This helps explain why days seem shorter as we age, the Earth is spinning faster due to the conservation of angular momentum. The days are literally shorter.
You're correct. There are more factors involved too, including climate change, since more ice melting means more water as well, moving the mass away from poles to the center to also be affected by the mind pull too.
All the factors end up changing things by about a millisecond per century. The effect is akin to a spinning figure skater having their arms up over their head vs directly out from their body.
Speaking in generic terms, film is way more forgiving of over exposure and digital is way more forgiving of under exposure. A fast lens is always king, but once you hit parity on that I would personally take digital for low light any day.
Digital should be the better for either one because both can be normalized to a normal exposure, in which case over should still be more accurate (assuming a static scene). With film, you open the shutter and then allow light to hit the single piece of film, which makes up your full data for that image. Digital could record time data with the light data and essentially keep a record of the full exposure, which can then be averaged and normalized to the length of the exposure.
As long as no pixels get blown out by the exposure, linearly scaling brightness would handle the normalization. Though one of those "take 30 pictures real quick" would also work if you average them together, maybe add a little positional correction if the first frame and last frame are far enough apart that the spacecraft has moved significantly in that time.
By the way, speaking of changed colours of planets: if you haven't been keeping up with the latest news in space imagery and want a real mindbender, check out what has recently happened to Neptune. You may have been thinking, ooooh, what an enthralling blue planet! - bzzzzzt, turns out it's a pretty bland and boring gas giant, the colours were exaggerated on purpose because otherwise you can't see shit.
The blue Marble was also photographed "upside down." We tend to rotate it because the shape of Africa is apparent and familiar. The new shot is taken further West and I think closer to the planet so not as much of its surface is visible.
Aside from all else, the first image was taken on film lit by daylight, the second was shot on digital at high ISO lit by moonlight with a little sunlight at one edge
Moonlight doesn't have the same colour rendering quality as sunlight
Thanks for the info, that's awesome! Based on the quality of the image, I'd guess this was a specialized camera designed to have a broader range of sensitivity. Do you know if that's right or did they just use a nice DSLR?
Also, the first image has been corrected for rayleigh scattering, either algorithmically or artistically. The second image does not appear to have been corrected. It looks similar to what we get from geostationary satellites prior to performing rayleigh scattering correction.
There is a much higher quality version of the second image on NASA's website. I think the reason the second image has so much colour ranges because it was taken in log, but that's just a normal SLR camera feature. I think there's even a way of getting my phone to take pictures in log, it just uses a lot of memory so it's not on by default
Proof that global warming is not real!!!! Read your science… if something gets HOTTER it EXPANDS!!! Those scientist cucks have cucked themselves good this time!!!!
You got your science all wrong. Global warming is about the earths athmosphere, which is gaseous. When gases get COMPRESSED they become HOTTER. The earth becoming smaller means the atmosphere is becoming SMALLER too, so the gas gets COMPRESSEd!
Climate change is because the earth is getting smaller! And they want you to use less oil and gasoline and hook you up to the sun and stuff like heroin addict!!
Best I can do is more gravitas in my Lemmy comments. not sure it's enough for the planet to collapse but I can try, if there's a chance of it ending our current conundrum
69 Comments
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 112 pts · 152d
No wonder it feels more crowded
667@lemmy.radio · 71 pts · 152d
This helps explain why days seem shorter as we age, the Earth is spinning faster due to the conservation of angular momentum. The days are literally shorter.
sga@piefed.social · 10 pts · 152d
oxideseven@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 151d
You're correct. There are more factors involved too, including climate change, since more ice melting means more water as well, moving the mass away from poles to the center to also be affected by the mind pull too.
All the factors end up changing things by about a millisecond per century. The effect is akin to a spinning figure skater having their arms up over their head vs directly out from their body.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 1 pts · 151d
Fun fact: China has built such a massive dam that it has slowed down (albeit only slightly*) the Earth’s rotation
*if i am not mistaken, it was just enough to be misured, nothing too crazy
Ooops@feddit.org · 3 pts · 152d
Shhh! Don't let Big Clock know that we are on to them.
bottleofchips@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 63 pts · 152d
Well that’s what happens when you leave it out in the sun
87Six@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 152d
No I think it's because it's cold in space
Mac@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 152d
Nuh uh
NullPointerException@lemmy.ca · 52 pts · 152d
Good to know it’s still a flat disc
wewbull@feddit.uk · 5 pts · 152d
Amazing how the countries side over it?
pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 37 pts · 152d
Second picture looks smogier and more polluted
PoopingCough@lemmy.world · 42 pts · 152d
Well the second pic is also at night with a high iso and long exposure plus it's digital so there's a lot more noise going on.
IMALlama@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 152d
Speaking in generic terms, film is way more forgiving of over exposure and digital is way more forgiving of under exposure. A fast lens is always king, but once you hit parity on that I would personally take digital for low light any day.
PoopingCough@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 152d
Copy that, my knowledge of the specifics of digital vs analog is about exhausted just from what i posted so i appreciate the added information!
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 152d
Digital should be the better for either one because both can be normalized to a normal exposure, in which case over should still be more accurate (assuming a static scene). With film, you open the shutter and then allow light to hit the single piece of film, which makes up your full data for that image. Digital could record time data with the light data and essentially keep a record of the full exposure, which can then be averaged and normalized to the length of the exposure.
As long as no pixels get blown out by the exposure, linearly scaling brightness would handle the normalization. Though one of those "take 30 pictures real quick" would also work if you average them together, maybe add a little positional correction if the first frame and last frame are far enough apart that the spacecraft has moved significantly in that time.
umbraroze@slrpnk.net · 35 pts · 152d
By the way, speaking of changed colours of planets: if you haven't been keeping up with the latest news in space imagery and want a real mindbender, check out what has recently happened to Neptune. You may have been thinking, ooooh, what an enthralling blue planet! - bzzzzzt, turns out it's a pretty bland and boring gas giant, the colours were exaggerated on purpose because otherwise you can't see shit.
MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 152d
This truly is the worst timeline. Next, they'll tell us Uranus isn't gassy too.
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 152d
Nah, it is. Just checked.
TheOakTree@lemmy.zip · 5 pts · 152d
I like the pale blue representation, reminds me of blue jade or some old seaglass.
StarvingMartist@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 152d
Most
planetsgalaxies are like this I believeVupware@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 152d
Nebulae especially.
wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io · 28 pts · 152d
The maps were correct, New Zealand doesn’t exist.
the_citizen@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 152d
It's getting old, I guess /s
altphoto@lemmy.today · 20 pts · 152d
I like how you can see the ring/sphere of atmosphere in the new image.
nosuchanon@lemmy.world · 18 pts · 152d
That’s the new smog layer.
razzazzika@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 152d
To be fair there was a big hole in the ozone in 1970
Fnaargh@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 152d
*smug
marcos@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 152d
It's because the Sun is behind it.
NottaLottaOcelot@lemmy.ca · 17 pts · 152d
The magnetic poles must be moving substantially. Africa has rotated almost 90 degrees in a few short decades!
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 152d
The blue Marble was also photographed "upside down." We tend to rotate it because the shape of Africa is apparent and familiar. The new shot is taken further West and I think closer to the planet so not as much of its surface is visible.
bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 152d
Also looks much more sickly (yes, its because they pumped up the brightness lol)
Fontasia@feddit.nl · 12 pts · 152d
Android post processing vs Apple post processing
DanVctr@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 152d
Went back and looked, actually laughed out loud
Blackfeathr@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 152d
Where did Africa go?? 😧
psud@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 151d
Aside from all else, the first image was taken on film lit by daylight, the second was shot on digital at high ISO lit by moonlight with a little sunlight at one edge
Moonlight doesn't have the same colour rendering quality as sunlight
Vorticity@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 151d
Thanks for the info, that's awesome! Based on the quality of the image, I'd guess this was a specialized camera designed to have a broader range of sensitivity. Do you know if that's right or did they just use a nice DSLR?
Also, the first image has been corrected for rayleigh scattering, either algorithmically or artistically. The second image does not appear to have been corrected. It looks similar to what we get from geostationary satellites prior to performing rayleigh scattering correction.
Obi@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 151d
It's a Nikon D5, the shot is at 52k ISO.
Vorticity@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 151d
Cool, thanks! That's some crazy high ISO.
echodot@feddit.uk · 1 pts · 151d
There is a much higher quality version of the second image on NASA's website. I think the reason the second image has so much colour ranges because it was taken in log, but that's just a normal SLR camera feature. I think there's even a way of getting my phone to take pictures in log, it just uses a lot of memory so it's not on by default
psud@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 149d
Log? Isn't that the video thing? Still images use raw for best post processing
postscarce@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 151d
Proof that global warming is not real!!!! Read your science… if something gets HOTTER it EXPANDS!!! Those scientist cucks have cucked themselves good this time!!!!
/s (in case it’s needed)
SpongyAneurysm@feddit.org · 1 pts · 150d
You got your science all wrong. Global warming is about the earths athmosphere, which is gaseous. When gases get COMPRESSED they become HOTTER. The earth becoming smaller means the atmosphere is becoming SMALLER too, so the gas gets COMPRESSEd! Climate change is because the earth is getting smaller! And they want you to use less oil and gasoline and hook you up to the sun and stuff like heroin addict!!
/s
ivanafterall@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 152d
It's cold out there in space.
jaybone@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 152d
Don’t they know about shrinkage?
resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 152d
Big if true.
Maeve@kbin.earth · 6 pts · 152d
A lot less green, as well.
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 152d
Plus, that 2d image makes it look flat, like a penny.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today · 3 pts · 152d
"Ha! I knew the Earth was flat!"
Taleya@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 151d
Completely different landmasses as well!
Kubrick, we're onto you
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 5 pts · 152d
It's because we're looking at a different side of the planet in the second photo.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 152d
Yet but still if you superimpose the second image over the first you’ll see the whole planet had gotten smaller.
ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip · 2 pts · 152d
No, I get that. That's only because we're looking at a different side. It's the same size on the other
Jax@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 152d
In this age of misinformation I realize I can no longer determine if something is a joke.
dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 152d
I am joking.
Jax@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 152d
Thank you. I thought you were but I genuinely had to correct myself and think 'But what if they're not joking?'.
I'm tired.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 152d
That's because the internet made the world smaller.
polydactyl@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 152d
Jerryyyy, Earth is a planet!
kossa@feddit.org · 3 pts · 151d
It's because the Apollo mission photos were obviously faked. How would they have known how small Earth really is, duh!
the_beber@feddit.org · 3 pts · 152d
It‘s like that one planet in SMG.
mavu@discuss.tchncs.de · 3 pts · 151d
continents seem to have moved too.. weird.
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 152d
Its all the fracking
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 150d
I'll need Jerry Smith's opinion on this one
We are not a celestial dwarf. Earth is a planet.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 150d
happy cake day!
SethTaylor@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 150d
Thanks!
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 151d
with higher gravity it might shrink.
Hadriscus@jlai.lu · 4 pts · 151d
Best I can do is more gravitas in my Lemmy comments. not sure it's enough for the planet to collapse but I can try, if there's a chance of it ending our current conundrum
Venat0r@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 150d
with shrinking it might higher gravity too
ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 151d
Must be all the oil we're drilling.
Nah, as President Trump said, "nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen."
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 152d
It's a conspiracy by Big Earth..