You must log in or # to comment.
with higher gravity it might shrink.
Best I can do is more gravitas in my Lemmy comments. not sure it’s enough for the planet to collapse but I can try, if there’s a chance of it ending our current conundrum
Completely different landmasses as well!
Kubrick, we’re onto you
Aside from all else, the first image was taken on film lit by daylight, the second was shot on digital at high ISO lit by moonlight with a little sunlight at one edge
Moonlight doesn’t have the same colour rendering quality as sunlight
Thanks for the info, that’s awesome! Based on the quality of the image, I’d guess this was a specialized camera designed to have a broader range of sensitivity. Do you know if that’s right or did they just use a nice DSLR?
Also, the first image has been corrected for rayleigh scattering, either algorithmically or artistically. The second image does not appear to have been corrected. It looks similar to what we get from geostationary satellites prior to performing rayleigh scattering correction.
There is a much higher quality version of the second image on NASA’s website. I think the reason the second image has so much colour ranges because it was taken in log, but that’s just a normal SLR camera feature. I think there’s even a way of getting my phone to take pictures in log, it just uses a lot of memory so it’s not on by default
It’s a Nikon D5, the shot is at 52k ISO.
Cool, thanks! That’s some crazy high ISO.
It’s because the Apollo mission photos were obviously faked. How would they have known how small Earth really is, duh!
You dropped this. It means what was said is sarcasm: /s
I thought it would be double with the ‘duh’.
Proof that global warming is not real!!! Read your science… if something gets HOTTER it EXPANDS!!! Those scientist cucks have cucked themselves good this time!!!
/s (in case it’s needed)
continents seem to have moved too… weird.
By the way, speaking of changed colours of planets: if you haven’t been keeping up with the latest news in space imagery and want a real mindbender, check out what has recently happened to Neptune. You may have been thinking, ooooh, what an enthralling blue planet! - bzzzzzt, turns out it’s a pretty bland and boring gas giant, the colours were exaggerated on purpose because otherwise you can’t see shit.
This truly is the worst timeline. Next, they’ll tell us Uranus isn’t gassy too.
Nah, it is. Just checked.
Most
planetsgalaxies are like this I believeNebulae especially.
I like the pale blue representation, reminds me of blue jade or some old seaglass.
Big if true.
Must be all the oil we’re drilling.
Nah, as President Trump said, “nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen.”
No wonder it feels more crowded
Second picture looks smogier and more polluted
Well the second pic is also at night with a high iso and long exposure plus it’s digital so there’s a lot more noise going on.
Speaking in generic terms, film is way more forgiving of over exposure and digital is way more forgiving of under exposure. A fast lens is always king, but once you hit parity on that I would personally take digital for low light any day.
Digital should be the better for either one because both can be normalized to a normal exposure, in which case over should still be more accurate (assuming a static scene). With film, you open the shutter and then allow light to hit the single piece of film, which makes up your full data for that image. Digital could record time data with the light data and essentially keep a record of the full exposure, which can then be averaged and normalized to the length of the exposure.
As long as no pixels get blown out by the exposure, linearly scaling brightness would handle the normalization. Though one of those “take 30 pictures real quick” would also work if you average them together, maybe add a little positional correction if the first frame and last frame are far enough apart that the spacecraft has moved significantly in that time.
Copy that, my knowledge of the specifics of digital vs analog is about exhausted just from what i posted so i appreciate the added information!
This helps explain why days seem shorter as we age, the Earth is spinning faster due to the conservation of angular momentum. The days are literally shorter.
fun fact, days have actually been getting longer pretty much since formation of earth (well moon to be correct). reason iirc is that moon is slowly moving away from earth, and this results in some dynamics changing and as a result earth spins slower. like billions of years ago, it was closer to 23 hours.
ps - very rusty memory right now, should have skipped writing instead of half borked fact
You’re correct. There are more factors involved too, including climate change, since more ice melting means more water as well, moving the mass away from poles to the center to also be affected by the mind pull too.
All the factors end up changing things by about a millisecond per century. The effect is akin to a spinning figure skater having their arms up over their head vs directly out from their body.
Fun fact: China has built such a massive dam that it has slowed down (albeit only slightly*) the Earth’s rotation
*if i am not mistaken, it was just enough to be misured, nothing too crazy
Shhh! Don’t let Big Clock know that we are on to them.
Good to know it’s still a flat disc
Amazing how the countries side over it?
And gravity!!
The maps were correct, New Zealand doesn’t exist.
I like how you can see the ring/sphere of atmosphere in the new image.
That’s the new smog layer.
To be fair there was a big hole in the ozone in 1970
*smug
Does explain the search for the ring itself’s battle.
It’s because the Sun is behind it.
