Also made it available in torrent form (with the IPFS URL as a web seed)
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
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.
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.
Also, cool trackerless magnet link, worked a treat.
A 4k bitmap is still only 28mb.
edit: i a word
Author's comment about how it was made
"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."
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.
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....
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...
For comparison: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/we...
Future proofing for my own-it-someday 8K monitor background.
 On Chrome for MacOS. Granted my macbook is a couple years old, and the Apple graphics drivers are garbage.
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...
A 32 inch 4k display downsampled to 1080p, well... :)
The full resolution image is in the comments, it's uploaded small because of Reddit
Edit: misstated Leo instead of lunar, Leo is low earth orbit
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:
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...?
I didn't see any example of that in the comment threads.
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?
Last time I used it, Google Earth provided a 3D view of the Moon and of Mars.
nomacs is a free, open source image viewer, which supports multiple platforms. You can use it for viewing all common image formats including RAW and psd images.
%CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT TIME COMMAND
2.8 1.6 823764 277528 pts/6 Sl+ 0:06 viewnior updated mosaic.png
When I view the moon with my telescope, I see the same haze. I think its earths atmosphere, not the moon that causes it.
Any dust that did get kicked up (by meteorites?) would settle back down relatively quickly.