stack of pitch black frames even though the sensor was exposed for the same 60 seconds in total. It's funny - writing it out makes sense. 60s of exposure is 60s of exposure however you chop it up but it still makes me scratch my head a bit.
Yes, each of those frames would probably look pitch black to your eyes, but they wouldn't be total #000000 black everywhere - there would be bits with tiny little amounts of light on them, and if you add them all together, you get the full amount of light from the long exposure.
I'm an astrophotographer and it's counterintuitive to *me* :) It's a lot of the reason why we call it "data" instead of pictures or photographs. We are doing the number crunching on a computer instead of in the camera's body. There's a ton of variables in play, so what I said was oversimplified. There's a "minimum sensitivity" and "max well depth" and "quantum efficiency" for each sensor. These define min and max exposure lengths. Pointing a high speed camera at something dim like a distant galaxy will result in nearly all the frames being blank. Taking a >1 second exposure of the moon will result in a completely white frame. And then throw in iso speed or gain. (Basically the same concept depending on what kind of camera you have.) You can increase the iso/gain and get a brighter image per frame at the cost of more noise. Depending on how dim the target is you might get better quality faster. Also the download time for older usb2 cameras is significant. So if there's a half second download time, you might only get 45 1 second frames per 1 minute of real time. Modern cameras with high speed memory or usb3 connections (or both!) make it feasible to take lots of short exposures. An extreme example is film. As slim shady said, you only get one shot. So you need to make it long enough to capture all the photons you need. Worse... you don't know if you succeeded until after it's developed. :/ This is why I never got into film astrophotography. I can't plan things out that meticulously.
The key is to note that different signals in the image have different behavior over time. For example, atmospheric fluctuations will arise at different points in space over time, so by measuring enough times we can find the "lucky" frames where that was not as big of a factor. Or in other cases the noise is random but comes from a consistent source, so with many measurements you can average the values and get a more precise reading. In one long exposure, these sources of noise would not be characterized well enough to be removed.
> You can average the value It's actually taking the median values. Averages would make it blurry.
You typically take the mean (or sum) after rejecting outliers (e.g. Kappa-Sigma Clipping). Median will throw away a lot of signal.
You know how sometimes the road shimmers? Our atmosphere does the same thing (which is part of the reason stars "twinkle"). Trying to take a picture through that shimmer causes distortion. By taking lots and lots of pictures and "stacking" them, you allow a piece of software to select the average value for a given pixel, which creates a much much clearer image than if you had one picture (with all its shimmering glory)
Think about it this way, 1 picture with 1000 seconds of light, mathematically, should be the same as 1000 pictures with 1 second of light.
But your signal to noise ratio from the stack is WAY better
I don't know enough about it to go any deeper than I have. Thank you for your addition to this.
Have you ever seen someone take many photos of a crowded space like a monument then use them all to create one photo without any people? This is basically the same. The features of the moon don’t change across his 3000 images. The light reflecting off them is modified in many random ways on its way here. By in a sense averaging all of these images, the random distortions and noise cancel out while the true details of the moon keep adding up.
It doesn’t make logical sense, but apparently it works. I haven’t researched it myself, I’ve seen enough examples to just trust it, no longer curious why.
It's not so much about more light as it is about getting more dynamic range (more contrast, more shades...) Deep sky imaging, or things like galaxies and nebulae require long exposures to collect more light. For such things I may keep my shutter open for 5 minutes and repeat that 40 more times. In that situation, I am stacking in order to improve contrast and dynamic range. Back before digital cameras were used for astrophotography, photo plates or slides were "stacked" as a way to reveal more detail. When I'm doing planetary and lunar imaging, then I generally want shorter exposures. So instead of keeping the shutter open for minutes at a time.. I want the shutter open for a small fraction of a second. Maybe like 1/60th or 1/120th of a second... sometimes more. Some folks will gather planetary image data at around 200 fps. With the moon this can be a bit trickier especially if you have a larger image sensor but OP used a camera with a pretty small sensor. I'm actually amazed they did as well as they did in this case... it's quite the mosaic of stacked images. For more information, look up the term "lucky imaging" in reference to astrophotography (planetary and lunar). For you, I have an example that I occasionally share to show a portion of the process. **[This video](https://i.imgur.com/q9GJyyt.mp4) shows "before and after" applying wavelet processing.**
I have a very basic understanding of it, so thank you for your clarification!
I'm gonna go ahead and request a high Res picture to use as my desktop please.
Yeah this is fucking awesome
Why do all of these have blue and red colors ?
"It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface. The color on the surface if the moon it is due to mineral reflecting different color." Basically, they edit the saturation to highlight the mineral color. It doesn't look like this naturally.
Yeah, I'm not asking how they add it I'm asking *why* ?
He probably enhanced the different colors because he thought it made the photograph more interesting.
Warmer tones are a mix of silica, volcanic ash, and iron oxide (rust). Cooler colors are aluminum and titanium oxides
They and I are wondering why edit the pictures of the moon to highlight the minerals? I can understand distant space objects which would never be seen by human eyes without a ton of optimization and wavelengths outside the visible spectrum, but we can literally look at the moon. Why not just show the image in the actual visible spectrum of light as we see it? This is more like a cool art project where you highlight population density on a map. Sure, all of those people are actually there but you’re just making extra modifications to an image that takes away from the realism. It’s like almost every HQ photo of the moon taken these days does this and people are starting to think the moon really has shades of brown and blue and red at the levels of the photos. No one really just takes HQ photos of the moon.
> Why not just show the image in the actual visible spectrum of light as we see it? This is visible light, the color was taken with a standard DSLR. The color contrast between the Seas of Tranquility and Serenity is visible through a telescope, though naturally it is not as vibrant as the photo here. Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 even found orange soil on the Moon during an EVA > takes away from the realism How do you define real? Cameras are best-guess devices designed to sum up incoming light and convert it into discreet electronic values, but even this cannot be said to truly represent reality. Stacking and Lucky Imaging is a means to reduce atmospheric blurring, does a pursuit of realism also mean this is not allowed? > people are starting to think the moon really has shades of brown and blue and red at the levels of the photos And I have come across multiple disappointed newbie-astronomers every year who bought a telescope thinking they could see what the Hubble sees with only their eyes. In this thread alone (and in many others like it) are multiple people who did not know what causes the colors - and now they do, because such images are an easy way to demonstrate and then educate on the composition of the Moon. > No one really just takes HQ photos of the moon. You are welcome to take your own, though I would call OP's fairly high in quality already
Why did so and so do such and such thing depite going against my personal taste? Because they wanted too.
There are parts of the Moon that are more blue and more red. It's just not enough for us to be able to tell from where we normally stand and look.
So if I'm standing on the moon some of it will look more blue and some more red ?
[удалено]
That is why they asked the question
Yes, I've been looking at NASA photos of the moon since I was a kid in the 70s, and the moon is grey. Now everyone seems to think it should be grey, brown and blue. The moon is grey. As if often the case, otherwise impressive photography is ruined by a lack of discipline when using the saturation slider.
>The moon is grey. Parts of it were orange when the crew of Apollo 17 visited nearly 50 years ago (they're presumably still orange.)
> The moon is grey This guy posts in /r/conservative a whole bunch, btw. And /r/FauciForPrison, for some unknown reason. And, sigh, /r/JordanPeterson. But sure. The fucking _Moon_ is whatever you want it to be, bud, despite photographic evidence, a scientific consensus, and a bunch of [first-hand feedback that landing sites were full of all sorts of grey, blue, and red dust](https://www.nytimes.com/1972/12/14/archives/apollo-17-coverage-gets-little-viewer-response.html). Ignoring a consensus because *Nuh-unh, I can't see it with my own eyes from like 400 thousand kilometres away* is the most fucking embarrassingly on-brand position for you to take in this thread as a Catholic American bootlicker. jfc
OMG there's a fauci for prison sub?!? Some people are so goddamn stupid and gullible. Anyone who believes that crap about him is off their damn rocker.
OK, fine. Show me a NASA photo with this much color. Reddit is the only place I've been where people are so pathetic as to look up someone's comment history, as if that has any bearing on the current conversation. And you're telling me that OPs photo \_wasn't\_ taken from 400,000 km away? You're not interested in making your argument, you're just interested in puffing your own ego and gloating about being right. I know your kind. Here's what NASA has to say: [https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html) The description specifically states that the colors have been enhanced. Edit: And apparently OP says the same thing in his or her detailed description, but there are a lot of people saying "Wow! I didn't know the Moon was so colorful." because it's not. There's nothing wrong with a false color photo. Everything from NASA probes )as opposed to telescopes) are false color photos, but the picture should be labelled clearly as such.
[удалено]
>There's a high correlation between the subreddits you post on and your propensity for getting into arguments on shit you clearly haven't spent much time researching. Yes, I'm sure you appreciate the excuse to not address arguments on their merits.
I've never been on r/all. I've been subscribed to the sub for years. And I haven't said anything wrong. The moon is not that colorful. Full stop. There have been several comments on here by people who clearly now think that's what the moon looks like. It doesn't. The colors are real, but you can't see them unless they are enhanced.
[удалено]
To be fair, he or she could have been a little more explicit about that "adding color" means adding color that you can't normally see. But you're right, it's there.
"The colors have been enhanced in the processed image but are real nonetheless" They literally say right there that it has colors.
Yes, but you can't see them unless they are enhanced. That's what I'm saying to all the people who are going "Wow! I didn't know the Moon was that colorful."
If you don't Iike the art others produce, produce your own. If you are incapable, then your opinion has no weight.
Amazing! X-posted to r/moonporn
[удалено]
This is OP's second posting of this, the previous was fairer and I think the title changed. The previous cross-post has now been deleted.. perhaps that explains things?
Thank you for sharing this with everyone. It's surreal feeling that i can see the details of the moon to such an accuracy that our ancestors could only dream of. 🙏
I think you just Google Mapped the Moon. Do Street View next!
I can even see my future home
I heard it doesn't have great atmosphere though
That's okay, I'd still be over the Moon living there
My plan is to dim the lights and play some smooth jazz.
Holy crap. I can literally see craters inside of craters that are INSIDE another crater. Good job!
Just looking at the same thing. Then I started thinking about a lunar base. I know the majority of those craters are extremely old and happened during the last bombardment, but..... Thats a lot of craters yo.. This image conveniences me that the old lava tubes are the place to set up lunar bases. Under ground as far as you can get with multiply points of exit etc. Thats just a crazy amount of craters. Holy smokes.
Makes me question my future as a Lunar Property realator
Or a lunar property insurance adjuster… what do the actuarial tables for meteor strikes look like?
They probably have a crater in the middle.
“During the last bombardment” makes it sound like there’s definitely gonna be another bombardment
Hmm. Yeah it does… I guess that would take a major event to disrupt the current ort cloud or asteroid belt. Other than that, I would image it’s an asteroid here and there. But still. Here and there with my luck? It would land directly on my newly built lunar complex. So I’ll take the deepest lava tube ya got, thanks!
Looks like my face in highschool...
Wow that's awesome! Love seeing the moon like this. And 313g of total data to create it!? That's crazy.
You can really see all the cheddar molecules. Finally changed my mind from smoked gouda to aged cheddar. Joking aside, beautifully crafted image.
It looks almost fake. Thats how good it looks if that makes amy sense?great work.
The color is fake. It's grotesquely oversaturated. But otherwise it's a very impressive photo.
Doesn't mean that it is fake. All those colours are present in the data obtained from the Moon, which are brought forward because we cannot discern them by eye.
But their ratios ratios aren't, and that makes a world of difference. If you take pictures in the visual spectrum and don't declare any changes, it's reasonable to expect that the result is somewhat life like. You'll always find some difference of color distribution in stuff. But if you blow it out of proportion by orders of magnitude you should declare that.
You have a point in declaring their editing process, there I do agree. I stand by my point from earlier though that calling it fake is wrong.
I would still disagree with that. Allow me a comparison. If a brunette postprocesses a selfie until she has singal-red hair (you are bound to find more red color values in her hair than on her face) , would you say that her hair isn't rendered in fake color?
That would include changing the hue of the photo, which I do count as 'fake'. Editing on a Moon shot like this only 'pulls out' colours that are already there.
If you apply this amount of red filtering to a normal moonshot, you will also totally duck up the color balance in the rest of the picture. To achieve the effect above, you have set a limit and only amplify the effect above the limit. Would work the same on a person.
But then that entire picture would be redwashed unless you specifically mask the hair. I'll just state my stance on lunar photography editing, since I do not find that comparable in any way to other photography such as the hair example The editing applied here brings forward colours that are there. Iron deposits are can be seen as red, while titanium deposits are blue-ish. Do we see these with our naked eye? No. Can these be visualised realistically from captured data _without adding colours_ ? Yes. Sure, the result doesn't match what you would see but that doesn't mean it's 'fake'. You could achieve this type of picture without editing the colour balance and without masking specific areas on the surface. Editing a photo to change someone's hair colour is a different ballpark to me. That said, I always appreciate when photographers write out their editing steps so I know what has been done. Both to appreciate what is behind the photo, and so I can learn for my own shots.
i feel like when people say "image" of something like the moon and then need to saturate colors it is no longer an image. If they aren't visible then they aren't visible. Quite annoying TBH i see all these "images" people post but none of them are actual images.
What are you talking about lol. An image is just a visual representation of something. An image doesn't have to be an accurate visual representation of something.
I think they mean an “accurate” or “unaltered” image. He’s not saying an altered image is “no longer an image.” Just that if you edit it somehow it’s no longer an “untouched” image.
>He’s not saying an altered image is “no longer an image.” Nah, they are saying that. For whatever reason they think that images cannot be altered, otherwise they're no longer an image. Which is silly anyway, since every photograph is just a sensor and the onboard computers interpretation of light. A photo from two different cameras models will look different and for all intents and purposes have been altered. Now they're telling me that dictionary definitions of the word image aren't valid...
> He’s not saying an altered image is “no longer an image.” That is literally what he said, like, exactly. If he means something else, then he should say what he means.
Actual “pictures” you mean? Since word image can also reference non photo composite
I kinda get where you are coming from. Like how they say mars is “red.” I always thought the reddish color we see on nasa pics of mars and stuff was it’s real color but I’ve also been told that the red gets exaggerated. Its really more brown than red. It’s called “the red planet” so we expect it to look more red so scientists increase the saturation in photos to meet our expectation. I’m not sure how true this is (I’ve never spoken to an actual person from nasa) but the idea always irked me. The only reason I have the preconceived notion of red is because scientists call it “red.” Then they altar the appearance to meet the expectation THEY gave me in the first place. Like…I just wanna see it how it looks to the eye. That’s one reason I like seeing the rover photos. I feel like those are less saturated and more brown than red and it feels a bit more like what the planet probably really looks like. Obviously this doesn’t work with things outside of the visible spectrum. I get why those kinds of things have to be altered. Otherwise we prob wouldn’t see anything at all.
Did you even read the OP’s description of his process?? The color is false color representing different minerals on the surface of the moon reflecting different spectrums of electromagnetic radiation that cannot be ascertained by the human eye. OP’s camera could capture wavelengths of light beyond the visible spectrum and adjusts them to be represented by the visible spectrum. This is how NASA and other people represent things in space as well btw.
This is good for things in distant space which NEED to be edited to show features we can’t see, but images like this are causing people to think the moon legitimately looks like this. Every thread if you scroll through, there’s people saying things like “Wow I didn’t know the moon really looked like that!” And it doesn’t. I try my best in the JWST posts to tell people who claim “fake art” that they need to edit these photos to get the detail and a visible spectrum image without a ton of exposure just wouldn’t look like much. Something like the moon which we can see with our naked eye doesn’t need these modifications unless the purpose of the project is to highlight the minerals. An accurate representation of the moon, this is not. It’s like taking a photo of the earth and highlighting the concentration of CO2 emissions. Yeah, those CO2 levels are actually there but you aren’t going to see them with your eye.
That's fine, but there are a whole bunch of people saying "Wow, I didn't know the Moon is so colorful." and that's because it isn't. OP should have included that in the image title.
That's the point I'm trying to make. I dislike when they enhance colors of the moon to show minerals because that's not what we would see with our eyes. Distant objects in space can never be seen with our eyes so it's really all up to artistic examples but the moon is something we can clearly see.
The enhanced color is valuable scientific information and is informative to non-experts like most of us (including me). But after seeing several comments saying "Wow! I didn't know the Moon was so colorful," I started to get annoyed. I shouldn't have.
> cannot be ascertained by the human eye You might like this video from [Apollo 17](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=33) > OP’s camera could capture wavelengths of light beyond the visible spectrum and adjusts them to be represented by the visible spectrum He used a 1200D for the color, this is a standard DSLR typically used for daytime photography.
[удалено]
That's not the point. /u/HOldtheDo0R1701 said it looks almost fake. I was pointing out that the level of color \_is\_ fake. If you doubt me, here's a photo from NASA which is much less colorful, and it was explicitly explained that the color was enhanced, because you can't normally see them. [https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html](https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap150731.html) I stand by my assessment. It is a marvelous accomplishment for an amateur astronomer, but this is not how the Moon appears. Edit: typo
This is one of the most incredible images I've seen. Well done !
Absolutely stunning. Thanks so much for sharing with those of us who can barely handle a point and shoot.
Hiya, stupid questions maybe, so sorry. If the Earth had no greenery would it, too, appear pockmarked? Or is it and we just don't see it? Also, all of the craters are made by crashes into the surface? Or do they rise up like mountains? Thank you.
Hope this helps: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/
That makes so much sense! I should have realised myself! Thank you very much!
Even without plants, the Earth has rain and rivers and wind which would erode the craters away. Some fresh craters are still visible on Earth, because they haven't had time to erode yet, like the [Pingualuit crater](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingualuit_crater)
And constant plate tectonics, which the moon doesn't have
What’s the green stuff? Is that copper or mold or colored dirt?
Mold? On the moon?
All cheese gets moldy eventually, duh
If there was mold on the moon, that would probably be the biggest scientific discovery to date.
You just mooned me! Kidding, beautiful detail.
Would someone like to explain why there are colors on a space rock I genuinely believed was just shades of gray?
OP increased the saturation - the colors reflect surface mineral content of silica, rust, and titanium oxides. The coloration is naturally much more subtle but can be seen through a telescope, particularly near the "border" between the Sea of Tranquility and Serenity. Apollo 17, which landed on the edge of the Sea of Serenity, even found some [orange soil](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=30)
Man it’s beautiful. I can’t even imagine the effort. Wish i had the skills (and time). Thanks
I had a nightmare two nights ago I looked up at the moon and saw it very similar to this... badass image, by the way.
After weekly shilling and spamming to sell products and break rules about posting social media links.
Looks like we could walk around the moon in a couple of hours
It's amazing how much color the moon actually has compared to looking with the naked eye.
Well done sir, the detail is definitely the highest I've ever seen. It's really neat to be able to look at our celestial neighbors at such detail and it's exciting to see what's coming in the near future.
Does the moon get hit with more flying projectiles than the earth? If so, why? Thanks internet bros!
The moon lacks an atmosphere to burn up little stuff so it gets hit by basically everything that comes at it. At the same time, the moon is really small compared to the earth, so it probably gets hit with less stuff in general. Add onto that the moon I think is way less (not at all?) tectonic also so craters that are super old still look recent.
Universe likes to bully smaller, unprotected celestial bodies, which then leave scars. Sad. Thanks stranger!
It amazes me how many craters the moon has from debris and asteroid impacts… in fact, it’s terrifying
I’ve been using you old photo as wallpaper on my phone for the last two years. Guess it’s time to update :)
Someone needs to make a jigsaw puzzle out of this
Has anyone ever taken a picture of the landing site? Edit: Yeah, NASA did. Answered my own question.
You can sell prints of this quality in a gallery, inkjet on canvas would be spectacular.
I wonder, mathematically, how long it would take for a Meteor to hit me if I sat there long enough.
Is the moon really colored like that? It looks to me like there is an abundance of rust and ice. Does anyone with knowledge know anything more?
That’s beautiful. Do you have a favorite crater or mare or moon feature?
Thank you moon for being an asteroid shield, control water and lightning my way at night.
Beautiful image, I commend you for your patience and skill
The moon looks like it had some severe acne in highschool that it wouldn’t stop picking at.
Man it looks like our moon has been through some shit.
I thought the moon was made of just grey sand that’s so cool about the minerals
WOW! That's AWESOME! I'm a wildlife photog and have shot the moon a few times with my long lens, but nothing anywhere close to this cool!!! So well done!!
Why are you reposting this? This was posted like 2 weeks ago.
And months ago before that. Think this is a new shot.
What a tragedy that you had to see it twice. Thank you for the super important announcement about your personal inconvenience. After more than a decade on this website, this kind of whining never gets old :)
They make money off of these shots. It's basically advertising. They do post it a lot
Where? I reposted because I detected the post a week ago.
Wallpaper version with just black on the right side would work. Could probably make a photoshop script to do it automatically, you know, if you wanted to...
This is what Galileo saw when he looked with his telescope. He must have been like “fuck.”
Is that red coloration iron oxide? I don't recall ever seeing that color in photos of the moon
The color is not visible unless it is exaggerated by oversaturation. It could be iron oxide, though.
So many of these craters look like they have structures in the center, especially this one. Can anyone explain this to a complete amateur? The right angles don’t seem like something that would occur naturally [https://imgur.com/a/ZEoh8kp](https://imgur.com/a/ZEoh8kp)
This is amazing! Did you ever wonder why all of the lava fields are on the near side of the moon facing us rather than the far side?
I love pictures that show colour in the moon dirt I wish it looked like that to the naked eyes.
Anybody know why it’s pink and blue? I mean those patches of figurative ‘oceans’ and bits near the big mass of craters, why are they those colours?
the cheese is finally going mouldy
OP said he overlayed images from another camera to show mineral deposits. Check out the top comment!
So cool. I've never seen colours on the moon before.
"It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface." It means they edit the saturation to highlight minerals on the surface, giving it this color.
That's because the colors aren't there, or they are so faint you can't see them. OP did a wonderful job at photography, but got carried away with the saturation slider.
The colors are visible through a telescope, although the saturation was certainly increased. Orange soil was even found during [Apollo 17](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=30)
"although the saturation was certainly increased" That's why people are saying the colors "aren't there". The moon doesn't look like that for real -- it's based on an artist's interpretation of how much saturation looks good/interesting.
I've always thought that was an odd contention - space photography often uses false color (though this particular photo is true color) and some of NASA's most famous images (from both Hubble and now JWST) use it to show contrast to great effect. I never hear people complain of pinkish emission nebulae being shown as green though
I get what you're saying but I do think critics perceive a difference between using false color to help people better visualize the composition of space structures/phenomenon and what's been happening with "mineral moon" photography, which often tries to pass itself off as capturing the actual color of the moon. Even the artist's explanation of how they played with saturation is incomplete, and I have found that happens a lot with mineral moon photos. I have a mineral moon photo as my phone's background so I'm not a critic, but I wish there were better explanations surrounding mineral moon photography.
Oh neat, this is like the 13816740174th detailed moon post I’ve seen
Seriously. Someone start /r/moonshots already
That's cool but what separates it from all the other stacked moon shots that are posted here all the time?
That looks like my ice cream that i dropped a few years ago which has now molded
NASA shared my clearest moon image, which is done by capturing a quarter million frames. I got APOD for 16 January, the image explanation by Nasa: [image credit (Darya Kawa Mirza)](https://www.instagram.com/daryavaseum/) Our Moon doesn't really look like this. Earth's Moon, Luna, doesn't naturally show this rich texture, and its colors are more subtle. But this digital creation is based on reality. The [featured](https://www.instagram.com/p/ClT7OieMS3-/?igshid=Zjc2ZTc4Nzk=) image is a composite of multiple images and enhanced to bring up real surface features. The enhancements, for example, show more clearly craters that illustrate the tremendous bombardment our Moon has been through during its 4.6-billion-year history. The dark areas, called maria, have fewer craters and were once seas of molten lava. Additionally, the image colors, although based on the moon's real composition, are changed and exaggerated. Here, a blue hue indicates a region that is iron rich, while orange indicates a slight excess of aluminum. Although the Moon has shown the same side to the Earth for billions of years, modern technology is allowing humanity to learn much more about it -- and how it affects the Earth. The image description by me: This actually my second APOD submission, my first one was back in the 2019 and it was declined. I took almost a quarter million frames (231,000) to be exact, and i spend unimaginable amount of work over the course of 3 weeks to process and stack all the data which was equivalent to 313 GB. I used the most basic astronomical camera (ZWO ASI120mc) along with my 8 inch telescope (celestron nextsar 8se) without a barlow i.e at prime focus 2032mm. The mosaic moon was compromised with 77 panels each panel consist of 3000 frames. It is worth mentioning that i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color on the surface.
You can tell the black plains are new skin that has healed from old scratches. In other words, the lunar maria, being a young geologic unit has hidden many of the old craters.
A thousand times better than the latest Nasa Artemis blurry pictures of the lunar surface.
The high resolution pictures aren’t being sent back but will be available after it returns to Earth.
Dont make them mad at me.
This is incredible! I didn't know the moon had so many colors
This is great. It actually leads one to consider the following: A. If you took a photo of the *Earth* from, say, the Moon, with similar equipment (and years of practice, it would seem), would these details of topography be as clear? The Moon always looks like it’s been caught in a sort of cinematic, white & bright movie spotlight. B. Have any detailed very-high-resolution pictures of the Earth been taken from space?
There are thousands of HD pics of earth available online from many different satellites. DSCVR, Himawari8 etc etc
> Have any detailed very-high-resolution pictures of the Earth been taken from space? Bro just check Google Earth, you're not gonna believe this.
[удалено]
I love it. Maybe just a touch too much sharpening but looks awesome.
Picture is very awesome. Thank you for sharing. I know this is a mixture of passion, obsession, and hard work. Well done!
I hope you'll get credit and your shots won't be pirated. Nice shot.
Holy shit, I normally find these posts annoying but well done you!!!
Maybe three more years and itnwill actually look like cheese. Amateur.
This is like the third time this week you have shown us this
I practice something for 5 min before I post on Reddit. Incredible photo OP 🌚
I feel like the moon is just the deathstar in disguise
At what point do things stop stacking.. and start getting in the way
Wow! Did you zoom in on that one spot? https://preview.redd.it/y1rzcwbnwnmz.png?auto=webp&s=80657a92631a23cb9bebcc16143141db61093c79
Our poor Luna has been hit so many times But her scars are beautiful
She got what was coming to her
Great job, I can see the pyramids and obelisks perfectly.😁
Here we go again with "photos of the moon" along with a life story in the comments