The Hubble Palette - The effect of Image Processing

The Hubble Palette - The effect of Image Processing

Combining images from narrowband filters is often done using the
Hubble tri-colour palette, in which SII, Ha, and OIII are assigned to
R, G, and B, respectively.

These images show the effect of subsequent processing on images of the
North America Nebula in Cygnus (NGC 7000) taken with a Takahashi Sky
90 with SBIG ST-10MXE. The three images were, in order, unprocessed,
digitally developed using MaxIm DL and digitally developed then
stretched in MaxIm DL.

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/ima...lepalette2.htm


Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.

My website is at http://www.martin-nicholson.info/1/1a.htm
My informal Astronomical Blog is at http://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/

On Jul 9, 12:27 am, ukastronomy
wrote:
The Hubble Palette - The effect of Image Processing

Combining images from narrowband filters is often done using the
Hubble tri-colour palette, in which SII, Ha, and OIII are assigned to
R, G, and B, respectively.

These images show the effect of subsequent processing on images of the
North America Nebula in Cygnus (NGC 7000) taken with a Takahashi Sky
90 with SBIG ST-10MXE. The three images were, in order, unprocessed,
digitally developed using MaxIm DL and digitally developed then
stretched in MaxIm DL.

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/ima...lepalette2.htm

Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.

My website is athttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/1/1a.htm
My informal Astronomical Blog is athttp://ukastronomy.livejournal.com/

HUBBLE SPIES RIBBON IN THE SKY
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...=1&start=false

But it’s all artificially exaggerated eye-candy, except for our Selene/
moon being entirely monochrome, as meaning without any hint of
mineralogy color or hue saturations.

Hidden Planet/moon mineralogy and shrinkage, and how much has our
Selene/moon shrunk?

Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Dramatic Volcanism Forged Mercury's Surface
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=5304781
An image of the planet Mercury, made during the January 2008 flyby of
the planet by the Mercury... (REUTERS/NASA/JHUAP/ Arizona State
University/Handout)

It seems entirely odd that their infomercial media has access to
publishing such modified images that are not as such listed within the
official MESSENGER gallery. In other words, we the public are only
getting to see an extremely small fraction of these 100% public funded
image archives related to this mission, such as this color enhanced
image is rather typical.

Too bad we still don’t have the same degree of color saturation
enhanced images of our Selene/moon, as to depicting the complex
mineralogy and better nature of those cosmic deposits on our
physically dark as coal Selene/moon.

An even better color enhanced image of Mercury that’ll show
atmosphere. Don’t be turned off by the extremely pail/pastel or
nearly monochrome first look, because you just have to crank up that
saturation and ever so slightly replace or shift the color of black.
If this is too complex for your expertise, I’ll gladly walk you
through it.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn’t
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

You simply need to have saved this image as is to file, or save it as
a JPG if you’d like, and then PhotoShop it.

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting that “HUE” by whatever amount makes you a happy
camper.

By the way; if Mercury has in fact been measurably shrinking by 1.5
km in diameter over its geological history,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...mercury103.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7489557.stm

so has Earth been shrinking (though likely by some greater volumetric
proportional amount). I further rest my case from a very old rant I’d
contributed as of many years ago, that pertained to Earth’s shrinkage
from its core cooling as well as from surface erosions (most all of
which ending up in our oceans, displacing water and thus also causing
oceans to rise).

In other words, our Selene/moon may not be moving as quickly as 38 mm/
year away from us, especially if Earth’s radius has been instead
shrinking by several mm/year, not to mention Selene shrinkage.
Another question might be; how large was Earth to begin with?

Venus seems geologically considerably more active than Mercury, thus
Venus shrinkage could also be rather impressive.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth