The most detailed images of Pluto here......

[starman1969]

At least that is what is claimed by Space Now.

When I first came across this Twitter site I could tell straight away that the images posted from there were obviously made up. I'm not sure what they are doing it for but I'll include the link so members here can make up their own minds.

The Twitter profile in question is @solarview

Wbsite is http://www.spacenow.com.br/

 

[Carsten Pauer 2]

 

[starman1969]

Check your connection. It works on mine.

--
They are watching us......

 

[Carsten Pauer 2]

Check your connection. It works on mine.

My Connection is fine, it is a Blockage from this Country, like Youtube for German Users.

I must to Hide me, to view this Side.
That is definite a Block for some Users and that is definitive not a good Side. :-x

 

[siddarta]

Starman

Your thread with SPACENOW as theme popped up on our server's daily statistics.

As one of the authors of SPACENOW, I'm used to the skepticism that acompanies first impressions upon seeing the images.

This is to clarify any further doubters that ALL images on SPACENOW are legitimate.

We have been on the web for over 5 years now.

Mainstream media already heralded our discoveries on both Pluto and Charon.

The image taking and processing technique that we perfected is demonstrated on the HMIR icon on top of our homepage.

Although we still encounter naysayers to our breakthrough method, we are confident that this is the cutting edge of solar system astro-photography and one day (most probably when the space probe arrives at Pluto next year and confirms our discoveries) this will be acknowledged.

 

[jp4]

Perhaps in the introduction section you could check your spelling.

 

[siddarta]

What spelling?

 

[jp4]

"It's an amateur astronomers's take..."

 

[siddarta]

From time to time we update the site with new images and we'll correct that misprint and possibly others .

 

[wfektar]

Pluto at its nearest (in 1989) shows an angular resolution of about 0.11 arcsec. Assuming perfect atmosphere, perfect camera, and perfect telescope (actually, better than perfect, as we'll assume no central obstruction) a 14" scope will resolve down to 0.32 arcsec. That's using the less stringent Dawe's criterion (5% modulation). You're claiming resolution down to ~0.01 arcsec.

I don't want to sound harsh but ... um ... that's quite a stretch. If you want others to take such claims seriously you'll have to explain just why you think you're getting that kind of resolution.

 

[ChrisLX200]

Pluto at its nearest (in 1989) shows an angular resolution of about 0.11 arcsec. Assuming perfect atmosphere, perfect camera, and perfect telescope (actually, better than perfect, as we'll assume no central obstruction) a 14" scope will resolve down to 0.32 arcsec. That's using the less stringent Dawe's criterion (5% modulation). You're claiming resolution down to ~0.01 arcsec.

I don't want to sound harsh but ... um ... that's quite a stretch. If you want others to take such claims seriously you'll have to explain just why you think you're getting that kind of resolution.

...and that resolution is for a point source, multiply by x2 or x3 resolve a disk. The claims are utter garbage and I don't know why people are even posting about it. Ignore the troll.

ChrisH

 

[siddarta]

Before answering let me ask something :Have you ever tried shooting Pluto?

I ask that because I always encounter people saying those same things about the Dawes, Raleigh principles, Airy disks, Lagrange that, ..etc and that it is impossible to resolve anything on Pluto.

In the end, it boils down to this: first finding Puto in the nightsky (most people cannot find it).If you haven`t, you would be suprised. (I can upload my RAW FITS images of Pluto later if needed)

Second:The reading of a CCD camera of objects captured in exposures taken in the HMIR way ( did you watch our demonstration vídeos on SPACENOW?.They are lengthy, about 35 minutes, but they show all) is a totaly new raw material to work with.The LRGB combination of bands gives the astro imager a depth that researchers are not familiar with (why? Because they reject color digital SLRs and color CCD cameras).

What my coleague and I discovered while developing the HMIR processing method is that on single perfect shots, an object`s disk will come across imaculate to the sensors of the CCD câmera( you need to take hundres of shots ,sometimes ,to get what we call THE perfect shot).

What´s done after is simply processing out what is noise and excess color while FREE TRANSFORMING the processed object in little enlargement installments so that the resolution achieved in the RAW image does not get lost.( this is the answer to your question).FREE TRANSFORMING stops when limit to enlarging it further becomes aparent.

People will say that that can not be done in research because it`s an algorithm and we are creating artifacts that were not there to begin with. This is the theory, but in reality it WORKS.

Depending on the quality of the RAW image captured with this method and a CCD of ,say 4,2 million pixels, we can enlarge objects to as much as 800% of their original size with practically no resolution loss.

 

[Trollmann]

The images shown are published in a cocoon of mystique and secrets and I do not know what. And that is always a bad sign.

Seems like all images are results from over aggressive image processing destroying whatever is left of the real signal and then amplifying any left over spurious signal - the images are nothing but distorted artefacts from overly optimistic image processing. There is nothing real in the images shown. Nothing.

This is a statement.

Am I sure. Yes. 100 %.

 

[siddarta]

The images shown are published in a cocoon of mystique and secrets and I do not know what. And that is always a bad sign.

Seems like all images are results from over aggressive image processing destroying whatever is left of the real signal and then amplifying any left over spurious signal - the images are nothing but distorted artefacts from overly optimistic image processing. There is nothing real in the images shown. Nothing.

This is a statement.

Am I sure. Yes. 100 %.

Let's see hummm... "published in a cocoon of mystique and secrets".Sounds more like you're talking about the next novel by Dan Brown or J.K Rowling than a critique to SPACENOW.

Next one "are a result of agressive image processing destroying whatever is left of the real signal and then amplifying any left over spurious signal" .Confusing !! So SPACENOW destroys signals to then bring back to life moribund signals ?!

"images are nothing but distorted artifacts from overly optimistic image processing"

Now, That`s a new one !!

"There is nothing real in the images shown" ????

You need to be more specific about what you want to say otherwise I can't address your posts from a technical stanpoint.

 

[wfektar]

I did watch about half of one of the videos, which was all about post-processing. And on your website you talk about the importance of using a CCD instead of a DSLR.

The problem is that neither the signal processing nor the method of capture is important here because the limiting factor (by a lot) is the scope. The high resolution data needed to resolve features on Pluto was lost, rejected by the scope before that data could even get to the sensor. There is no hidden micro information to retrieve as that information was clipped at the scope and never made it to the detector. This is Fourier optics 101 stuff.

You might not agree (in the face of every experiment and theory we have going back to Fourier) and that's fine. But if you want the rest of the community to take your claims seriously you'll have to address this issue in compelling fashion. Extraordinary claims and all ...

 

[siddarta]

I did watch about half of one of the videos, which was all about post-processing. And on your website you talk about the importance of using a CCD instead of a DSLR.

The problem is that neither the signal processing nor the method of capture is important here because the limiting factor (by a lot) is the scope. The high resolution data needed to resolve features on Pluto was lost, rejected by the scope before that data could even get to the sensor. There is no hidden micro information to retrieve as that information was clipped at the scope and never made it to the detector. This is Fourier optics 101 stuff.

You might not agree (in the face of every experiment and theory we have going back to Fourier) and that's fine. But if you want the rest of the community to take your claims seriously you'll have to address this issue in compelling fashion. Extraordinary claims and all ...

Try watching the videos to the very end and you might start to rethink your convictions.

In the Enceladus video, for example, the water geysers spray are visible from the get go, while still on CCD ops.That is the CCD factor in action,It captures EVERYTHING provided that the atmospheric seeing enables it , hence the extreme number of exposures HMIR requires.In a fraction of a second it can all come flushing into the CCD sensors and in other images, such as the Charon exposure with two erupting volcanoes with the ejecta columns in red,THAT was there in the RAW FITS, to our amazement (that image can be uploaded to this thread,I think).

In the other video,the Io video,the Twashtar volcano eruption is protuding like a bouquet out of Io´s upper right limb.A CCD camera has that property.Jupiter is 620 million kilometers from Earth. Charon, almost 5 billion kilometers and yet all those eruptions came across to a 14inch telescope with a color CCD camera shootingn nonstop behind it.

The differentiating factor is the way a CCD processes the data .It´s the game changer.

With regard to that, mathematicians we know are figuring out a narrative to bring to a paper, to be submited later to a scientific journal.

 

[swimswithtrout]

Just think how valuable your knowledge would be to them. I'm sure you could even image exo planets and find irrefutable proof of civilizations on other solar systems..........;-)

 

[Trollmann]

Before answering let me ask something :Have you ever tried shooting Pluto?

Of course!

I ask that because I always encounter people saying those same things about the Dawes, Raleigh principles, Airy disks, Lagrange that, ..etc and that it is impossible to resolve anything on Pluto.

Lagrange (Lagrangian Points?) - and resolution???

In the end, it boils down to this: first finding Puto in the nightsky (most people cannot find it).If you haven`t, you would be suprised. (I can upload my RAW FITS images of Pluto later if needed)

Finding Pluto - and?

Second:The reading of a CCD camera of objects captured in exposures taken in the HMIR way ( did you watch our demonstration vídeos on SPACENOW?.They are lengthy, about 35 minutes, but they show all) is a totaly new raw material to work with.The LRGB combination of bands gives the astro imager a depth that researchers are not familiar with (why? Because they reject color digital SLRs and color CCD cameras).

Reseachers ARE familiar with any detector and any band (of which LRGB is only a tiny part) and they do NOT reject SLRs and color CCDs as long as the tool is appropriate for the job (and usually SLRs and color CCDs are not up to what astronomers look for). Researchers know their detectors and their limits.

What my coleague and I discovered while developing the HMIR processing method is that on single perfect shots, an object`s disk will come across imaculate to the sensors of the CCD câmera( you need to take hundres of shots ,sometimes ,to get what we call THE perfect shot).

Lucky imaging is well established within the scientific community and there is also a huge amount of knowledge about thresholds and limits, about defects and spurious signals. In Lucky imaging there is nos uch thing as THÈ perfect shot as it is all about statistics. No black art here - simply rigid data sampling procedures and robust statistical analysis to ensure that the information in the data sampled is real.

HMIR processing seems to erease real data.

What´s done after is simply processing out what is noise and excess color while FREE TRANSFORMING the processed object in little enlargement installments so that the resolution achieved in the RAW image does not get lost.( this is the answer to your question).FREE TRANSFORMING stops when limit to enlarging it further becomes aparent.

Lots of tiny increments introduce spurious signals and after some iterations the original signal is most likely severely damaged or lost. What is left is spurious detail.

People will say that that can not be done in research because it`s an algorithm and we are creating artifacts that were not there to begin with. This is the theory, but in reality it WORKS.

Algortihms - however good - can not introduce real information that is not in the raw data. And as we know sub arcsecond imaging is difficult and imaging ten fold smaller detail with amateur telescopes from the Earths surface sound like a dream - and HMIR imaging seems to be a dream. Wishful thinking and nothing more (even fantasy litterature seems serious compared to the HMIR-claims).

Depending on the quality of the RAW image captured with this method and a CCD of ,say 4,2 million pixels, we can enlarge objects to as much as 800% of their original size with practically no resolution loss.

Enlarging 800 % with practically no resolution loss should leave images with LESS resolution than the original images. Lost information is lost. There is no way to reclaim lost information. did not get this one at all. Loosing detail and getting far better images than all other talented astronomers out there. Just wondering...

The images shown are real (any image is, even paintings and drawings are) but the images do not correspond with reality.

'nuff said this time? This is my last post about this thread - enough said about dubious claims and images only showing artefacts from excessive destructive post prosessing.

 

[siddarta]

Before answering let me ask something :Have you ever tried shooting Pluto?

Of course!

I ask that because I always encounter people saying those same things about the Dawes, Raleigh principles, Airy disks, Lagrange that, ..etc and that it is impossible to resolve anything on Pluto.

Lagrange (Lagrangian Points?) - and resolution???

In the end, it boils down to this: first finding Puto in the nightsky (most people cannot find it).If you haven`t, you would be suprised. (I can upload my RAW FITS images of Pluto later if needed)

Finding Pluto - and?

Second:The reading of a CCD camera of objects captured in exposures taken in the HMIR way ( did you watch our demonstration vídeos on SPACENOW?.They are lengthy, about 35 minutes, but they show all) is a totaly new raw material to work with.The LRGB combination of bands gives the astro imager a depth that researchers are not familiar with (why? Because they reject color digital SLRs and color CCD cameras).

Reseachers ARE familiar with any detector and any band (of which LRGB is only a tiny part) and they do NOT reject SLRs and Color CCDs as long as this is appropriate for the job (and it usually is not). Researchers know their detectors and their limits.

What my coleague and I discovered while developing the HMIR processing method is that on single perfect shots, an object`s disk will come across imaculate to the sensors of the CCD câmera( you need to take hundres of shots ,sometimes ,to get what we call THE perfect shot).

Lucky imaging is well established within the scientific community and there is also a huge amount of knowledge about thresholds and limits, about defects and spurious signals. In Lucky imaging there is nos uch thing as THÈ perfect shot as it is all about statistics.

What´s done after is simply processing out what is noise and excess color while FREE TRANSFORMING the processed object in little enlargement installments so that the resolution achieved in the RAW image does not get lost.( this is the answer to your question).FREE TRANSFORMING stops when limit to enlarging it further becomes aparent.

Lots of tiny increments introduce spurious signals and after some iterations the original signal is most likely severely damaged or lost. What is left is spurious detail.

People will say that that can not be done in research because it`s an algorithm and we are creating artifacts that were not there to begin with. This is the theory, but in reality it WORKS.

Algortihms - however good - can not introduce real information that is not in the raw data. And as we know sub arcsecond imaging is difficult and imaging ten fold finer detail with amateur telescopes from the Earths surface sound like a dream - and HMIR imaging seems to be a dream. Wishful thinking and nothing more (even fantasy litterature seems serious compared to the HMIR-claims).

Depending on the quality of the RAW image captured with this method and a CCD of ,say 4,2 million pixels, we can enlarge objects to as much as 800% of their original size with practically no resolution loss.

Enlarging 800 % with practically no resolution loss should leave images with LESS resolution than the original images. Lost information is lost. There is no way to reclaim lost information. did not get this one at all.

The images shown are real (any image is, even paintings and drawings) but the images do not correspond with reality.

'nuff said this time? This is my last post about this thread - enough said about dubious claims without root in reality and images showing only artefacts from excessive post prosessing.

WOW !! For someone with so much disdain and derision for what you call , what was it ? oh,yes ´distorted artefacts´ , it sounds now like a wake up call ultimately found your way.

O.K Let´s go for it !!

To begin with, you said that you have already imaged Pluto, right_? Can I see it ? What´s your equipment_? Can you upload your best Pluto RAW FITS image of Pluto? Let`s compare our images!!

 

[Trollmann]

He he he - my Pluto images are only showing a 14 mag starlike image without even a trace of detail. Look like any faint star but can be identified in a star chart (digital one going to 20th magnitude). No detail to recover. Absolutely no detail. No - nada - nix - nil...

Surprised?

But then I am photographing reality only!