Stereoscopic Bug Nebula

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tontoko, Jan 3, 2007.

  1. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    tontoko, Jan 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kevin McMurtrie, Jan 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tontoko

    tontoko Guest

    Surely there isn't parallax enough to cause stereoscopic effect since
    every star or galaxy has virtually "infinite" distance from the camera.


    My software converts the dimness of the image to the distance from the
    camera. Practically the galaxy or nebula is thought to have some
    fractal structure and it causes blurry on the image taken by the camera
    when the part of it is more distant from other parts.

    The following image is an example of synthesized stereograph for a
    fractal structure. As seen on it, more detailed, more distant it looks
    like.

    http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2049

    Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > "tontoko" <> wrote:
    >
    > > In the following website;
    > >
    > > http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2790
    > >
    > > the image shown is the stereograph of Bug Nebula (NGC 6302) synthesized
    > > by
    > > Stereographer (original image: HST).
    > >
    > > For detail of Stereographer, visit;
    > >
    > > http://139.134.5.123/tiddler2/stereographer/stereograph.htm

    >
    > I don't think even the Hubble's DOF is shallow enough for that trick to
    > work right.
    tontoko, Jan 4, 2007
    #3
  4. tontoko

    Alan Hoyle Guest

    On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:56:14 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

    > I don't think even the Hubble's DOF is shallow enough for that trick to
    > work right.


    The Hubble is approximately 57,600mm f24. I'm not sure how big the 4x
    CCDs are, though each is only 800x800 resolution. (2.56 MP total).
    It might be hard to find an adapter to mount one on your body.

    -a

    --
    Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
    "I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
    Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
    Alan Hoyle, Jan 4, 2007
    #4
  5. On 4 Jan 2007 20:01:50 GMT, Alan Hoyle <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:56:14 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >
    >> I don't think even the Hubble's DOF is shallow enough for that trick to
    >> work right.

    >
    > The Hubble is approximately 57,600mm f24. I'm not sure how big the 4x
    > CCDs are, though each is only 800x800 resolution. (2.56 MP total).
    > It might be hard to find an adapter to mount one on your body.


    Are you sure about that?

    Here are the specs for ACS, currently one of the main cameras on Hubble:

    http://adcam.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/overview/

    Wide Field Camera
    The Wide Field Camera (WFC) will be a high throughput, wide field,
    optical and near-infrared (I band) camera.

    This channel will be optimized for surveys in the near-infrared to
    search for galaxies and clusters of galaxies in the early universe.

    350 - 1050 nanometer spectral response
    202" x 202" field of view
    0.049" pixel size
    2 butted 2048x4096, 15 um/pixel CCD detectors
    45% throughput at 700 nanometers (including the HST optical telescope
    assembly (OTA) )
    half critically sampled at 500 nanometers
    three mirror optical design (overcoated silver)

    High Resolution Channel
    The High Resolution Camera (HRC) is designed for high angular resolution
    imaging and coronography. The HRC optical path will include a
    coronagraph which will improve the HST contrast near bright objects by
    about a factor of ten.

    This channel will be used for diffraction-limited studies of the light
    in the centers of galaxies with massive black holes, as well as ordinary
    galaxies, star clusters, and gaseous nebulae.

    200 - 1050 nanometer spectral response
    29.1" x 26.1" field of view
    0.028"x0.025" pixel size
    1024x1024, 21 um/pixel, near UV-enhanced CCD detector
    25% throughput at 600 nanometers
    critically sampled at 500 nanometers
    three mirror optical design (MgF2 on Aluminum)

    So, a 16 MP imager, and a 1MP imager with finer spatial resolution. Note
    that pixel size is specified both in microns and in arc-seconds; most of
    the users will care more about the latter.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Jan 4, 2007
    #5
  6. tontoko

    Alan Hoyle Guest

    On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:05:31 GMT, Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    > On 4 Jan 2007 20:01:50 GMT, Alan Hoyle <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:56:14 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >>
    >>> I don't think even the Hubble's DOF is shallow enough for that trick to
    >>> work right.

    >>
    >> The Hubble is approximately 57,600mm f24. I'm not sure how big the 4x
    >> CCDs are, though each is only 800x800 resolution. (2.56 MP total).
    >> It might be hard to find an adapter to mount one on your body.


    > Are you sure about that?


    > Here are the specs for ACS, currently one of the main cameras on Hubble:


    > http://adcam.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/overview/


    I was talking about the WFPC2:

    http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bolts/instruments/wfpc2/

    It seems that we're both correct.

    -alan

    --
    Alan Hoyle - - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
    "I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
    Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate.
    Alan Hoyle, Jan 4, 2007
    #6
  7. On 4 Jan 2007 21:42:29 GMT, Alan Hoyle <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 21:05:31 GMT, Daniel Silevitch wrote:
    >> On 4 Jan 2007 20:01:50 GMT, Alan Hoyle <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:56:14 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I don't think even the Hubble's DOF is shallow enough for that trick to
    >>>> work right.
    >>>
    >>> The Hubble is approximately 57,600mm f24. I'm not sure how big the 4x
    >>> CCDs are, though each is only 800x800 resolution. (2.56 MP total).
    >>> It might be hard to find an adapter to mount one on your body.

    >
    >> Are you sure about that?

    >
    >> Here are the specs for ACS, currently one of the main cameras on Hubble:

    >
    >> http://adcam.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/overview/

    >
    > I was talking about the WFPC2:
    >
    > http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nuts_.and._bolts/instruments/wfpc2/
    >
    > It seems that we're both correct.


    Fair enough. ACS sprang immediately to mind since I used to work down
    the hall from one of the main development groups on the project, and I
    was pretty sure even before checking that it had well over 1 megapixel
    per chip.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Jan 4, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Boomerang Nebula

    tontoko, Dec 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    292
    tontoko
    Dec 25, 2006
  2. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Crab Nebula

    tontoko, Jan 21, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    304
    Ken Lucke
    Jan 21, 2007
  3. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Cone Nebula

    tontoko, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    304
    tontoko
    Jan 30, 2007
  4. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Helix Nebula

    tontoko, Feb 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    293
    tontoko
    Feb 1, 2007
  5. tontoko

    Stereoscopic Bubble Nebula

    tontoko, Feb 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    319
    ASAAR
    Mar 3, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page