ilza

No Roland.

I made a reference to a (slightly) more detailed explanation. It is not averaging over time. It is measuring DIFFERENT parts of Fourier transform at different times.

The...

@chromos: > “…To learn more, I recommend studying Schwarzschild metrics.”

Seems you knowledge comes from an undergraduate class in physics. These classes would typically discuss only what happens...

[Continued…]

This effect is very easy to describe in mathematical form — but this is separated by a few dozens of levels of abstraction from what people are used to discuss.

@zxaar: > “space and time do stay intact even at the center of black holes ”

Where did you get it from? “Popular mechanics”?! Or “Times”?

As BoS (essentially) mentions it above, “there is no...

Before thinking about the consumer version, keep in mind that it probably took MANY megahours of post-processing to get those 36 pixels.

> “… as there is no sensor size. ”

Come on! The sensor size is 13Mm×13Mm. (The number of working pixels is, of course, very small — but the OP did not ask about this!)

Hawking Radiation is 100% no-nonsense radiation. Inspect its spectrum: it is an honest black-body spectrum.

Ronald, did you read the article above? It seems to claim exactly the opposite to what you wrote!

The image seems to change on timescale of minute(s). From what I can see, these images are just...

@Victor Engel: > “… the current theory is …”

There is no such thing as “the current theory”. There is GR — and there are 100s of alternative theories. The currently known data gives no way to...

This is not Gaussian blur — just plain upscaling from a 6×6 pixel image.

(Plus “a kind of motion blur”. ...

In short: it is upscaled. It has “a certain analogue” of a motion blur.

Otherwise, it is in perfect focus.

Nope. It is in perfect focus. It is just an upscaled 6×6 pixel image.

⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜⁜

Well, I cheated a bit. The angular sizes of Cygnus X’s and of M87’s black holes are practically the...

> “… all of which have different evolutionary features”

AFAIK: Nope! “Different combinations of many evolutionary features” — yes. The reason: “Convergent Evolution” is a very strong...

Are there cameras which can focus-stack with E mount lenses?

I know that focus bracketing on Fuji GF has some very strong limitations since, essentially, the lens “has no ability to return to THE...

Why this obscession with “legally blind”? I know TONS of people who can see well, — and I know that some of them make great photos — who are absolutely helpless with reading something up close if...

@tm8: seems to have been a brain fаrt!

Indeed, coma images a point source as a line, with different concentric areas of the lens creating different regions of this line. The smaller the aperture,...

Evolution DOES WORK this way.

If it were not only “a small incremental advantage, relevant for a geologically short time only”, it would reappear (via convergent evolution) 100s of times in the...

@tm8: no, coma does not depend on ƒ/number.

Robert, do you realize that it is very hard¹⁾ to “take the same photo” with Hubble and Webb? The instruments are very different — their capabilities “do not compete”, but ”complement each...

The design papers (from about 10 years ago) discuss possibilities of fine-tuning to optimize different areas of the sensor. But if Iυnderstood it correctly, the potential improvements are going to...