• Space/Science
  • GeekSpeak
  • Mysteries of
    the Multiverse
  • Science Fiction
  • The Comestible Zone
  • Off-Topic
  • Community
  • Flame
  • CurrentEvents

Recent posts

The destruction of Goddard is illegal RL October 31, 2025 9:41 am (Space/Science)

Weighing the scales on Elon Musk BuckGalaxy October 30, 2025 9:28 pm (Flame)

Bunker Envy ? podrock October 30, 2025 6:18 pm (CurrentEvents)

Message in a bottle BuckGalaxy October 29, 2025 10:55 am (Off-Topic)

According to some, we're a nation of illiterate dependents looking for a handout RobVG October 27, 2025 8:56 pm (CurrentEvents)

The 1% RobVG October 27, 2025 10:54 am (Off-Topic)

Parting Shot ER October 27, 2025 4:36 am (Off-Topic)

Space X put on notice RobVG October 20, 2025 4:55 pm (Space/Science)

There is no bottom to this barrel... RL October 19, 2025 5:40 pm (CurrentEvents)

John Wheeler's philosophy: "Beyond the Black Hole" RL October 16, 2025 10:00 pm (Space/Science)

Brosz baffled, Bondi busts Bolton ER October 16, 2025 2:08 pm (CurrentEvents)

Home » GeekSpeak

Why are the stars moving? January 25, 2019 11:04 am ER

Over the last few years I’ve noticed images being used on TV videos with motion superimposed on them. For example, a Matthew Brady Civil War daguerrotype is shown, but the point of view wanders, allowing you to view behind and over objects in the image, giving it a surreal 3D quality.

In another example, an astronomical photograph is shown (TV science shows do this all the time) and you get the impression you are flying through or around the scene, stars in the “foreground” move relative to the stars and nebulae in the “background”, like in the Star Trek videos of the Enterprise flying through a star field. Like in the Brady prints, some of these astrophotos are recognizable as originals, classics from the Hubble or the great Hooker telescope that I actually have seen before. These are not animations, they are old images that have somehow been altered or enhanced to give the impression of three dimensional data.

At first I thought this was just animation cleverly overlain over the original still image, but I saw one the other day where you actually fly towards, then through, the well known picture of the Eagle Nebula. There is no way the information on the enhanced version could have been extracted from the original image. I can’t detect the transition between the original and the enhancement, but I recognize the NASA shot because they are using the original Hubble color palette. The video weenies who craft these pics obviously believe the false colors are the actual colors of the nebula.

Some of these videos are absolutely gorgeous, and they certainly have a great artistic and educational value, but I’m afraid that the general public may mistake the artist’s representation for the original data. Most folks know Matthew Brady didn’t make motion pictures, but sometimes even an astronomer would be hard pressed to tell between the original astronomical image and the artist’s conception. They should clearly label the two so you can tell them apart.

In a related observation, I once watched a TV show on archaeology where a scene from ancient Egypt or Babylonia was illustrated with movie footage from a Cecil B DeMille silent film epic. I guess the grainy, B&W double-time movie with the the hokey costumes and exaggerrated, theatrical gestures was supposed to convince the viewer those scenes were filmed a long, long time ago.

  • Its called camera mapping by RL 2019-01-25 14:42:11
    • An aside. by ER 2019-01-25 11:17:28

      Search

      The Control Panel

      • Log in
      • Register