1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Telescope with 268-megapixel camera snaps its first amazing picture of deep space

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by lyndonguitar, Dec 7, 2012.

  1. lyndonguitar

    lyndonguitar I play games

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,634 (0.98/day)
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Location:
    Philippines
    Soylent Joe, MT Alex, Maban and 5 others say thanks.
  2. McSteel

    McSteel

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    594 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Oh, this is so getting printed on an Epson Stylus Pro 9900 @ A0 glossy!
    Great addition to the planetarium hallway wall :)

    Thanks for the heads-up!

    I wonder when Eta Carinae is gonna go off...
     
    lyndonguitar says thanks.
  3. Drone

    Drone

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,742 (1.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,466
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    lyndonguitar says thanks.
  4. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    Is this 700MB picture going really slow for anyone else? Been downloading at 20KBPS for about three hours now.
     
  5. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    10,909 (3.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,390
    Finally, an image big enough to use for Eyefinity :pimp:
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  6. St.Alia-Of-The-Knife New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2011
    Messages:
    195 (0.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    32
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    You are gonna hope that the gamma burst isnt directed at earth
     
  7. MasterInvader

    MasterInvader

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    275 (0.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Location:
    Portugal
    Downloading @ 1.2Mbps here :D
     
  8. Maban

    Maban

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,431 (1.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,035
    Location:
    Minnesota/Norway
    41% done, 22 minutes remaining. I can't wait to crash my computer with this pic.
     
  9. DayKnight

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    Messages:
    284 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    16
    Downloaded like an hour ago but damn, need SSD NOW!.
     
  10. McSteel

    McSteel

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    594 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Or I could hope that it dies as a pair-instability supernova, so I don't have to worry about GRBs altogether ;)
     
  11. 3870x2

    3870x2

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,875 (2.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    689
    Location:
    Joplin, Mo
    Yeah, if your eyefinity included 24 monitors.
     
    t_ski says thanks.
  12. t_ski

    t_ski Former Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    10,909 (3.50/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,390
    lolz
     
    Crunching for Team TPU
  13. Morgoth

    Morgoth

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795 (1.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    250
    Location:
    Netherlands
    i can stil count pixels
    also i found artifacts in the image near big stars
     
  14. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,555 (1.90/day)
    Thanks Received:
    952
    Is this going to be viewable in the windows photo viewer?
     
  15. McSteel

    McSteel

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    594 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    Those are more of an optical artifact, and not necessarily the CCD sensor's or the DSP's fault. Depending on the median integration interval of the CCD, the exposure is long enough to include various subtle seeing shifts of the celestial objects' images. This can usually be cleared up via image editing software, but not in all cases.

    And the pixelation you mention is actually granulation, which is dependent upon the individual cell size of the CCD.
     
  16. Maban

    Maban

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,431 (1.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,035
    Location:
    Minnesota/Norway
    Some quick numbers I put together cause I was bored.

    It would take the following number of monitors of that resolution to display the entire image.

    88 2560x1600
    104 2560x1440
    150 1920x1200
    170 1920x1080
    180 1600x1200
    204 1680x1050
    375 1280x720

    Also, it comes out to be 324 megapixels. Why the discrepancy?
     
    lyndonguitar, HossHuge and MT Alex say thanks.
  17. McSteel

    McSteel

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Messages:
    594 (0.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    284
    That's because the OmegaCAM uses a composite CCD sensor, not a single die. The thing would've been enormous if it were in one piece. Instead, it's comprised of 32 individual sensors, and they're not identical either.

    268 mpx is just an estimate of the total usable resolution, but seeing how the picture is taken by sequentially reading out the sensors, some of them can be left out of the final stitching, or they may be used multiple times in the same image, giving more pixels than expected.

    The telescope's field of view is wider than what the OmegaCAM can "see" at any given time, but it can be shifted real-time to catch the light it wouldn't be able to if it were stationary.

    I actually believe that the raw image is even larger, but the team that processed it trimmed the image to exclude the parts that don't contain the nebula, and the ones that exhibit any form of easily discernible aberrations.
     
    Maban says thanks.
  18. lemonadesoda

    lemonadesoda

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    6,260 (2.10/day)
    Thanks Received:
    967
    photoshopped ;)
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page