Hacker News Reader

Comment by SXX | Hacker News Reader

Image itself in high resolution can be found here:

https://orion2020v5b.spaceforeverybody.com/

I was looking for galaxies, and then I turned on annotations. There's a ton of PGC annoations (galaxy catalogue) and it helps you see many of them; however many of them don't seem to be visible at all in the picture (there's too many of those PGC annotations?)

Either way, very cool, that helps getting the eyes up for the galaxies scattered in the picture.

I've just zoomed in randomly on a couple of places and in each frame there's a handful of side on spiral galaxies... it's very cool - take another look?

My brain always thinks of Orion being orientated with Betelgeuse in the top left, it's really weird seeing it 'sideways'

You guys in the Northern hemisphere see it upside down, we call his belt "the pot"

It's funny – at such high fidelity, the glow from all of the distant stars and galaxies make it look like light pollution.

Good observation. I assume that's because it's "overexposed" to bring out the nebulas etc.?

Zooming in all the way, the pure "black" areas between stars also seem to have a fair bit of sensor noise that probably plays a part too.

There are no pure black areas between stars, and that's not (just) sensor noise. It's not very wrong to say that every single pixel in that image holds at least one galaxy. If you collect enough light, you will find something interesting to look at.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/04...

Wow!

I love that this is your reaction to that story, as I believe that is the only valid reaction! I also love being reminded that every day someone gets to experience something new that I've already taken as fact.

At some point the sensor noise swamps any signal, given your setup and processing.

So from a philosophical view every pixel holds a galaxy, but from a practical point of view sensor noise obliterates it.

I think it's reasonable to call the area in between visible stars "black" when received light is below the noise floor.

I’m guessing that it is difficult to distinguish the “noise” of sub pixel galaxies from the thermal noise of the sensor.

It’s not exactly correct though: at this resolution - maybe, but at resolution high enough there are gaps between galaxies. The reason for that is that region of space we can observe is finite. If it would be infinite, and between any two objects we would see one more object, all we would is see is uniform white.

Can I download the full scale image from somewhere?

How big of a wall would that require to display at 1:1? I have a wall I'm willing to donate to the cause.

Assuming a 50,000^2 pixel image at 600 dpi it’s just under 7 foot by 7 foot. You can likely play around with the DPI to fit most any wall, but I don’t know the aspect ratio.

It's 65k×35k pixels: https://space4everybody.com/about-the-image/

There are some really nice printing processes for images of this magnitude, such as https://www.whitewall.com/us/metal-prints/aluminum-mounted-p... and https://www.whitewall.com/us/acrylic-prints/masterprint (the exact same processes are available from many printing companies; I have no idea how good this one is but it was easy to find).

I have a print on this scale of the center of the Milky Way, and it's amazing: http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/GC.html

>http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/GC.html

Welcome back 1999. Holy cow. Comments in good humor: 1) No preview image of what you are selling. 2) Several links are broken. One is a Flash based website!?!? Others are just no longer hosted. 3) Owww, my eyes!!! Also, Yay! Tables!

I get it. If it's not broken, don't fix it. However, you are making it difficult for an interested person to make an informed purchase. I am looking exactly for this kind of art to fill up my astronomy room, so this has piqued my interest. It's not like I don't know what the galactic center looks like, but not buying something sight unseen

Yes, it's pretty unfortunate. It was a flash-based pan-and-zoom interface for the image, since it's obviously too big for your browser to handle all at once. Now that flash is gone he does need to redo the work to host it, but that is non−trivial. You can see a very small thumbnail at http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/mini/mini-Guisard_MilkyWay_4_8....

I have the 70"×40" print on my wall right now, and it's worth it.

Wow! That is gorgeous, and not what I had envisioned, yet is exactly as advertised.

I am trying to create a gallery wall with the full image of the milky way galaxy[0], and then have close ups of different DSO printed in details. In my mind, I want to arrange it where each detail is attached via strings to their location within the [0] image CSI style.

[0]https://earthsky.org/upl/2011/08/milky_way_panorama.jpg

Oh, that could be really nice. Could also take a really big wall…

I'll just have be sure to include a plaque that says "All images are NOT to scale"!!

Not all to the same scale, at any rate :)

I just meant the aspect ratio of the full-galaxy picture is very high; you might need a rather long wall. And then a wide room so that visitors can step back and see the whole thing. It could be amazing.

There is a tool called "rasterbator" that can print large images out tile-by-tile "Wall Art Generator" https://rasterbator.net/

True. There are also large-format photograph printers that can print an amazing image four feet tall and as wide as you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durst#Lambda_and_Theta_photogr.... This is what was used to print the image I have.

Somewhat expensive though; best to rent time on one rather than buying your own. https://www.bayinkjet.com/products/durst-lambda-130-used

I am wondering about this too. Maybe not the full resolution, but I'd like to stretch this over 3 4K monitors.

Try something like this. https://ophir.alwaysdata.net/dezoomify/dezoomify.html

I'd like to do that, but it would make sense if he reserves it so that he can sell prints

Anyone have a direct link to the full image?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com