Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

reaperducer·

it clearly states is the result of "image processing".

I see no such statement, clearly or otherwise.

It's common practice in science to produce such representative images

Maybe this is one reason why a growing number of people don't believe scientists anymore.

"Representative images" sounds like the fine print in a used car ad.

View on HN

"The team behind a pioneering biological experiment sent to the lunar far side has released an image showing two green leaves grown on the moon."

"Image processing has now shown that two cotton leaves had grown—rather than just one as initially thought—in what was the first biological growth experiment on the moon."

"Photo: Chongqing University

Two cotton leaves grown in the Chang’e-4 lander on the far side of the moon."

Photo = "Photograph"

Photo ≠ "We made this cool rendering of what we imagine something like this would look like."

"Photo" is used synonymously with "image" or "rendering" depending on the context, e.g. try searching for "Hubble photography" and you'll find plenty of examples of cool renderings from aggregated photographic source data.

Sure, Hubble images are seldom seen raw, but the resulting images are based on actual photos. This however seems to have been an outright illustration, and should have be labelled as such.

Replying to the other comment on this, it's too deep for a normal reply but a hubble composite and a 3d render have very little to do with one-another outside the fact that they're both images.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com