|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
In the following website;
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
On 2006-12-26, tontoko wrote:
In the following website; http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense -- all the features in an astronomical scene (except the spider spinning its web in your telescope tube) are vastly beyond the focus range. So using sharp vs. blurred features to reconstruct relative distance won't mean anything. It might look pretty, but I wouldn't say it was worth $50 for software to do that. In other contexts this could be a cool idea, though. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera. My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the camera. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera when the part of it is more distant from other parts. The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks like. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049 Stuart Levy wrote: On 2006-12-26, tontoko wrote: In the following website; http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense -- all the features in an astronomical scene (except the spider spinning its web in your telescope tube) are vastly beyond the focus range. So using sharp vs. blurred features to reconstruct relative distance won't mean anything. It might look pretty, but I wouldn't say it was worth $50 for software to do that. In other contexts this could be a cool idea, though. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
On 29 Dec 2006 00:54:18 -0600, Stuart Levy wrote:
Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense... And if you look at the astronomical examples, that's what you see... nonsense. The most obvious problem is that galaxies appear to be floating in front of star fields, when in fact all the stars you see in such shots are actually closer than the galaxies. But looking closely at the galaxies themselves also reveals rather bizarre artifacts. There is no connection between these images and reality. Some folks might like the effect, but those same people might also enjoy viewing any image as a pseudostereogram. You get a sort of 3D effect even when viewing two identical images with the parallel or crossed eye technique. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
Stuart Levy wrote:
On 2006-12-26, tontoko wrote: In the following website; http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense -- all the features in an astronomical scene (except the spider spinning its web in your telescope tube) are vastly beyond the focus range. So using sharp vs. blurred features to reconstruct relative distance won't mean anything. It might look pretty, but I wouldn't say it was worth $50 for software to do that. In other contexts this could be a cool idea, though. I agree. And it opens up the possibility that people will mistake this for real data, the real thing, when it's just, at best, speculation as to what the object would look like. We're already living with false color, even in color photographs of astronomical objects done decades ago, so why add to this mis-information? And yes, I don't consider captioning a photo good enough, because most people only remember the buzz words, and leave out those pesky details, details which show the truth of the situation. --- Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:36:28 GMT, David Nakamoto
wrote: I agree. And it opens up the possibility that people will mistake this for real data, the real thing, when it's just, at best, speculation as to what the object would look like. We're already living with false color, even in color photographs of astronomical objects done decades ago, so why add to this mis-information? I wouldn't compare this pseudo-3D technique with false color, and I certainly wouldn't classify false color as "mis-information". False color techniques enhance information content (even if some people misinterpret the data). This 3D technique reduces information quality. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
I concede it is hard to confirm whether that stereograph is authentic
unless our left eye is 1000 light-year far away from right eye. Chris L Peterson wrote: On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:36:28 GMT, David Nakamoto wrote: I agree. And it opens up the possibility that people will mistake this for real data, the real thing, when it's just, at best, speculation as to what the object would look like. We're already living with false color, even in color photographs of astronomical objects done decades ago, so why add to this mis-information? I wouldn't compare this pseudo-3D technique with false color, and I certainly wouldn't classify false color as "mis-information". False color techniques enhance information content (even if some people misinterpret the data). This 3D technique reduces information quality. _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
Please mind that my software can not reproduce the perspective with
100% authentication. Firstly if the focal point resides between the foreground and background, the software doesn't work properly because it can not distinguish the object out of focus in the foreground from the background. Secondly (particulary in case of astronomical photos) if the object has uniform appearance, the software can not estimate the relative distance of it from other objects (therefore the software does not give proper perspective for stars since every star has similar appearance as a bright dot except sun.) David Nakamoto wrote: Stuart Levy wrote: On 2006-12-26, tontoko wrote: In the following website; http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense -- all the features in an astronomical scene (except the spider spinning its web in your telescope tube) are vastly beyond the focus range. So using sharp vs. blurred features to reconstruct relative distance won't mean anything. It might look pretty, but I wouldn't say it was worth $50 for software to do that. In other contexts this could be a cool idea, though. I agree. And it opens up the possibility that people will mistake this for real data, the real thing, when it's just, at best, speculation as to what the object would look like. We're already living with false color, even in color photographs of astronomical objects done decades ago, so why add to this mis-information? And yes, I don't consider captioning a photo good enough, because most people only remember the buzz words, and leave out those pesky details, details which show the truth of the situation. --- Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
On 2006-12-29, tontoko wrote:
Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera. Right. My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the camera. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera when the part of it is more distant from other parts. The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks like. http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=2049 Hm. Even if you were using sort of fractal "texture" to determine distance -- something that *could* be done independently of camera focal length, etc. if the texture is actually there and actually spatially uniform across an object -- consider the situation for analyzing narrow-field deep-sky astronomical photographs. Just from the fact that the things we're seeing cover tiny angles on the sky, if they're roundish (as galaxies are), then the ratio of near-edge-distance-to-us to far-edge-distance-to-us must be nearly 1. Even for nearby Andromeda Galaxy, maybe 5 degrees across at most, the near edge is only a few percent nearer to us than the far edge. Most nearby galaxies are only a few arc minutes across -- a few tenths of a percent or less difference from near to far edge. So, if you tried to estimate relative distance by comparing the angular scale of some sort of texture (fractal or otherwise), you couldn't get useful relative-distance results unless the texture were very accurately measurable. (In contrast, you *might* be able to get useful results if you saw two galaxies of similar types, in the same field, at very different distances. But you aren't showing any examples like that that I can see.) Stuart Levy wrote: On 2006-12-26, tontoko wrote: In the following website; http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense -- all the features in an astronomical scene (except the spider spinning its web in your telescope tube) are vastly beyond the focus range. So using sharp vs. blurred features to reconstruct relative distance won't mean anything. It might look pretty, but I wouldn't say it was worth $50 for software to do that. In other contexts this could be a cool idea, though. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ann: Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy (2)
On 2006-12-30, tontoko wrote:
Please mind that my software can not reproduce the perspective with 100% authentication. Well, I think the complaint is that it is reproducing the perspective with 0% authentication. Its reconstruction of relative distance is completely meaningless. Firstly if the focal point resides between the foreground and background, the software doesn't work properly because it can not distinguish the object out of focus in the foreground from the background. Secondly (particulary in case of astronomical photos) if the object has uniform appearance, the software can not estimate the relative distance of it from other objects (therefore the software does not give proper perspective for stars since every star has similar appearance as a bright dot except sun.) David Nakamoto wrote: Stuart Levy wrote: On 2006-12-26, tontoko wrote: In the following website; http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/i...e=post&id=3392 the image shown is the stereograph of Sombrero Galaxy synthesized by Stereographer (original image: HST). For detail of Stereographer, visit; http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereo...tereograph.htm Hmm. But, if the technique described here were applied to astronomical images, it'd yield nonsense -- all the features in an astronomical scene (except the spider spinning its web in your telescope tube) are vastly beyond the focus range. So using sharp vs. blurred features to reconstruct relative distance won't mean anything. It might look pretty, but I wouldn't say it was worth $50 for software to do that. In other contexts this could be a cool idea, though. I agree. And it opens up the possibility that people will mistake this for real data, the real thing, when it's just, at best, speculation as to what the object would look like. We're already living with false color, even in color photographs of astronomical objects done decades ago, so why add to this mis-information? And yes, I don't consider captioning a photo good enough, because most people only remember the buzz words, and leave out those pesky details, details which show the truth of the situation. --- Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ann: Stereoscopic galaxy NGC3370 | tontoko | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 19th 06 07:12 AM |
Stereoscopic Sombrero Galaxy | tontoko | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | December 18th 06 02:15 PM |
Ann: Stereoscopic Supernova | tontoko | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | December 17th 06 06:07 PM |
Stereoscopic Supernova | tontoko | Misc | 0 | December 17th 06 12:03 AM |
Ann: Stereoscopic NGC7009 | tontoko | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | December 14th 06 06:30 AM |