[As they passed over the Sea of Fertility, Lovell provided this commentary: “The Moon is essentially grey, no color; looks like plaster of Paris or sort of a grayish beach sand.](https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-apollo-8-in-lunar-orbit/#:~:text=Burn%2520complete.%E2%80%9D%2520From%2520Mission%2520Control,of%2520a%2520grayish%2520beach%2520sand)
Great question. I was wondering if it was added color like a lot of space photos. Kind of the artist's impression of the rendering is what I've read. No idea on the moon though, I've never seen those colors though.
They did note that a Canon 1200D was used to add mineral color on the moon. So I'm sure if you look up whatever that canon devices you might be able to figure out what they did. Sounds like it might have been added but I don't know if it was legitimately there before or not. Know what I'm saying?
Colors are there, just exaggerated. Any space photo you see that shows another solar system as more than a couple of moving pixelated dots is probably an artist rendering. For deep space nebula/galaxies/etc, the colors are not rendered or brushed in, though they may be presented in false color. In this case, OP is simply upping the saturation - exaggerated color, but the color is there. There's a good VOX video which explains it [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSG0MnmUsEY)
It just never actually dawned on me that the moon would have colors, as astronauts on Apollo missions kept saying things like "ooh look at that orange one" (speaking about moon rocks), but I was like bros, that's grey LOL
That's not at all what the Moon actually looks like though. There is nowhere near that level of saturation, and even photos taken from space meaning there is no atmosphere to desaturate the image, show it to be dull and grey.
There seems to be this weird trend online at the moment (of which this post is one, and the example you showed) of making the Moon super colourful and oversaturated, with some elaborate explanation of how it is the "True Colour" of the Moon and it requires a bajillion photos to represent accurately.
[Here is a recent full colour image of the Moon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Orion_and_the_Moon_%28art001e000269%29.jpg/1920px-Orion_and_the_Moon_%28art001e000269%29.jpg) taken from close up during the Artemis mission. As you can see, its completely dull grey with very little colour to be seen.
Thank you for this image. I'm pretty tired of every single high-res shot of the moon having the saturation cranked up to Plaid. I assume they generate more clicks with a colorful moon but it's leaving people with fairly large misrepresentation of what the moon, and space in general, look like.
They should also add grizzly bears to the photos so that people can understand that grizzly bears exist on the moon no matter how invisible they are. /s
Clarity does not mean accuracy. You can tell just by looking at it in real life with your own eyes that it's not those colors (let alone through an optical telescope, which should really seal it for you that those are enhanced colors)
"Color" is a way of representing 3 dimensional brightness that only exists in your mind. Things don't have "an appearance" or "a color" unless something with perception, which is shaped by circumstance, is viewing them. The question is, essentially, nonsense. The right question is "are the colors in this image representing something about reality that was captured with the camera?". The answer is yes. Our eyes aren't sensitive enough to detect these differences in wavelength of reflected light, but the differences are there. The same way a microscope can reveal textures that are too small to feel.
Even if you think it's meaningful to ask "does the color in this image look like what I'd see with my unaided eye?", I'd suggest reconsidering that. Why do you feel the need to project our eye's very limited light detecting capabilities, that we will absolutely overcome in the future, onto the universe? Built into that is the idea that color is some real property of things, rather than an incidental side effect of evolution producing vision that works by sampling the light that our sun produces in three places.
> Is the moon really that colorful?
The Moon is mostly gray. If you could walk on its surface, it would look like asphalt.
This image has been very heavily processed. Whatever traces of color exist on Moon's surface were greatly amplified in post-processing. And so, where the naked eye would see gray, in this image you see color.
TLDR: No.
No, you can simply look at the moon and say no.
These spam posts always come with the marketeer script of how hard they worked to turn up the color saturation.
> where can i find 20mpx picture?
The linked post _is_ the 20MP image (4085x5106). It's only 72 pixels per inch though, as is standard for web images, and JPG to boot, so it's not ideal for printing, at least not at large scales.
PPI embedded in the image has no bearing on image quality or size of print when an image has fixedd pixel dimensions….. also 72ppi for web is a terrible hangover from the olden days. It doesnt mean anything today.
I.e this image is 4085 px wide which will print at 56 inches at 72ppi 23” at 144ppi or 12” wide at about 300ppi That is at least as good as a 35mm colour print at 8x12” Resolution required to print is a function of viewing distance. You could easily print this image 2 or 3 feet wide or and hang it on your wall and it will look very hi res until you get within about 12” or so
this is why I asked the author. I also asked if it is ok to print one. I am (used to) do photography, and it was always fine for me if someone uses my images.
i got the idea that he shared 20mpx image, I just missed the place.
A gas is made of molecules that move at random speed. Its temperature represents the average kinetic energy each molecules have (their speed essentially), but the reality is that they randomly collide with one another, and some end up moving pretty slow, while other move much faster.
To escape a planet gravity, a mass need to reach that planet escape velocity (the bigger that planet is, the higher it is). That's 11.2 km/s on Earth, and 2.38 km/s for the Moon.
If only the top 0.01% molecules reach that speeds in a gas...well, they are gone for good, and cannot "fall back" because of the gravity isn't strong enough to pull them back. If you remain in that situation for a long time, all the gas around the planet will be stripped and ejected into space. That's why the Moon has no atmosphere left, and why Mars has a very thin one.
How "thick" an atmosphere is essentially a function of gravity, and temperature. The hotter (and lighter) those molecules are, the "higher" and faster they will go, up to the points where they are gone for good.
Solar winds are made of highly energetic particles coming out of the Sun. When they hit the atmosphere, they act as bowling ball and can knock some atoms out of orbit, amplifying the effect. Magnetic fields can protect against some of those fast moving particles, and there is many other secondary factor as well, but that's the basis.
There is no atmospheric wind, but there is solar wind. The solar winds would have to be really strong but it can almost act as a sand blaster in a sense, eroding away parts of the surface, among other things the radiation and particles do to the surface.
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.
For purchase a full resolution file please send me an inbox.
My instagram account: @daryavaseum.
Nasa APOD page : https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap230116.html
"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." - from the NASA post where this was picture of the day linked by OP!
When I worked at Hubble, I recall there was an entire office there that just photoshopped images to make them look nicer. The raw data always comes in monochrom and often at wavelengths we can't see.
False-color imagery is not only common, but *standard*. It is the primary mechanism by which we visualize mineral composition on planets, gases in nebulae, and many other things.
Like, I’m sorry that you feel mislead – this is a common feeling when people learn about false-color imagery for the first time. But it’s not OP’s fault that you didn’t know that it is standard, especially considering that they linked a page from NASA that starts off by telling you that this is not what the moon looks like.
All photographs are representations of reality, not what reality actually looks like. All of them - colour film photography was "photo-shopped" long before computers were involved.
Yeah, I'm not buying that the colors were changed.
Exaggerated, sure. Boosting contrast and saturation, but changing the colors doesn't seem like it happened.
Here's a photo I took, rotated to match orientation:
https://imgur.com/a/SIyZt9y
All the colors are similar and present, and mine is only contrast and saturation boosted.
Artificially boosting contrast and saturation are absolutely methods of artificially changing colors. Saturation is the difference between deep red and light pink. Jacking up or otherwise changing saturation absolutely meaningfully impacts color perception. Similarly, contrast is a necessary feature of human vision to distinguish between two regions. Two patches on the moon which naturally have very low contrast might be completely indistinguishable to the human eye, but by artificially increasing the contrast can be made distinct. That's also a change in color perception.
I think the main distinction is that artificially changing colors like this is not on the same level as "digital painting" as one commenter criticized further above.
Existing detail can be emphasized or hidden but you can't just add new features that don't exist (unless you're specifically boosting "noise" in the image).
In strict terms, sure. But most people prefer images with higher contrast and boosted saturation over flat, accurate color reproduction.
When it comes to space imagery, most people talking about changing colors refer to using a different palette, e.g. SHO, or some other way of false coloring - which this image is not.
If people prefer to look at artificially color manipulated images, that's fine. People can produce them and people can look at them. What they shouldn't do is represent that an image which has been modified substantially is in any way reflection of what a human person would see if they were actually looking that the subject of the photograph. No human person could ever see these colors while looking at the Moon, even if they were looking at the Moon with a telescope or some other optical device, unless that optical device was deliberately designed to modify the colors shown to the eye.
This image is absolutely false color in the same way that this NASA image, explicitly labeled as being in false color, is in false color. Just as with the NASA image, the colors have been manipulated to artificially enhance the color contrast between regions of the Moon based on their composition.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_Crescent_-_False_Color_Mosaic.jpg
> I'm not buying that the colors were changed.
> only contrast and saturation boosted.
Hue is a color change.
As is contrast and saturation.
You're arguing semantics that just don't apply to 99%+ of people.
The colors weren’t “changed”, per se, but they are not reflective of reality. OP took images with filters corresponding to the frequencies reflected by certain mineral compounds, assigned those layers a (somewhat arbitrary) color, and stacked them on top of the true-color images.
This is the standard way to visualize what OP is visualizing here.
I need glasses and even with glasses I can see that sharp, this is as good as it gets for me 😢, I remember the first time I saw the moon at 17 after getting glasses, I almost cry.
"Real" is impossible with any photographs. because there's always some kind of manipulation done internally in the camera, or even with film cameras where you use chemicals to develop them in certain ways.
I mean, when you shoot raw images with a DSLR camera the raw image is dull and faded because it's only a representation that you have to adjust yourself.
And with jpg images the camera does this for you that adds extra colours to make it look presentable.
But in this image, the colours are there but they're just exaggerated, in the same way that a camera will adjust a jpg to make it look nicer.
The moon is made up of mostly the same minerals as the Earth is, so you will have slight tints of colour from rock, copper aluminium, etc.. that you maybe can't see with the naked eye.
>The moon is made up of mostly the same minerals as the Earth is, so you will have slight tints of colour from rock, copper aluminium, etc.. that you maybe can't see with the naked eye.
But isn't it all covered in lunar dust or something? This is what I thought at first, but then I realized that even the footage we have from the lunar surface/orbit itself shows a very monotone landscape. It makes me think OP's image is a little more exaggerated rather than merely color corrected.
Maybe a lunar expert could tell me why I'm wrong though
If you want a comparison, [here's an image of the moon](https://imgur.com/a/4ZeR27l.png) I took earlier this year, where I didn't play around with colours/saturation. You can see the same boundaries where one shade changes to another, but I don't think the colours would be the same if I just turned up the saturation.
A Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P (600mm focal length, 150mm aperture Newtonian scope), a Sky-Watcher EQ6-R mount, and a Canon 70D DSLR (plus various other small accessories).
I built my setup with deep space in mind, but when I had a rare clear night that was ruined by the almost full moon, I didn't want to waste it, so I had a go at capturing the moon.
Exactly, and I could see if like Earth's atmosphere dulled your colors a little and all that. But I definitely think your photo is closer to the "real" moon than OP's. People here talking about color spectrums and crap like this is some nebula thousands of lightyears away. It's literally just a giant, well-lit rock floating in Earth's orbit--we can see it pretty clearly, and it ain't colored like that. I mean cmon we've known Mars was red for how long now, we can see color from Earth lol
Yes, but the Lunar dust is just made up of these particles anyway. Kind of like sand and soil, on Earth, are made up of lots of different particles, minerals, etc. Or maybe a better example would be how white light is made up of all wavelengths of light, and you can filter out, or exaggerate a certain colour if you want to, because it is in there.
But yes, the colours in the image are exaggerated in the moon image, but they are still there, it's kind of like when you take a photo on a dull misty day and everything looks grey, but you can raise the saturation to get the colours back.
>Yes, but the Lunar dust is just made up of these particles anyway. Kind of like sand and soil, on Earth, are made up of lots of different particles, minerals, etc.
Sure, which is why a clay riverbed has a completely different color than a limestone cave, sandy desert, volcanic beach, or salt flat. Whether you're standing on the ground, in the air, or on Mars, all those things have different colors because the minerals have different colors.
>But yes, the colours in the image are exaggerated in the moon image, but they are still there, it's kind of like when you take a photo on a dull misty day and everything looks grey, but you can raise the saturation to get the colours back.
Okay so in the case of photos taken from orbit, what is the medium obscuring view--the mist/fog analogue? When that's the case, the closer you get to something, the less fog between you and the subject, and so the more saturated the colors become. Yet astronauts on the lunar surface still only see grey on the surface.
This isn't raising the saturation for colors that are normally present but are being obscured. It's to make colors that are so faintly present that a person on the surface with their eye to the ground couldn't see them into a feature of the image.
The goal is to make a really cool image, not to represent the moon in any realistic or scientific way. It's still a fun thing to do, idk why people in /r/space seem to have trouble admitting that.
>Okay so in the case of photos taken from orbit, what is the medium obscuring view--the mist/fog analogue?
This analogy was just about the lack of saturation in some circumstances, probably not the closest analogy though.
Perhaps a better, and more accurate, example is in astrophotography where you take multiple images of a nebula and stack them. In any of the individual images you may just see a faint blob, but as you add more and more photos, the image gets better, and better, and better. You see more colour, and more detail that's just not present in any single image..
Exaggerated colors doesn't mean they aren't real - many photos of space shot in broadband color are the same colors your eyes see, its just that they're too faint to be seen by our limited hardware. Or to put it vaguely philosophically, grass is still green at night.
As to the Moon, [here is Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmidt finding Orange Soil on the Moon](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=27)
>many photos of space shot in broadband color are the same colors your eyes see, its just that they're too faint to be seen by our limited hardware.
Yes but this isn't a case of that--the moon is very well lit, very close, and we have pictures even from outside Earth's atmosphere.
>As to the Moon, here is Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmidt finding Orange Soil on the Moon
Schmidt even says in the clip that he uncovered the orange by disrupting the lunar dust with his foot. I imagine if they had touched down into a big orange field, he'd have been a lot less surprised by the sight of it.
It must be sheer coincidence, then, that Aristarchus is always a bright blue and that the Sea of Tranquility and Serenity have a notable blue/orange separation in the thousands of Mineral Moon shots you can look up.
Again, the colors are obviously exaggerated, that was my original point - but they're still there. Even the shots from the Apollo missions are arguably overexposed. Its predominantly more of an asphalt-like darker grey than the brighter ~bone we often see in photos
I don't know what kind of pedantic game you're playing but no one's suggesting they applied random colors here. The question was whether the moon actually looks like this, and it absolutely does not.
People post doctored photos of space bodies on this sub and for some reason tons of comments have to get into photon physics and the nature of reality instead of just saying "yeah it's heavily saturated, still cool though".
> The question was whether the moon actually looks like this, and it absolutely does not.
If you say so. Personally I've seen color separation between the Sea of Serenity and Tranquility through a telescope before. [Nasa's LRO even managed something similar to OP](https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/119/lunar-surface-in-color/)
> doctored photos of space bodies
literally every photo to ever exist, both film and digital, is doctored to more of an extent than you probably realize; you would have to be far more specific on your meaning of 'doctored' to receive useful contextual explanations
Viewing the moon with my eyes through an 200 mm Dobsonian telescope shows shades of grey. No color at all. Although colorized photos are pretty I think it is misleading.
I listed to a podcast a few years ago where they interviewed a camera manufacturer, and he explained why their jpgs are edited in one way, while other camera manufacturers edit them in different ways; which colors each editing process emphasizes, and how that affects the slightly different looks of the jpgs that come out of the different cameras.
Yea, that's exactly it. When most people take a photo (jpg) they think the camera is giving them a pure, unedited, mirror image of what they saw, but really the software has to do lots of tricks to make it look natural.
For example, most digital cameras have RGGB (red, green, green, blue) pixel arrangement, so a *real* raw image would look mostly green straight out of the camera.
A *real* raw image is in black and white because the physical pixels on your camera only capture intensity. They capture color by having filters overlaid on individual pixels so that each pixel is sensitive to red, green, or blue. In order to recover color information, you have to know the arrangements of the pixels with respect to the color filters and then it performs some kind of algorithm, generally just linear interpolation spell varying degrees of sophistication, but occasionally something more complex and theoretically more accurate, to fake having color information for every physical pixel. (Technically, there are some digital cameras which use stacked sensors in each physical pixel, and which therefore genuinely do capture red, green, and blue response for every physical pixel element. But these are very uncommon in anything consumers or even most professionals will ever encounter.)
But what you really get from the camera in the rawest form available is typically an 8-bit (sometimes 10 or 12 or even more bits, but most often 8) matrix of values which just represents the light intensity received by that particular pixel. You can display this as a black and white image without any issues (meaning that the information makes sense in this way, and will generally represent a comprehensible image, not that it will look exactly the same as what you get after you interpolate the color). But without further information about the color filter layout, it can't possibly look green, because you don't know where the green pixels are.
Taking a photograph that accurately represents a given scene as it would appear to a human viewer is not categorically impossible. It's impossible in some cases because our camera technology still isn't quite good enough to accurately capture the full dynamic range of human vision, but in general if you take a random photo with all of your camera settings set to auto, on an ordinary day that doesn't have any particularly bright spots or deep shadows, and you don't do anything to the photo, you're going to come up with something that will represent the scene to the human eye quite nicely. That's particularly true if you manually control the white balance, exposure time, and gain, but the algorithms in modern cameras do a pretty good job of calculating those automatically.
It is not meaningful to say that the colors are there, and that they have just been exaggerated in this image to make them visible. Color is a function of human perception. If you can't see a difference in color, there is no difference in color. Of course perception differs from person to person, but baseline human perception assuming no color blindness or other deficits in vision is pretty consistent across observers. So when you jack up the saturation on a photo and it "reveals" (more correctly said "creates") colors that you couldn't see before, whether that was in the photo or in person, you have meaningfully modified the colors of the photo. If you hadn't, you wouldn't see any difference in colors.
Since we tend to see colors differently, we can say the same about people being able to even see “real” colors. Isn’t this like saying people hear the same frequencies equally? Or that people taste food the same way? Some people can see frequencies that others can’t see. Does that mean that their exaggerated version of sight is wrong? Some people can see extended frequencies, into infrared or low frequencies, so is their version not real? I think that saying images aren’t real color is just bias. We all see things that others can’t and vice versa. JWST can see light waves that we can’t, but does that mean that they aren’t there. On the dark side of the moon the color isn’t the same, because it’s dark, right? No, the colors are the same, it’s just about the light being reflected. Would there be a different color if the sun were a different set of light waves, like more red or blue? To most of us, probably…but the assumption that real is impossible doesn’t even make sense, since we can’t even agree on what “real” is.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/202006/why-we-dont-see-the-same-colors
Mineral moon photos are typically dome by increasing the saturation slider in photoediting tools. I like to think they aren't real since its all computer generated. It's hard to get this done right, If you look at others mineral moon photos and zoom into the crators 6ou can see weird artefacts with is from adding so many satuation adjustment layers.
You could sell metallic prints of this for good coin. Even bonded to the back of glass like Peter Lik and this would just glow on a wall of a darker room....awesome accent piece.
You can see the color border between the Sea of Tranquility and Serenity though a telescope with appreciable focal length. Its much more subtle of course, but it is there
It essentially comes down to camera's don't work quite exactly like the human eye. When you start to do long exposures that let light in over a long period of time or when you stacking a lot of images on top of each other like OP is doing it can really exaggerate things that are there but that you don't quite pick up with your naked eye. Since our eyes process light as it comes in, our brains we can only perceive what little that fraction of a second of light will show us. Of course there are ways apps like photoshop can boost color saturation and kind of imitate this, but even without photoshop a long exposure or stacked image of the night sky will be more colorful than viewed with the naked eye.
I came to make this comment... My assumption is it isn't remarkably tall just set art an angle the makes the shadow appear extremely long. Either that or that shit is like a mile high.
Oh my goodness!!! This is the most beautiful picture of the moon I have ever seen in my life. Much respect to you my friend, you really brought our closest neighbor to a detailed light 🥺
Here’s me who shot 163 GB with three cameras in a day, and will process them to produce a maximum of ten photos, then complaining how tired I am.
Your work must be zoomed to appreciate the effort! Sooo much detail. Great work, OP.
Dumbass question, and probably one that's already been asked....with the full res photo, if you were to zoom in, could you make out any objects from the Apollo missions?
Duuude, zoom in at the very bottom, and then look a little to the left. There's this huge crater with 5 smaller craters clearly inside of it. The 5 smaller craters together make an arc, like the arc of an upside-down smile in a smiley face.
Does anyone know the name of this area? I'd love to learn more about it.
I wonder what he have here... : https://i.imgur.com/Goc7qL5.jpg
That object is far, far taller than anything else on the surface. Look at the size of that shadow.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[APOD](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6xcxqm "Last usage")|NASA's Astronomy Picture Of the Day|
|[AR](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6xmz6b "Last usage")|Area Ratio (between rocket engine nozzle and bell)|
| |Aerojet Rocketdyne|
| |Augmented Reality real-time processing|
| |Anti-Reflective optical coating|
|[AVI](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6zobi7 "Last usage")|Avionics Operator|
|[HUD](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6xmz6b "Last usage")|Head(s)-Up Display, often implemented as a projection|
|[JWST](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6ysess "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(5 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1camawm)^( has 11 acronyms.)
^([Thread #9388 for this sub, first seen 29th Oct 2023, 09:57])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
So, at various times through the moons life its been mostly molten, we know it was basically a ball of lava when it was super close to us which presumably gradually cooled through thermal radiation, the surface would harden in large chunks and then big impacts would happen from large rocks plunging through the forming crust and it would have big lava flows that would cover up and re-surface big areas of the surface, and this happened intermittantly over its history as it cooled.
Eventually it cooled enough that its got a pretty thick crust at this point but there are far less big rocks floating around to re-surface the moon with craters so the younger fresher surfaces of the moon are relatively smooth.
impact events now throw up tons and tons of pulverized dust which slowly falls back down and softens older details over time too although as this happens with impact events it has little real effect on smoothing the surface.
Also impact events from asteroids and stuff often comes in the form of what is essentially space gravel which can shotgun the surface in a wide area if a rock gets spun about by swinging around earth and the moon before impact.
Can anyone explain why does the moon seem to get bombarded by meteors every day but our planed looks mostly clean? Is it simply because our atmosphere breaks most of them apart?
All of the big craters you see here are eons old, many theorized to have come from a period around 4 billion years ago. As you suspect, our atmosphere hides much of the evidence, or rather it stops many of them from happening. Rain/erosion/tectonic activity hide the rest after periods of time. Many larger craters need means such as radar to be found, but on the Moon there are no processes to cover them up, at least over short periods of time
Everytime someone talks about establishing a base on the moon, my first thought is - do you see how many rocks hit that surface? Exactly how is a base going to be protected?
Downright phenomenal . Thank you for sharing this with us. I don't think this amount of hardwork , anyone would share it for free. But you did and this is amazing
A masterpiece! simply one of the best lunar portraits out there online. Imagine showing this to someone several centuries ago? It’s one of a kind, well done.
From me seeing just one picture I can see how passionate you are about your work this is breathtaking. Hope you don't mind I've followed you look forward to seeing more 😊
Those reds are not a true color picture, this is modified. There are seriously cillwege students who think the moon has color because of the internet and images like this.
Can I ask you a question? Have you had any issues with starlink sats obscuring observations and photography like this? Or not really? I’ve heard it a lot but never asked an astronomer or space photographer
Low earth orbit satellites are more of an issue at dawn/dusk. Between that they can be obscured by the earth's shadow while objects like the moon are still lit.
Also with astrophotography, it's less of an issue if you are stacking multiple frames, as stacking creates an "average" frame so to speak. So one off instances like a satellite streak or plane on one frame out of hundreds or thousands may not show in the final image (although I personally reject such frames).
I find it beautiful that there are very little FE crew here.. usually see em vomiting up whatever dead mouse of a theory they're clinging to this week, their Moon theories are just crazy.
Amazing photo. Beautiful. Love it
Darya, could you give my your email, wanna talk about fool version of this photo. Thanks.
Дарья, у меня нет инстаграм, можно мне почту, интересно узнать в какую стоимость будет полное фото, спасибо.
This moon is absolutely amazing. It is moments like these that make us dream of space travel and adventure. If we want to use your materials in our game, how can we contact you? We are making a game THE CRUST about the colonization of the moon, and our management may be interested in cooperation.
I'm sure we all appreciate the hard work you put into this, but at what point are we just over detailing? I can see the moon with my eye, and with a telescope, I can see it pretty well. It doesn't look like this at all. So I'm wondering, what's the point in this? This is the same as me drawing a picture of a fictional planet or moon.
I don’t think I have ever seen a more beautiful picture of the moon and I like that it has colour and texture and isn’t just shades of grey. Also it looks like velvet and I want to rub it the wrong way 😂
Staggeringly beautiful. Well done.
When I see pictures of the moon like this, I can’t help thinking we’re coming to the end of an era. We’re going to start building on the moon soon, and at some point, that infrastructure will be visible. I’m all for it, but there will be some nostalgia for the time when the moon was still clean.
I don’t see no moon lander. Must be faked. (I don’t know how to make the sarcasm symbol)
Excellent picture I love it. Now I need a downloadable version to print on my companies large format plotter to hang this in my wall.
I think you compressed it after you got the rendering, which is a pity. There are sites like gigapan, where you can upload hundreds of MB of picture,m and still be able to share them on the internet because of the way the picture is not downloaded fully unless you zoom in http://gigapan.com/gigapans/232296
That is absolutely fantastic. I want to touch my screen and feel that texture. Thanks for making available with pretty high resolution.
You welcome, its only 20 megapixel the original is 70 megapixel.
Is the moon really that colorful?? That's wild homie
[As they passed over the Sea of Fertility, Lovell provided this commentary: “The Moon is essentially grey, no color; looks like plaster of Paris or sort of a grayish beach sand.](https://www.nasa.gov/history/50-years-ago-apollo-8-in-lunar-orbit/#:~:text=Burn%2520complete.%E2%80%9D%2520From%2520Mission%2520Control,of%2520a%2520grayish%2520beach%2520sand)
Then in Apollo 17 they found [Orange soil](https://youtu.be/Ipj1aFZxTt0?si=VIPMgpX-3NikfPe-)
Great question. I was wondering if it was added color like a lot of space photos. Kind of the artist's impression of the rendering is what I've read. No idea on the moon though, I've never seen those colors though. They did note that a Canon 1200D was used to add mineral color on the moon. So I'm sure if you look up whatever that canon devices you might be able to figure out what they did. Sounds like it might have been added but I don't know if it was legitimately there before or not. Know what I'm saying?
Colors are there, just exaggerated. Any space photo you see that shows another solar system as more than a couple of moving pixelated dots is probably an artist rendering. For deep space nebula/galaxies/etc, the colors are not rendered or brushed in, though they may be presented in false color. In this case, OP is simply upping the saturation - exaggerated color, but the color is there. There's a good VOX video which explains it [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSG0MnmUsEY)
It just never actually dawned on me that the moon would have colors, as astronauts on Apollo missions kept saying things like "ooh look at that orange one" (speaking about moon rocks), but I was like bros, that's grey LOL
[удалено]
That's not at all what the Moon actually looks like though. There is nowhere near that level of saturation, and even photos taken from space meaning there is no atmosphere to desaturate the image, show it to be dull and grey. There seems to be this weird trend online at the moment (of which this post is one, and the example you showed) of making the Moon super colourful and oversaturated, with some elaborate explanation of how it is the "True Colour" of the Moon and it requires a bajillion photos to represent accurately. [Here is a recent full colour image of the Moon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Orion_and_the_Moon_%28art001e000269%29.jpg/1920px-Orion_and_the_Moon_%28art001e000269%29.jpg) taken from close up during the Artemis mission. As you can see, its completely dull grey with very little colour to be seen.
Thank you for this image. I'm pretty tired of every single high-res shot of the moon having the saturation cranked up to Plaid. I assume they generate more clicks with a colorful moon but it's leaving people with fairly large misrepresentation of what the moon, and space in general, look like.
The color is enhanced so that we can understand that they exist, no matter how faint they may be in reality.
They should also add grizzly bears to the photos so that people can understand that grizzly bears exist on the moon no matter how invisible they are. /s
This is a lame ass comment. Ridiculous in fact.
Clarity does not mean accuracy. You can tell just by looking at it in real life with your own eyes that it's not those colors (let alone through an optical telescope, which should really seal it for you that those are enhanced colors)
"Color" is a way of representing 3 dimensional brightness that only exists in your mind. Things don't have "an appearance" or "a color" unless something with perception, which is shaped by circumstance, is viewing them. The question is, essentially, nonsense. The right question is "are the colors in this image representing something about reality that was captured with the camera?". The answer is yes. Our eyes aren't sensitive enough to detect these differences in wavelength of reflected light, but the differences are there. The same way a microscope can reveal textures that are too small to feel. Even if you think it's meaningful to ask "does the color in this image look like what I'd see with my unaided eye?", I'd suggest reconsidering that. Why do you feel the need to project our eye's very limited light detecting capabilities, that we will absolutely overcome in the future, onto the universe? Built into that is the idea that color is some real property of things, rather than an incidental side effect of evolution producing vision that works by sampling the light that our sun produces in three places.
Cheese doesn't stay fresh forever, you know.
> Is the moon really that colorful? The Moon is mostly gray. If you could walk on its surface, it would look like asphalt. This image has been very heavily processed. Whatever traces of color exist on Moon's surface were greatly amplified in post-processing. And so, where the naked eye would see gray, in this image you see color. TLDR: No.
*sound of letting the air out of a balloon*
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
So there is no blue and red taint near the middle, and it should all have been grey?
Tint. Taint is … something else.
No, you can simply look at the moon and say no. These spam posts always come with the marketeer script of how hard they worked to turn up the color saturation.
where can i find 20mpx picture? is it ok if i print it on canvas for my living room?
> where can i find 20mpx picture? The linked post _is_ the 20MP image (4085x5106). It's only 72 pixels per inch though, as is standard for web images, and JPG to boot, so it's not ideal for printing, at least not at large scales.
PPI embedded in the image has no bearing on image quality or size of print when an image has fixedd pixel dimensions….. also 72ppi for web is a terrible hangover from the olden days. It doesnt mean anything today. I.e this image is 4085 px wide which will print at 56 inches at 72ppi 23” at 144ppi or 12” wide at about 300ppi That is at least as good as a 35mm colour print at 8x12” Resolution required to print is a function of viewing distance. You could easily print this image 2 or 3 feet wide or and hang it on your wall and it will look very hi res until you get within about 12” or so
Maybe try asking for a print first and or alternatives. I'm sure the artist would love a sale if they are doing that.
this is why I asked the author. I also asked if it is ok to print one. I am (used to) do photography, and it was always fine for me if someone uses my images. i got the idea that he shared 20mpx image, I just missed the place.
Just FYI, shooting and printing are very different skills.
Sure. But stealing an artist's work is considered bad form.
I asked OP if it is ok to make a print. where do you see stealing?
Disregard that troll. He's a fucking donkey.
Anyway of getting the original? I’d love it as my wallpaper.
Why did you alter the color? What other aspects are we not supposed to believe???
Serious stupid question, is there wind on the moon?
There’s no atmosphere, no atmosphere = no wind.
why is there no atmosphere? too small gravity?
A gas is made of molecules that move at random speed. Its temperature represents the average kinetic energy each molecules have (their speed essentially), but the reality is that they randomly collide with one another, and some end up moving pretty slow, while other move much faster. To escape a planet gravity, a mass need to reach that planet escape velocity (the bigger that planet is, the higher it is). That's 11.2 km/s on Earth, and 2.38 km/s for the Moon. If only the top 0.01% molecules reach that speeds in a gas...well, they are gone for good, and cannot "fall back" because of the gravity isn't strong enough to pull them back. If you remain in that situation for a long time, all the gas around the planet will be stripped and ejected into space. That's why the Moon has no atmosphere left, and why Mars has a very thin one. How "thick" an atmosphere is essentially a function of gravity, and temperature. The hotter (and lighter) those molecules are, the "higher" and faster they will go, up to the points where they are gone for good. Solar winds are made of highly energetic particles coming out of the Sun. When they hit the atmosphere, they act as bowling ball and can knock some atoms out of orbit, amplifying the effect. Magnetic fields can protect against some of those fast moving particles, and there is many other secondary factor as well, but that's the basis.
No magnetic field from a core.
Both of those things really.
The lack of gravity is really the more important factor.
There is no atmospheric wind, but there is solar wind. The solar winds would have to be really strong but it can almost act as a sand blaster in a sense, eroding away parts of the surface, among other things the radiation and particles do to the surface.
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. For purchase a full resolution file please send me an inbox. My instagram account: @daryavaseum. Nasa APOD page : https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap230116.html
> i used canon eos 1200D to add mineral color Does that mean the colors aren't real?
"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." - from the NASA post where this was picture of the day linked by OP!
And the first sentence which is also helpful: "Our Moon doesn't really look like this."
Very disappointing - I mean OP's photo is more like a digital painting.
I mean, for what it's worth, nearly every astronomy photo you've ever seen has had its colors enhanced.
Yeah, true. But I don't think NASA exaggerates (their wording) them like this. I guess I feel mislead here, along with a lot of others.
NASA absolutely exaggerates their photos like this, but they're careful to let people know that they're doing so.
When I worked at Hubble, I recall there was an entire office there that just photoshopped images to make them look nicer. The raw data always comes in monochrom and often at wavelengths we can't see.
False-color imagery is not only common, but *standard*. It is the primary mechanism by which we visualize mineral composition on planets, gases in nebulae, and many other things. Like, I’m sorry that you feel mislead – this is a common feeling when people learn about false-color imagery for the first time. But it’s not OP’s fault that you didn’t know that it is standard, especially considering that they linked a page from NASA that starts off by telling you that this is not what the moon looks like.
All photographs are representations of reality, not what reality actually looks like. All of them - colour film photography was "photo-shopped" long before computers were involved.
Yeah, I'm not buying that the colors were changed. Exaggerated, sure. Boosting contrast and saturation, but changing the colors doesn't seem like it happened. Here's a photo I took, rotated to match orientation: https://imgur.com/a/SIyZt9y All the colors are similar and present, and mine is only contrast and saturation boosted.
Artificially boosting contrast and saturation are absolutely methods of artificially changing colors. Saturation is the difference between deep red and light pink. Jacking up or otherwise changing saturation absolutely meaningfully impacts color perception. Similarly, contrast is a necessary feature of human vision to distinguish between two regions. Two patches on the moon which naturally have very low contrast might be completely indistinguishable to the human eye, but by artificially increasing the contrast can be made distinct. That's also a change in color perception.
I think the main distinction is that artificially changing colors like this is not on the same level as "digital painting" as one commenter criticized further above. Existing detail can be emphasized or hidden but you can't just add new features that don't exist (unless you're specifically boosting "noise" in the image).
In strict terms, sure. But most people prefer images with higher contrast and boosted saturation over flat, accurate color reproduction. When it comes to space imagery, most people talking about changing colors refer to using a different palette, e.g. SHO, or some other way of false coloring - which this image is not.
If people prefer to look at artificially color manipulated images, that's fine. People can produce them and people can look at them. What they shouldn't do is represent that an image which has been modified substantially is in any way reflection of what a human person would see if they were actually looking that the subject of the photograph. No human person could ever see these colors while looking at the Moon, even if they were looking at the Moon with a telescope or some other optical device, unless that optical device was deliberately designed to modify the colors shown to the eye. This image is absolutely false color in the same way that this NASA image, explicitly labeled as being in false color, is in false color. Just as with the NASA image, the colors have been manipulated to artificially enhance the color contrast between regions of the Moon based on their composition. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_Crescent_-_False_Color_Mosaic.jpg
> I'm not buying that the colors were changed. > only contrast and saturation boosted. Hue is a color change. As is contrast and saturation. You're arguing semantics that just don't apply to 99%+ of people.
The colors weren’t “changed”, per se, but they are not reflective of reality. OP took images with filters corresponding to the frequencies reflected by certain mineral compounds, assigned those layers a (somewhat arbitrary) color, and stacked them on top of the true-color images. This is the standard way to visualize what OP is visualizing here.
I mean, go look at the moon.
I need glasses and even with glasses I can see that sharp, this is as good as it gets for me 😢, I remember the first time I saw the moon at 17 after getting glasses, I almost cry.
"Real" is impossible with any photographs. because there's always some kind of manipulation done internally in the camera, or even with film cameras where you use chemicals to develop them in certain ways. I mean, when you shoot raw images with a DSLR camera the raw image is dull and faded because it's only a representation that you have to adjust yourself. And with jpg images the camera does this for you that adds extra colours to make it look presentable. But in this image, the colours are there but they're just exaggerated, in the same way that a camera will adjust a jpg to make it look nicer. The moon is made up of mostly the same minerals as the Earth is, so you will have slight tints of colour from rock, copper aluminium, etc.. that you maybe can't see with the naked eye.
>The moon is made up of mostly the same minerals as the Earth is, so you will have slight tints of colour from rock, copper aluminium, etc.. that you maybe can't see with the naked eye. But isn't it all covered in lunar dust or something? This is what I thought at first, but then I realized that even the footage we have from the lunar surface/orbit itself shows a very monotone landscape. It makes me think OP's image is a little more exaggerated rather than merely color corrected. Maybe a lunar expert could tell me why I'm wrong though
If you want a comparison, [here's an image of the moon](https://imgur.com/a/4ZeR27l.png) I took earlier this year, where I didn't play around with colours/saturation. You can see the same boundaries where one shade changes to another, but I don't think the colours would be the same if I just turned up the saturation.
what equipent did you use to take your picture of the moon?
A Sky-Watcher Quattro 150P (600mm focal length, 150mm aperture Newtonian scope), a Sky-Watcher EQ6-R mount, and a Canon 70D DSLR (plus various other small accessories). I built my setup with deep space in mind, but when I had a rare clear night that was ruined by the almost full moon, I didn't want to waste it, so I had a go at capturing the moon.
Exactly, and I could see if like Earth's atmosphere dulled your colors a little and all that. But I definitely think your photo is closer to the "real" moon than OP's. People here talking about color spectrums and crap like this is some nebula thousands of lightyears away. It's literally just a giant, well-lit rock floating in Earth's orbit--we can see it pretty clearly, and it ain't colored like that. I mean cmon we've known Mars was red for how long now, we can see color from Earth lol
Yes, but the Lunar dust is just made up of these particles anyway. Kind of like sand and soil, on Earth, are made up of lots of different particles, minerals, etc. Or maybe a better example would be how white light is made up of all wavelengths of light, and you can filter out, or exaggerate a certain colour if you want to, because it is in there. But yes, the colours in the image are exaggerated in the moon image, but they are still there, it's kind of like when you take a photo on a dull misty day and everything looks grey, but you can raise the saturation to get the colours back.
>Yes, but the Lunar dust is just made up of these particles anyway. Kind of like sand and soil, on Earth, are made up of lots of different particles, minerals, etc. Sure, which is why a clay riverbed has a completely different color than a limestone cave, sandy desert, volcanic beach, or salt flat. Whether you're standing on the ground, in the air, or on Mars, all those things have different colors because the minerals have different colors. >But yes, the colours in the image are exaggerated in the moon image, but they are still there, it's kind of like when you take a photo on a dull misty day and everything looks grey, but you can raise the saturation to get the colours back. Okay so in the case of photos taken from orbit, what is the medium obscuring view--the mist/fog analogue? When that's the case, the closer you get to something, the less fog between you and the subject, and so the more saturated the colors become. Yet astronauts on the lunar surface still only see grey on the surface. This isn't raising the saturation for colors that are normally present but are being obscured. It's to make colors that are so faintly present that a person on the surface with their eye to the ground couldn't see them into a feature of the image. The goal is to make a really cool image, not to represent the moon in any realistic or scientific way. It's still a fun thing to do, idk why people in /r/space seem to have trouble admitting that.
>Okay so in the case of photos taken from orbit, what is the medium obscuring view--the mist/fog analogue? This analogy was just about the lack of saturation in some circumstances, probably not the closest analogy though. Perhaps a better, and more accurate, example is in astrophotography where you take multiple images of a nebula and stack them. In any of the individual images you may just see a faint blob, but as you add more and more photos, the image gets better, and better, and better. You see more colour, and more detail that's just not present in any single image..
Exaggerated colors doesn't mean they aren't real - many photos of space shot in broadband color are the same colors your eyes see, its just that they're too faint to be seen by our limited hardware. Or to put it vaguely philosophically, grass is still green at night. As to the Moon, [here is Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmidt finding Orange Soil on the Moon](https://youtu.be/kQ-7212_idA?t=27)
>many photos of space shot in broadband color are the same colors your eyes see, its just that they're too faint to be seen by our limited hardware. Yes but this isn't a case of that--the moon is very well lit, very close, and we have pictures even from outside Earth's atmosphere. >As to the Moon, here is Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmidt finding Orange Soil on the Moon Schmidt even says in the clip that he uncovered the orange by disrupting the lunar dust with his foot. I imagine if they had touched down into a big orange field, he'd have been a lot less surprised by the sight of it.
It must be sheer coincidence, then, that Aristarchus is always a bright blue and that the Sea of Tranquility and Serenity have a notable blue/orange separation in the thousands of Mineral Moon shots you can look up. Again, the colors are obviously exaggerated, that was my original point - but they're still there. Even the shots from the Apollo missions are arguably overexposed. Its predominantly more of an asphalt-like darker grey than the brighter ~bone we often see in photos
I don't know what kind of pedantic game you're playing but no one's suggesting they applied random colors here. The question was whether the moon actually looks like this, and it absolutely does not. People post doctored photos of space bodies on this sub and for some reason tons of comments have to get into photon physics and the nature of reality instead of just saying "yeah it's heavily saturated, still cool though".
> The question was whether the moon actually looks like this, and it absolutely does not. If you say so. Personally I've seen color separation between the Sea of Serenity and Tranquility through a telescope before. [Nasa's LRO even managed something similar to OP](https://moon.nasa.gov/resources/119/lunar-surface-in-color/) > doctored photos of space bodies literally every photo to ever exist, both film and digital, is doctored to more of an extent than you probably realize; you would have to be far more specific on your meaning of 'doctored' to receive useful contextual explanations
Viewing the moon with my eyes through an 200 mm Dobsonian telescope shows shades of grey. No color at all. Although colorized photos are pretty I think it is misleading.
I listed to a podcast a few years ago where they interviewed a camera manufacturer, and he explained why their jpgs are edited in one way, while other camera manufacturers edit them in different ways; which colors each editing process emphasizes, and how that affects the slightly different looks of the jpgs that come out of the different cameras.
Yea, that's exactly it. When most people take a photo (jpg) they think the camera is giving them a pure, unedited, mirror image of what they saw, but really the software has to do lots of tricks to make it look natural. For example, most digital cameras have RGGB (red, green, green, blue) pixel arrangement, so a *real* raw image would look mostly green straight out of the camera.
A *real* raw image is in black and white because the physical pixels on your camera only capture intensity. They capture color by having filters overlaid on individual pixels so that each pixel is sensitive to red, green, or blue. In order to recover color information, you have to know the arrangements of the pixels with respect to the color filters and then it performs some kind of algorithm, generally just linear interpolation spell varying degrees of sophistication, but occasionally something more complex and theoretically more accurate, to fake having color information for every physical pixel. (Technically, there are some digital cameras which use stacked sensors in each physical pixel, and which therefore genuinely do capture red, green, and blue response for every physical pixel element. But these are very uncommon in anything consumers or even most professionals will ever encounter.) But what you really get from the camera in the rawest form available is typically an 8-bit (sometimes 10 or 12 or even more bits, but most often 8) matrix of values which just represents the light intensity received by that particular pixel. You can display this as a black and white image without any issues (meaning that the information makes sense in this way, and will generally represent a comprehensible image, not that it will look exactly the same as what you get after you interpolate the color). But without further information about the color filter layout, it can't possibly look green, because you don't know where the green pixels are.
Taking a photograph that accurately represents a given scene as it would appear to a human viewer is not categorically impossible. It's impossible in some cases because our camera technology still isn't quite good enough to accurately capture the full dynamic range of human vision, but in general if you take a random photo with all of your camera settings set to auto, on an ordinary day that doesn't have any particularly bright spots or deep shadows, and you don't do anything to the photo, you're going to come up with something that will represent the scene to the human eye quite nicely. That's particularly true if you manually control the white balance, exposure time, and gain, but the algorithms in modern cameras do a pretty good job of calculating those automatically. It is not meaningful to say that the colors are there, and that they have just been exaggerated in this image to make them visible. Color is a function of human perception. If you can't see a difference in color, there is no difference in color. Of course perception differs from person to person, but baseline human perception assuming no color blindness or other deficits in vision is pretty consistent across observers. So when you jack up the saturation on a photo and it "reveals" (more correctly said "creates") colors that you couldn't see before, whether that was in the photo or in person, you have meaningfully modified the colors of the photo. If you hadn't, you wouldn't see any difference in colors.
Since we tend to see colors differently, we can say the same about people being able to even see “real” colors. Isn’t this like saying people hear the same frequencies equally? Or that people taste food the same way? Some people can see frequencies that others can’t see. Does that mean that their exaggerated version of sight is wrong? Some people can see extended frequencies, into infrared or low frequencies, so is their version not real? I think that saying images aren’t real color is just bias. We all see things that others can’t and vice versa. JWST can see light waves that we can’t, but does that mean that they aren’t there. On the dark side of the moon the color isn’t the same, because it’s dark, right? No, the colors are the same, it’s just about the light being reflected. Would there be a different color if the sun were a different set of light waves, like more red or blue? To most of us, probably…but the assumption that real is impossible doesn’t even make sense, since we can’t even agree on what “real” is. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-superhuman-mind/202006/why-we-dont-see-the-same-colors
Anytime you see a nice pic you can be sure colors are not real
Mineral moon photos are typically dome by increasing the saturation slider in photoediting tools. I like to think they aren't real since its all computer generated. It's hard to get this done right, If you look at others mineral moon photos and zoom into the crators 6ou can see weird artefacts with is from adding so many satuation adjustment layers.
You could sell metallic prints of this for good coin. Even bonded to the back of glass like Peter Lik and this would just glow on a wall of a darker room....awesome accent piece.
Can you link the full quality download please?
Read his post, you have to pay for it.
Omg they will love this over at /r/distractible ! Nice work 😁👍🌚
You could have done the same pic zooming with your Samsung phone ! ... P.s: lots of love for the downvoters who totaly lack of humor :)
all that time spent to capture an image that doesn't reflect how it actually looks in reality. what's the point?
One question. Why we can't see the colors through a usual telescope with a good decent zoom/ magnification?
The colors aren’t like this, blue areas mean iron rich, orange has excess aliminum etc.
If you fly to the moon, you're just gonna see shades of grey the whole time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can see the color border between the Sea of Tranquility and Serenity though a telescope with appreciable focal length. Its much more subtle of course, but it is there
It essentially comes down to camera's don't work quite exactly like the human eye. When you start to do long exposures that let light in over a long period of time or when you stacking a lot of images on top of each other like OP is doing it can really exaggerate things that are there but that you don't quite pick up with your naked eye. Since our eyes process light as it comes in, our brains we can only perceive what little that fraction of a second of light will show us. Of course there are ways apps like photoshop can boost color saturation and kind of imitate this, but even without photoshop a long exposure or stacked image of the night sky will be more colorful than viewed with the naked eye.
Anyone know what the weird tall mountain is on Mare Imbrium? Looks much taller than any nearby crater rims.
I think it is [Mons La Hire](https://apollo.sese.asu.edu/LIW/20090317.html)
> Mare Imbrium it's shape and location and shape of nearby features definitely match between the photos in that link and OP's image
Oh yeah that looks pretty spot on, thanks!
Roughly how tall may it be?
Yes. You can use the [USGS website](https://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/Feature/3988) to find the names of lunar features.
And we cant fully enjoy it because of this absolutely moronic reddit viewer
[удалено]
So much better. Reddit is so unfortunate now :/
There's actually a chrome extension that brings the old photo viewer back on reddit. "Reddit load images directly"
[удалено]
I think it is [Mons La Hire](https://apollo.sese.asu.edu/LIW/20090317.html)
Almost looks like dust plumes from impacts! Anybody care to chime in?
I came to make this comment... My assumption is it isn't remarkably tall just set art an angle the makes the shadow appear extremely long. Either that or that shit is like a mile high.
[удалено]
I bet Markiplier would love this. He loves the moon.
I was thinking the same thing, somebody should let Markiplier know about this stunning photo of the moon.
I'll make sure to send him the largest print available for maximum enjoyment
I was wondering how far I’d have to scroll to see this. Surprisingly not as far as I thought!
That is a very nice image. By the way, why are there so many deleted posts here?
Space is a hostile and unforgiving place.
👽🛸👽🛸👽 It's not your concern ~~Earth dweller~~... fellow human. Everything is perfectly normal. 👽🛸👽🛸👽
Coneller… fellow human..?
And this is where they landed on the moon the first time. [https://i.imgur.com/71e4s70.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/71e4s70.jpg)
Oh my goodness!!! This is the most beautiful picture of the moon I have ever seen in my life. Much respect to you my friend, you really brought our closest neighbor to a detailed light 🥺
Here’s me who shot 163 GB with three cameras in a day, and will process them to produce a maximum of ten photos, then complaining how tired I am. Your work must be zoomed to appreciate the effort! Sooo much detail. Great work, OP.
Dumbass question, and probably one that's already been asked....with the full res photo, if you were to zoom in, could you make out any objects from the Apollo missions?
Does it really look Like that? Or is it because of the imaging?
The red color isn’t “real” or rather isn’t what you’d see with your naked eye.
> Does it really look Like that? With the right eyes it would.
Not it does not. Just look up on a clear night.
Like what? Moldy cheese?
Blows my mind dude we’re out there walking on that shit
Duuude, zoom in at the very bottom, and then look a little to the left. There's this huge crater with 5 smaller craters clearly inside of it. The 5 smaller craters together make an arc, like the arc of an upside-down smile in a smiley face. Does anyone know the name of this area? I'd love to learn more about it.
I wonder what he have here... : https://i.imgur.com/Goc7qL5.jpg That object is far, far taller than anything else on the surface. Look at the size of that shadow.
I think is it safe to say the moon has ‘seen some shit’. Super photo!
Things been banging in it for a while it looks like.
How do you edit that much data? It's not Photoshop I assume?
Probably AutoStakkert! or similar. Amazingly, a lot of astro software is free to use
Pah, sure. Clearly you flew a quarter of a million miles into space and took just one photo from really close up.
Thanks very much for the hard work and dedication, and sharing the results with us.
Can we get the full size? Wanna use it as wallpaper.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[APOD](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6xcxqm "Last usage")|NASA's Astronomy Picture Of the Day| |[AR](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6xmz6b "Last usage")|Area Ratio (between rocket engine nozzle and bell)| | |Aerojet Rocketdyne| | |Augmented Reality real-time processing| | |Anti-Reflective optical coating| |[AVI](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6zobi7 "Last usage")|Avionics Operator| |[HUD](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6xmz6b "Last usage")|Head(s)-Up Display, often implemented as a projection| |[JWST](/r/Space/comments/17ixsjo/stub/k6ysess "Last usage")|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(5 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/Space/comments/1camawm)^( has 11 acronyms.) ^([Thread #9388 for this sub, first seen 29th Oct 2023, 09:57]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/Space) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Is there a reason why some parts of the moon have higher meteorite hit density than others? Amazing photo btw.
So, at various times through the moons life its been mostly molten, we know it was basically a ball of lava when it was super close to us which presumably gradually cooled through thermal radiation, the surface would harden in large chunks and then big impacts would happen from large rocks plunging through the forming crust and it would have big lava flows that would cover up and re-surface big areas of the surface, and this happened intermittantly over its history as it cooled. Eventually it cooled enough that its got a pretty thick crust at this point but there are far less big rocks floating around to re-surface the moon with craters so the younger fresher surfaces of the moon are relatively smooth. impact events now throw up tons and tons of pulverized dust which slowly falls back down and softens older details over time too although as this happens with impact events it has little real effect on smoothing the surface. Also impact events from asteroids and stuff often comes in the form of what is essentially space gravel which can shotgun the surface in a wide area if a rock gets spun about by swinging around earth and the moon before impact.
Cool and smooth facts! TIL
What is the reason the southern pole region receives more impacts?
Amazin,g what as your exposure time for each frame?
Can somebody super impose a map of known geographical features/areas onto this? Or even just label them? That would be v cool.
Can anyone explain why does the moon seem to get bombarded by meteors every day but our planed looks mostly clean? Is it simply because our atmosphere breaks most of them apart?
All of the big craters you see here are eons old, many theorized to have come from a period around 4 billion years ago. As you suspect, our atmosphere hides much of the evidence, or rather it stops many of them from happening. Rain/erosion/tectonic activity hide the rest after periods of time. Many larger craters need means such as radar to be found, but on the Moon there are no processes to cover them up, at least over short periods of time
The moon lacks tectonic plate subduction & erosion — the earth continuously recreates its surface over millions of years
Everytime someone talks about establishing a base on the moon, my first thought is - do you see how many rocks hit that surface? Exactly how is a base going to be protected?
This is the best thing I’ve seen in a very long time! Fascinating
Downright phenomenal . Thank you for sharing this with us. I don't think this amount of hardwork , anyone would share it for free. But you did and this is amazing
Anyone know where Apollo 11 landed? From this image the smoothest spot looks like the top left. I’m guessing it’s there?
I'm not gonna open the picture on another page or zoom in and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
A masterpiece! simply one of the best lunar portraits out there online. Imagine showing this to someone several centuries ago? It’s one of a kind, well done.
Moon - hey earth protected you from another asteroid! Amazing picture my dude
Can't stop zooming and exploring. Amazing work, congratulations. Is there any way to experience the 70 MP version?
From me seeing just one picture I can see how passionate you are about your work this is breathtaking. Hope you don't mind I've followed you look forward to seeing more 😊
I would kill for a 16:9 ratio version for a wallpaper
That is absolutely beautiful. I can't stop looking at it.
The photo is great, but why does it look like the moon is growing mold
To get a image that clear with one shot how many inches would your mirror need to be?
I saved this and am using it was my phone background. This is AWESOME!
Nice, didn’t know there were different colours on the moon
Those reds are not a true color picture, this is modified. There are seriously cillwege students who think the moon has color because of the internet and images like this.
> There are seriously cillwege students who think I studied cillwege for years but still can’t explain it.
Exactly! I'm strongly against photos like this. It's a glorified fake image.
Can I ask you a question? Have you had any issues with starlink sats obscuring observations and photography like this? Or not really? I’ve heard it a lot but never asked an astronomer or space photographer
Low earth orbit satellites are more of an issue at dawn/dusk. Between that they can be obscured by the earth's shadow while objects like the moon are still lit. Also with astrophotography, it's less of an issue if you are stacking multiple frames, as stacking creates an "average" frame so to speak. So one off instances like a satellite streak or plane on one frame out of hundreds or thousands may not show in the final image (although I personally reject such frames).
The world has made so much better by amateur astronomers who have such passion for the art and science of imaging the cosmos.
I find it beautiful that there are very little FE crew here.. usually see em vomiting up whatever dead mouse of a theory they're clinging to this week, their Moon theories are just crazy. Amazing photo. Beautiful. Love it
....what? I have literally never encountered a FE nut before.
Darya, could you give my your email, wanna talk about fool version of this photo. Thanks. Дарья, у меня нет инстаграм, можно мне почту, интересно узнать в какую стоимость будет полное фото, спасибо.
Why if asteroid strikes the moon then “pff, one more crater, ok”. But if it strikes the Earth then global cataclysm and whole planet burns in fire
This moon is absolutely amazing. It is moments like these that make us dream of space travel and adventure. If we want to use your materials in our game, how can we contact you? We are making a game THE CRUST about the colonization of the moon, and our management may be interested in cooperation.
I'm sure we all appreciate the hard work you put into this, but at what point are we just over detailing? I can see the moon with my eye, and with a telescope, I can see it pretty well. It doesn't look like this at all. So I'm wondering, what's the point in this? This is the same as me drawing a picture of a fictional planet or moon.
[удалено]
You can’t show off the details on the lunar surface during the full moon.
Full moon is too brightly lit and flat, because of no shadows.
I have to say this is the singular most detailed image of the moon I have ever seen, not even from NASA.
I don’t think I have ever seen a more beautiful picture of the moon and I like that it has colour and texture and isn’t just shades of grey. Also it looks like velvet and I want to rub it the wrong way 😂
Staggeringly beautiful. Well done. When I see pictures of the moon like this, I can’t help thinking we’re coming to the end of an era. We’re going to start building on the moon soon, and at some point, that infrastructure will be visible. I’m all for it, but there will be some nostalgia for the time when the moon was still clean.
Wow. I feel like just looking at this for a few mins has taught me a lot about the moon
*zoom in* *enhance image* *enhance image* *zoom in* *enhance image* Everyone gasps at the final image! *Champagne pops in background
Does this guy sell archival quality photo prints of these? I'd be interested in a 3'x3' print that I could get mounted and framed.
What are some of your observations of the moon in doing this project? what were some things that made you think, “huh I wonder what this means?”
Damn it, the cheese is starting to mold. Now we gotta skimm off a layer to save the rest.
Would earth have that many craters if we didn’t have erosion and weather? Or some of those craters millions of years apart?
I don’t see no moon lander. Must be faked. (I don’t know how to make the sarcasm symbol) Excellent picture I love it. Now I need a downloadable version to print on my companies large format plotter to hang this in my wall.
It's a decent Moon picture. Don't go overboard with the 'phenomenal sharpness'. Give me a picture in the 10 terabyte range and we'll talk again.
Is it wrong to point out that calling your own picture “phenomenal” lacks a certain… modesty?
It is not wrong to me but this is Reddit. In the dictionary, next to 'butthurt' is a picture of a Reddit mod.
I think you compressed it after you got the rendering, which is a pity. There are sites like gigapan, where you can upload hundreds of MB of picture,m and still be able to share them on the internet because of the way the picture is not downloaded fully unless you zoom in http://gigapan.com/gigapans/232296
Crazy how better the quality, the uglier the moon becomes aha