Thank you! You can find a video on how to do the effect if you look up: "Create a 3D Fly-Through From Your Telescope's Images". ua-cam.com/video/b7LI2nujCfg/v-deo.htmlsi=HnDWjlzw3dmIV92p
Interesting topic, and I agree that the common habit of lifting blacks to grey is in large part due to the limitations of the devices we view them on and their poor handling of truly dark colours. When you plan to share images online, you either have to lift the darkest areas or clip blacks completely to avoid artefacts. which is more desirable? I would rather lift the dark areas - at least that way, you're not deliberately eliminating data from your image. I tend to do that as the very last layer in my editing in Affinity. That way I can switch it on or off at will.
You don't have to lift black for information fidelity because black in the image isn't clipping. It's only clipping if the black was introduced at the expense of useful information. But the issues with black should become less of a problem as better quality OLED monitors become more common. I am using a VA monitor that is known for good blacks and hi-fi color, and it's been calibrated, and the blacks look very nice. But, in addition to the monitor issue, there is also the online compression issue. You could have the best monitor money could buy and you'd still get black crushing on a site like UA-cam where the image and video compression is vicious with black crushing. It's a long standing issue for UA-cam.
@SKYSTORY Agreed: a long standing issue for most (all?) social media, and also for most devices that people consume these images from. Until it's no longer an issue, publishing online means lifting the dark areas, crushing them completely to zero, or accepting banding and other artefacts in the dark areas, along with the inevitable negative comments that go with that. The beauty of Affinity and other layer-based editors is that you can lift the darker areas non-destructively and switch on/off as appropriate for your target platform.
@@captainfruitbatifyAbsolutely agree. Amazing it's so hard just to portray a good black, isn't it. Something that could easily be done with photographic film or even a black sheet of construction paper lol
What I need to know is what objects that emit visible light actually look like up close. I always get the "is that what it really looks like?" question and I would really like to be able to answer that with images processed to appear similar to how they'd actually look up close. Like the Orion Nebula, what would it look like if earth were close enough that it was real large in the sky. I've seen people say we wouldn't see color in it but i highly doubt that because it's so bright and barely any exposure time reveals red and blue and eveb visually through a telescope it sometimes appears almost greenish gray
That looks like an interesting topic to research. In truth, distance does give us perspective. If we were up close, there's a lot we wouldn't see. An example in point is the fact that our own star system is in a nebula right now. We can't see it and can barely detect it because we are too close. We only know it's there because NASA detects particles of it zipping through our star system as we move through it. We have no idea what our nebula would like if we were a few thousand ly away. But you are right. If we were closer to the Great Orion Nebula, there are things we would see, for sure. The Trapezium Cluster within it would certainly stand out. And probably some of the gasses around it. The red and white gasses further out might even appear as a haze. When I shoot the Great Orion Nebula, I use exposures as little as 1 second; it's just that bright.
Extremely interesting and thought provoking. Just like hyper saturation is a preferred method, so is “grey” space. Pretty rare to see an APOD with truly black space. As in much of art what the experts say is “good” tends to drive all the art in that direction until someone says, “You know, the Emperor really doesn’t have any clothes on!”
I was looking at some of 2023's image award winners just recently. There was a good variety of everything from artistic interpretation to lifted space to black space. And that's good, IMO. Balance is such an important part of a good image.
They do tend to lean toward balance and preservation of data. I like the awards I've seen this year. There is latitude for artistic interpretation and fidelity to source data.
@@SKYST0RY I was jokingly referring to the CMB. Obviously outside the spectral range of our sensors, lol. More seriously, what really is "light pollution"? I think that space itself is indeed black, but the deeper we go, the more of not-space we can reveal. I think the modern lower noise cameras, combined with extreme integration times, and tools like RC has developed are getting amateurs ever closer to the real deep views that the professionals can do. Of course, there will always be the limitations of aperture and seeing etc, but... hehe ;)
Very useful video. How did you get the stars to move at the 9:12 mark? That effect is really cool!
Thank you! You can find a video on how to do the effect if you look up: "Create a 3D Fly-Through From Your Telescope's Images". ua-cam.com/video/b7LI2nujCfg/v-deo.htmlsi=HnDWjlzw3dmIV92p
@@SKYST0RY Thanks!
Interesting topic, and I agree that the common habit of lifting blacks to grey is in large part due to the limitations of the devices we view them on and their poor handling of truly dark colours. When you plan to share images online, you either have to lift the darkest areas or clip blacks completely to avoid artefacts. which is more desirable? I would rather lift the dark areas - at least that way, you're not deliberately eliminating data from your image. I tend to do that as the very last layer in my editing in Affinity. That way I can switch it on or off at will.
You don't have to lift black for information fidelity because black in the image isn't clipping. It's only clipping if the black was introduced at the expense of useful information. But the issues with black should become less of a problem as better quality OLED monitors become more common. I am using a VA monitor that is known for good blacks and hi-fi color, and it's been calibrated, and the blacks look very nice. But, in addition to the monitor issue, there is also the online compression issue. You could have the best monitor money could buy and you'd still get black crushing on a site like UA-cam where the image and video compression is vicious with black crushing. It's a long standing issue for UA-cam.
@SKYSTORY Agreed: a long standing issue for most (all?) social media, and also for most devices that people consume these images from. Until it's no longer an issue, publishing online means lifting the dark areas, crushing them completely to zero, or accepting banding and other artefacts in the dark areas, along with the inevitable negative comments that go with that. The beauty of Affinity and other layer-based editors is that you can lift the darker areas non-destructively and switch on/off as appropriate for your target platform.
@@captainfruitbatifyAbsolutely agree. Amazing it's so hard just to portray a good black, isn't it. Something that could easily be done with photographic film or even a black sheet of construction paper lol
What I need to know is what objects that emit visible light actually look like up close. I always get the "is that what it really looks like?" question and I would really like to be able to answer that with images processed to appear similar to how they'd actually look up close. Like the Orion Nebula, what would it look like if earth were close enough that it was real large in the sky. I've seen people say we wouldn't see color in it but i highly doubt that because it's so bright and barely any exposure time reveals red and blue and eveb visually through a telescope it sometimes appears almost greenish gray
That looks like an interesting topic to research. In truth, distance does give us perspective. If we were up close, there's a lot we wouldn't see. An example in point is the fact that our own star system is in a nebula right now. We can't see it and can barely detect it because we are too close. We only know it's there because NASA detects particles of it zipping through our star system as we move through it. We have no idea what our nebula would like if we were a few thousand ly away. But you are right. If we were closer to the Great Orion Nebula, there are things we would see, for sure. The Trapezium Cluster within it would certainly stand out. And probably some of the gasses around it. The red and white gasses further out might even appear as a haze. When I shoot the Great Orion Nebula, I use exposures as little as 1 second; it's just that bright.
Extremely interesting and thought provoking. Just like hyper saturation is a preferred method, so is “grey” space. Pretty rare to see an APOD with truly black space. As in much of art what the experts say is “good” tends to drive all the art in that direction until someone says, “You know, the Emperor really doesn’t have any clothes on!”
I was looking at some of 2023's image award winners just recently. There was a good variety of everything from artistic interpretation to lifted space to black space. And that's good, IMO. Balance is such an important part of a good image.
Interesting. Explains a lot of what I see in award winning celestial photos.
They do tend to lean toward balance and preservation of data. I like the awards I've seen this year. There is latitude for artistic interpretation and fidelity to source data.
uhh, it's transparent.
Hmmm. I wonder how to portray 3 K as black? ;)
I am unsure what you mean. 3 K as in color temperature?
@@SKYST0RY I was jokingly referring to the CMB. Obviously outside the spectral range of our sensors, lol.
More seriously, what really is "light pollution"? I think that space itself is indeed black, but the deeper we go, the more of not-space we can reveal. I think the modern lower noise cameras, combined with extreme integration times, and tools like RC has developed are getting amateurs ever closer to the real deep views that the professionals can do. Of course, there will always be the limitations of aperture and seeing etc, but... hehe ;)
Space not black. Its transparent. Just not enough light for us to see. Who knows, ask an animal that can see in the dark whats goin on out there.