
I took 50k images of the night sky to make an 81 Megapixel image of the moon - sohkamyung
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly_50000_images_of_the_night_sky_to/
======
m-p-3
Becausr the full-res version links went down often yesterday, I'm hosting it
on my IPFS node, here's the link (for those on IPFS, if you can afford the
bandwidth please pin it to spread the load :) )
[https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVLTMHtLRhnft3QspDx4qTJeXY6hiib1j77UfQ...](https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmVLTMHtLRhnft3QspDx4qTJeXY6hiib1j77UfQmY54CGe/mosaic.png)

Also made it available in torrent form (with the IPFS URL as a web seed)
[http://www.urlhash.com/124410/mosaic.png.torrent](http://www.urlhash.com/124410/mosaic.png.torrent)

~~~
jjcm
I've got plenty of bandwidth on my server -
[http://files.jjcm.org/mosaic.png](http://files.jjcm.org/mosaic.png) if anyone
needs a non-ipfs / magnet link :)

Alternatively, if you have a slower connection I made a lossless webp here
which should result in the same output at about 1/10th the size:
[http://files.jjcm.org/mosaic.webp](http://files.jjcm.org/mosaic.webp)

~~~
steelframe
Loading this image brings me back to the days of my 2400 BAUD modem.

~~~
canada_dry
youtu.be/ckc6XSSh52w?t=44

------
Rooster61
As an amateur astronomer who has looked directly at the moon through a
telescope hundreds of times, this photo looks strange and artificial, though I
know it's not. I pondered why this was for a bit, and came to the conclusion
that its otherworldly quality is actually due to being superior to what one
can see directly. At any one moment, direct observation will have artifacts of
the air moving between you and the target object. This picture quashes all of
that at once, lending an "uncanny valley" feeling I think spurred by the fact
that my brain just isn't used to that level of fidelity looking at a real
object. This work is fantastic.

~~~
madaxe_again
No no, it _is_ strange and artificial. The stars are comped in from something
else, and the moonglow looks like a gaussian blur. Still, it's pretty, and has
hopefully inspired people to go stare at the moon.

To be fair, _most_ astrophotography is "enhanced" one way or another - I can
spend hours screwing around with a single DSO shot after stacking.

Here's a quick and dirty 30 second reconstruction using a shot of the moon
from last summer, acquired in much the same way as OP - except using an EdgeHD
14 with an EOS 7D in video mode. It's pretty crap as last year was my first
foray into planetary imaging - I usually do DSOs.

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hYLJeb_pO9z2qNFwtux0q5Jix9D...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hYLJeb_pO9z2qNFwtux0q5Jix9DZ5MFT/view?usp=sharing)

~~~
jcurbo
Amateur astronomer here as well that has also done a bit of lunar photography.
(envious of your EdgeHD 14...)

I made a similar comment about the moonglow, but thinking a bit I think it's a
combination of: \- Higher dynamic range than the human eye (combination of
stars, moonglow, and high contrast lunar surface both in shadow and in
sunlight) \- High resolution imaging, and the digital signal processing aspect
(noise reduction, deconvolution, etc.)

They combine to make something that looks kinda like reality but is really a
mix, and maybe triggers a little bit of the uncanny valley effect.

------
k4r1
All the download links are down at the moment. Here's a torrent link:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:j6ixrzpitvpmkx5tgroy6utcpqr5hhhj&dn=updated%20mosaic.png&xl=304863698&fc=1

~~~
marci
You can download/share via webtorrent

[https://instant.io/#4f9178e5e89d5ec55fb3345d8f52627c23d39ce9](https://instant.io/#4f9178e5e89d5ec55fb3345d8f52627c23d39ce9)

~~~
gibspaulding
This is very cool. I've never used this site before!

~~~
anderspitman
You might also be interesting in file.pizza. Very useful. The webtorrent
ecosystem in general is very cool tech.

------
halvdan
Beautiful picture!

Author's comment about how it was made
[https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly...](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly_50000_images_of_the_night_sky_to/egmo9s8)

~~~
gus_massa
More details from another user
[https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly...](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly_50000_images_of_the_night_sky_to/egn6mbz/)

------
ptero
This is great; as another pointer,
[http://clarkvision.com](http://clarkvision.com) is my go-to source for
beautiful astrophotography with technical explanations. Look for astro gallery
and tutorials if interested

~~~
KnightOfWords
A quick word of caution. For anyone who might be interested in
astrophotography I really wouldn't recommend any of the tutorials on the
clark-vision site. This is what the co-author of an astronomical image
processing program had to say about them:
[http://forum.startools.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=912](http://forum.startools.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=912)

"The "articles" exhibit a litany of errors, nonsense and misunderstandings of
how some basic algorithms and mathematical concepts work in image processing,
including (but sadly not limited to) light pollution removal, deconvolution,
the commutative property in mathematics, stacking, linearity vs non-linearity
of data, basic physics and color theory.

After politely inquiring why he thought any of this was good practice or
scientifically accurate and getting nowhere, even after demonstrating the
mathematics and writing code to disprove some of his more fanciful claims and
pointing out errors and untruths. The fact that I'm having to put this warning
up, gives you an indication that that didn't go very well."

~~~
ptero
This can definitely be true and I personally find that the writing style of
Clark's tutorials could use some polish -- his random switches between
scientific and colloquial styles within a single tutorial can annoy both
engineers and artists. I also heard that he does not like debate that he deems
repetitive and is not be the friendliest opponent to his critics.

That said, the criticism above is very scarce on details. What exactly is the
nonsense about mathematical concepts that he is objecting to? Roger's data
describe his metrics, methodology, data and conclusions (not to the level
required to publish in Nature, but better than most websites on the topic).
One can argue with either or all of those, but such arguments should include
the rigor at least to the level used on Clark's site.

That way we can understand what are some reasonable simplifications that are
OK even if not strictly correct (e.g., when we tell middle school kids that
equation x^2 = -1 has no solutions without into complex numbers or axioms of
R) and which are genuine, major errors.

But the strongest argument going for Clark, IMO, is his stunning pictures. If
his methods describe how he produced them, I am interested in reading more. My
2c, corrections welcome.

~~~
KnightOfWords
> That said, the criticism above is very scarce on details. What exactly is
> the nonsense about mathematical concepts that he is objecting to?

There are examples in the thread I linked to.

> But the strongest argument going for Clark, IMO, is his stunning pictures.

I've seen countless amateurs produce far better images with much cheaper
equipment. He also misses the point of modding cameras, improving Ha
sensitivity allows more structure to be captured. A case in point, this is my
quick and cheap North America nebula with an old modded DSLR and Ha filter:
[https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4490/37423232795_8a37a7ecbf_h....](https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4490/37423232795_8a37a7ecbf_h.jpg)

My colour image isn't great but it shows a great deal more structure than Mr
Clark's, despite using the same 200mm camera lens and less exposure time:
[https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/593/22026540174_273c7ffa8b_b.j...](https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/593/22026540174_273c7ffa8b_b.jpg)

For comparison:
[http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/we...](http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/north-
america-nebula.c07.25.2015.0J6A4162-213-c-c1-1181s.html)

------
ourmandave
The image is 9000 x 9000 pixels.

Future proofing for my own-it-someday 8K monitor background.

~~~
LeonM
I tried opening the image, but it made my entire laptop unresponsive[1]. So
let's hope the graphics manufacturers catch up with the pixel trent before
those 8K monitors become mainstream.

[1] On Chrome for MacOS. Granted my macbook is a couple years old, and the
Apple graphics drivers are garbage.

~~~
givinguflac
If you have an nvidia card in your Mac, they make drivers available which work
well.

~~~
LeonM
I do have an nvidia card, but since MacOS 10.14 the nvidia driver manager
reports that my driver (387.10.10.10.40.105) is not compatible with my OS, and
it also reports that there are no newer drivers available when using the
update function. So I'm currently back at the default Apple driver.

I have ran the nvidia driver before MacOS 10.14, and it did feel slightly
faster than the driver supplied by Apple. I doubt if it will improve opening
an 8K*8K image in a browser though...

------
aboutruby
Pretty much every download link is down, but the torrent is working:
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:j6ixrzpitvpmkx5tgroy6utcpqr5hhhj&dn=updated%20mosaic.png&xl=304863698&fc=1

------
senorgomez
A couple of 1920x1080 versions for desktop, I like the one on the right so
there is space for icons on left:
[https://imgur.com/a/I62aGZ2](https://imgur.com/a/I62aGZ2)

------
gppk
~~I obviously don't know enough about images... Why would you store this as a
jpg and not a LOSELESS format?~~

The full resolution image is in the comments, it's uploaded small because of
Reddit

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lGDV6jOHc0v5UdkxcqYShqhKBz_...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lGDV6jOHc0v5UdkxcqYShqhKBz_UijPl/view)

~~~
sureaboutthis
> LOSELESS

Lossless

~~~
wongarsu
you lose less with a lossless codec

~~~
sureaboutthis
I'm glad you didn't write "loose less".

~~~
Asooka
Well, a lossless codec loses less information and so it's less loose with the
pixel data :)

------
prickledpear
This comment explains some of the technical details:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly...](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly_50000_images_of_the_night_sky_to/egn6mbz/)

------
squarefoot
This is so beautiful, thanks! I'll cut some pieces to be used as desktop
backgrounds. The southern part of the moon and surrounding space if turned
upside down would make a really nice one. BTW, I spent some time zooming
around the stars and objects and some of them look rather interesting, at
least to a completely astronomy illiterate like me, such as the closest
objects to the moon at roughly 2 o' clock.

------
faitswulff
Anyone have a mirror of the full-size lossless image? All the download links
are dead atm.

~~~
neddeadstark
Seem to be up now, I just downloaded

------
Theodores
If anyone wants to look at this image properly then you need OpenSeadragon and
VIPS.

OpenSeadragon enables you to view this image at full resolution without your
device keeling over, VIPS enables you to make the image tiles required to get
OpenSeadragon to work.

OpenSeadragon has only ever made it to the academic world, in this age of
Instagram people want average resolution selfies that take three seconds to
look at. OpenSeadragon enables a deeper look.

If anyone has ten minutes spare:

[https://openseadragon.github.io/](https://openseadragon.github.io/)

On linux just apt-get install vips and then:

vips dzsave massive.jpg massive

And you are then good to go.

Now where was that torrent link...?

~~~
enriquto
For images of a moderate size such as this one, viewing it on a regular image
viewer is less of a hassle.

~~~
Theodores
Such as?

I didn't see any example of that in the comment threads.

~~~
planteen
Firefox works great, as others have mentioned.

~~~
Theodores
Have you tried OpenSeadragon? I feel like I have been casting pearls at swines
here.

~~~
enriquto
Openseadragon may make sense for huge images, not for merely large ones as
this one, that fits comfortably in memory. Besides, not everyone is keen on
using "web-based" programs just because.

------
phront
Great!

It is interesting, why Google or anybody else have not made a map of Moon just
like Googlemap of Earth. Are there some technical problems?

~~~
raphaelj
They did: [https://www.google.com/moon/](https://www.google.com/moon/)

Last time I used it, Google Earth provided a 3D view of the Moon and of Mars.

~~~
jessriedel
It's too bad they haven't updated this to act like the modern version of
Google Maps. It's like going back in time to the old HTML version.

~~~
mrep
That's because you aren't using the maps version:
[https://www.google.com/maps/space/moon/](https://www.google.com/maps/space/moon/)

~~~
jessriedel
Oh thank goodness.

------
diegoperini
Windows Photos is having a hard time despite my strong specs. Any alternative
to use aside from browsers?

~~~
geolgau
This makes me lose my shit every time I want to see a simple jpg image in
Windows 10. WHY?? Even my 14 year old linux laptop can open 100+ MB images
faster than W10.

~~~
sevensor
Viewnior barely breaks a sweat on my (powerful by 2014 standards) machine

    
    
        %CPU %MEM    VSZ   RSS TTY      STAT TIME COMMAND
         2.8  1.6 823764 277528 pts/6   Sl+  0:06 viewnior updated mosaic.png
    

That's about 804 megabytes allocated, 271 megabytes resident. Took about 2
seconds to read and render the file.

------
scarejunba
What’s the glow over the lit part? There shouldn’t be any dust or air to
provide it there, right?

------
philcarbo
This is amazing! Definitely my new wallpaper... on all my computers. :)

------
omilu
Is the haze around the moon sun light scattering because of moon dust?

~~~
jcurbo
No, it's partially artistic, partially light scattering in the Earth's
atmosphere from the moonlight and the exposure settings he used. The moon does
have a very tenuous atmosphere but nothing thick enough to cause this effect.

~~~
autokad
> "it's partially artistic"

When I view the moon with my telescope, I see the same haze. I think its
earths atmosphere, not the moon that causes it.

------
fergie
Is the resolution high enough to see any man made stuff?

~~~
MrEldritch
Not even close. (81 megapixels is 9000 by 9000, and the moon only takes up
about the middle 1/9th of the image, so it's about 3000 pixels across. So
that's over a km per pixel at the very front of the moon, and even worse at
the edges where the surface is at an oblique angle to our view)

~~~
bradenb
Also, I can't remember the source (maybe it was a "What If?"), but I seem to
recall that it's actually to create a lens that allows us to focus a point on
the moon to allow us to make out current man-made items on the surface of the
moon.

------
KangLi
Awesome picture. Well done :D

------
jordache
majority of the 81 megapixels are not of the moon though..

------
vectorEQ
that doesn't look like cheese at all :S

------
nwellinghoff
Very nice!

