Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Massive panoramic photo of Orion Nebula (324,000,000 pixels)

stoid said:
Not likely, in the course of my design work for school my PowerBook 1.25Ghz has crunched easily through 500MB files. And a professional design I know has a similar system, and has worked with Photoshop projects larger than 3GB. Granted most of that data is because of the layers and not from sheer pixel count, but if you had a G5 I'm sure it would handle it without difficulty.
Click to expand...



I have just tried the Photoshop Test using CS2 with the 394.3 mb image file and the it can't be done - out of memory error. Photoshop can only address 3.5 GB's of memory.

http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/04/photoshop-cs2-how-much-ram-fact/
 
Mitthrawnuruodo said:
That file totally brought my iBook G4@800 to it's knees. Just opening (the large JPEG) in either Preview or Photoshop took forever and made the whole iBook beachballing and unresponsive and ate up most of what little HD space I got left for virtual memory... :eek:

But it was worth it: Awesome image... :D
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did get beachballed for a minute here and there, but it did well.

I doubt my G3 could even take it though.
 
Plymouthbreezer said:
Has anyone had luck viewing the 18K x 18K image without a complete system lockup?

My 1GHz G4 did fine with the 6,000 x 6,000 image, but I'm worried about what 324,000,000 pixels will do to the machine. What are y'all viewing it in?
Click to expand...
It sohuld so fine. I have the same iMac G4 as you do (but I have 256 more ram than you do) and it loaded up fine. Just don't have anything else open...not good
 
Is there a reason to download the TIFF instead of the JPEG? Is the TIFF better quality (even though it has the same number of pixels)?
 
EricNau said:
Is there a reason to download the TIFF instead of the JPEG? Is the TIFF better quality (even though it has the same number of pixels)?
Click to expand...

No compression, no artefacts. Yup, Tif is better quality I'm pretty sure.
 
srobert said:
No compression, no artefacts. Yup, Tif is better quality I'm pretty sure.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It turns out the TIFF is just too big for my computer to handle (iMac G5 in sig). So I guess I answered by own question.
 
OK... Now I'm trying to get rid of that 300 MB TIFF file, and I can't. When I try and delete it from the trash it says it can not because it is in use. I tried restarting, still get the same error. :confused:

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out. The computer was trying to show me a thumbnail of the image in the trash, so it was reading it. Once I waited long enough, I could delete it.
 
Lacero said:
What, did some dude fly into space and snapped the picture with a digicam? I think not.
Click to expand...

Yes someone did.......

Hubble uses a CCD Camera to capture it's images, and it's flying in space.
 
srobert said:
It's amazing to thing that even though we have very powerful telescopes, we still can't see the nearest star as a disc. It's still only a dot. I can't wait to see the pics taken by the next generations VLTs and OWLs.
Click to expand...

More amazingness:...

Remember that scene from Start Trek when Q slung the Enterprise so far out into space that even if the spaceship was travelling at it's top speed of 10 x the speed of light it would have taken them 700 years to get back to Earth? Well they hadn't even left the milky way galaxy.

When two galaxies of a hundred billion stars each collide the stars are so far apart that it is unlikely that any individual stars will collide.
 
jayscheuerle said:
Very nice. My first telescope is due to arrive next week (an Orion XT8 dob) and I can't wait for the weather to clear and get out to a good viewing spot.

I have no idea what to expect looking through it, though of course I realized we've all been spoiled by these Hubble shots (among others). The Orion Nebula (M42) will be my first Nebula to seek out (because I know where it is), but I can't wait to see the Cassini division in Saturn's rings and cloud bands around Jupiter (with 4 of its moons).

Can somebody make this into a quicktime VR file? :D

Thanks for the link! - j
Click to expand...

I'm a fellow amateur astronomer (I have a 10" Meade LX200), and I congratulate you on your purchase!
Sadly, galaxies and nebulae don't look nearly as spectacular as photographs. Those pictures are usually very long exposures. You might see some color in the Orion Nebula, but don't expect too much. Most deep-space objects look grey.
However, planets look fantastic, especially if the sky is steady! Also, I recommend you spend some time looking at double stars and star clusters. Contrasting-colored binaries look very beautiful on a very dark night.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I haven't really star-gazed in a long time, and I've been trying to get back into it. I even brought my 85lb telescope to school, in hopes that I get bored one night and take it out (even though it's a bit chilly. However, cold nights are generally good nights for viewing).
 
That's insane. I set it as my wallpaper. I just sit here doing nothing starring at it. It's beautiful! I'm such a softy. :p
 
EricNau said:
Is there a reason to download the TIFF instead of the JPEG? Is the TIFF better quality (even though it has the same number of pixels)?
Click to expand...

If it's a high quality jpeg made from the original tiff, your eyes won't be able to tell any difference. If you kept opening this jpeg up and saving it as a jpeg (even high quality), you would start to see artifacts in blocks of 8x8 pixels, which is the grouping size that jpeg uses for its approximations of the original.
 
sethypoo said:
So, I can't find an easy answer to this, but what are the specs on the camera the Hubble is using? And geez, how many megapixels does it have? 324?
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find any information in megapixel terms either, but you can bet that this is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands of frames. Each frame may contain many exposures as well.

"This extensive study took 105 Hubble orbits to complete. All imaging instruments aboard the telescope – the ACS, Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2, and Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer – were used simultaneously to study the nebula. The ACS mosaic covers approximately the apparent angular size of the full moon." (from the image's site.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back