Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 1 of 212»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Is this Jupiter Video Real or CGI?
Is this Jupiter Video Real or CGI?
ProteusDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 19:46 | Message # 1
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 172
Status: Offline
This youtube video shows "4K Maps" of Jupiter. It's description does not determine if this is real imagery or CGI recreated imagery to depict it. In the comments of this video is a really bad mess of conspiracy theorists using it for their "NASA is a lie" parades. As far as I can reason, there are real images of Jupiter of course, but there are also re-creations and shopped imagery also, for the sake of promotion and emphasis on certain features. I have a feeling this video is not an accurate depiction of Jupiter, mainly because, every cgi-confirmed imagery of Jupiter tends to have much higher contrast in its colors and quite exaggerated ambient lighting that is more known to be created by CGI than your typical photo. What do you think? Is this real or re-created? And how can we really tell/prove whether or not it is real or re-created?








Edited by Proteus - Thursday, 08.09.2016, 19:48
 
steeljaw354Date: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 19:49 | Message # 2
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
I'd say it's fake due to the high contrast
 
Bells_TheoremDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 21:03 | Message # 3
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 188
Status: Offline
With certainty, it is mostly real image data that has been enhanced and stitched together to create a map. I wouldn't call that "faked" as it is real data that has been processed to fit a desired format.

Anyone who thinks that this is evidence of a NASA cover-up really needs to see a psychologist.
 
steeljaw354Date: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 21:05 | Message # 4
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
I don't think it is a cover up. I'd say they edited it to look a certain way and you wouldn't see that same image when you look at jupiter through a telescope.
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 21:43 | Message # 5
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2608
Status: Online
It's obviously fake. I can tell by the pixels, and I have seen quite a few photoshops in my day.




 
Bells_TheoremDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 22:05 | Message # 6
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 188
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
I don't think it is a cover up. I'd say they edited it to look a certain way and you wouldn't see that same image when you look at jupiter through a telescope.


Astronomical image data is almost always enhanced to bring out features that would normally be difficult or impossible to see. This doesn't make it fake, it makes it enhanced. "Fake" means a forgery or not genuine intended to deceive. there is no indication or reason to believe the above is either of these.
 
WatsisnameDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 22:07 | Message # 7
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2608
Status: Online
Exactly. Astrophotography would be extremely boring if we showed everything exactly the way your eyes would see it. smile




 
DoctorOfSpaceDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 22:11 | Message # 8
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
Pirate
Messages: 3595
Status: Offline
Watsisname, I must concur. Having seen many pixels in my time those pixels are definitely illegitimate pixels.




Intel Core i7-5820K 4.2GHz 6-Core Processor
G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-2400 Memory
EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 6GB
 
ProteusDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 22:35 | Message # 9
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 172
Status: Offline
Quote Bells_Theorem ()
With certainty, it is mostly real image data that has been enhanced and stitched together to create a map. I wouldn't call that "faked" as it is real data that has been processed to fit a desired format.


I can't tell what you mean by this. What exactly do you mean by data in this case? And what do you mean by "processed to fit a desired format"? Could you clarify?





 
Bells_TheoremDate: Thursday, 08.09.2016, 22:50 | Message # 10
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 188
Status: Offline
Quote Proteus ()
I can't tell what you mean by this. What exactly do you mean by data in this case? And what do you mean by "processed to fit a desired format"? Could you clarify?


Data = Photons captured, focused and detected by a telescope represented digitally in stored image files.
Processed = Stitched together as a mosaic to form a single continuous map, color and contrast enhanced to bring out features and mapped to a CGI sphere for presentation.

This doesn't constitute fakery nor does it imply there was any intent to deceive.

My guess is that the majority of those in the comment section claiming that it does are trolls having a laugh. Though there are probably a few genuine conspiracy nutters in there who are completely incapable of applying Occam's Razor.


Edited by Bells_Theorem - Thursday, 08.09.2016, 22:59
 
FastFourierTransformDate: Friday, 09.09.2016, 09:13 | Message # 11
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 540
Status: Offline
I totally agree with Bells Theorem.

What does fake mean? something specious, deceptive, or fraudulent? Making things up? But where is the limit?

It's obvious that if you make an image drawing with the photoshop tools only its fake but...

Take a raw image and crop it? It has then been faked? NO
Maybe you have two raw images and you want to paste them to make a panorama (representng what you really saw). It is fake now?
Maybe you put some contrast. It has been faked? I don't think so (in fact digital cameras make many of this adjustments automatically even without your permision)
If you put your photo on a spherical surface it is fake? NO. And less deceptive in the case of the video because the images in fact have to be interpreted as been on a spehrical surface.
Does moving your FOV across your panorame makes it fake? (it makes fake the movement of your head maybe). The same thing here rotating around the sphere to see all the parts of the panorama.
And lastly, if you add a shadow that probably is there in fact does it make it fake CGI categorically? Well maybe a little bit. The important fact here is that there has been some processing (your eyes also process the intensity and frequency of electromagnetic waves and no one says you are faking images with your vision) of the absolutly real data. Is a graph CGI? Who cares? the important thing is that it displays data in a way that you can visualize the characteristics of reality even better than in the real world. Same here.

By the way, I bet that if you put a SE video of Jupiter there would not be such an horde of people saying it's CGI, because the realism in SE is clearly superior hahaha
 
ProteusDate: Friday, 09.09.2016, 11:03 | Message # 12
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 172
Status: Offline
So, I don't take any one side of this. I would like to explore this objectively. There are some good points about the process of clearing up data on celestial bodies so that we can more clearly see whats going on with them. I certainly see it as necessary in many cases just so long as the depiction is accurate.

But I want to explore your explanation of this digital processing here, using an analogy which may or may not be the best one to use, but its what continuously wanted to run through my head while I was reading your explanation.

If you take a real (meaning raw) photo of a girl, she doesn't have make up on, the lighting is flat, she has lots of blemishes all over her skin, and she's got a heavy shape body, put it in photoshop, take off the blemishes from her face, smooth out the skin, manipulate the colors of the skin/face to look like she has makeup on, skew the shape of her body so that she looks about 30 lbs thinner and throw on some dramatic lighting to bring out certain features while hiding others, will that be considered "real" by people who look at it and can tell there was digital processing with it, particularly if they know what that girl looks like in her natural state?

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the sphere the textures were put on are a lot less oblate than I believe Jupiter actually is, which if that is correct, already makes it inaccurate just in shape alone (and that can affect the shapes of the texture data put on it if you think about it).





 
FastFourierTransformDate: Friday, 09.09.2016, 15:30 | Message # 13
Pioneer
Group: Local Moderators
Spain
Messages: 540
Status: Offline
Well I think this is a philosophy of language problem, not a scientific one.
The girl of your example is not fake (maybe the cathegory fake has no meaning in this general terms) what is fake is his body structure and the colors. You have to know what is fake and what not. Does many fake characteristics of a thing make a thing fake? mmmmm Maybe false. But again. The threashold is arbitrary und subjective.

The image of the Milky Way on the night sky is fake? well, the luminosity maybe, but the colors, the position, etc... is that. Your girl is fake? well, the contour is a deviationn from reality, the colors are false but maybe the spatial distribution of colors is real and other things are real. My point was that everytime there's an observation that has been represented or visualized in some form it has a fake component and a real one in different degrees.

You are always dealing with representations and visualizations of data. Many times the data is presented to you by instruments (cameras for example) that translate the records in a format that allows your biological instruments (your eyes) to see them exactly as you expect. Other times the instrument can translate the info to another format and you only visualize ceros and ones (does that make a fake image of jupiter?).

Pure non-faked data is just the phenomenon itself of wich you extracted the data. Data has to be represented. In this graph you see the velocities of stars in the galactic disk as a function of distance:



It represent what is mean to represent but the distance in the graph don't correpond at all to the distances in real life (it has been tweeked like the girl of your example). Even more, the distance in the graph (not this one) could be represented in logarithmic scale. Is that a distortion of reality meant to deceive us? Well, no, maybe is youst a manipulation of data or just it's representation (you can't see the velocity of stars in the graph itself but a geometric representation of all of them in an axis) to make clearer some things about the data. You can distort the graph in a way that what you want to notice pops up. The artist that defromed that girl thinks that is a noble sacrifice to throw out the information about the geometric shape of the girl to enhance the beauty he sees in her, or maybe he really wants to deceive us. Your video of Jupiter sacrificed the data about real color intensity to make clearer the data about the existence of complex atmospheric structures. Your video of Jupiter sacrificed the infromation about how each image was taken pasting them toghether so the information about the global continuous connection of the object could be enhanced. They simply sacrificed some info to make more clear other data equally real that was more subtle or even hidden in the images. I think that the category "fake" does not fit with the idea or it's implications. Obviously what your video is not at all is a video recording in real time of Jupiter.

Quote Proteus ()
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the sphere the textures were put on are a lot less oblate than I believe Jupiter actually is

Totally agree with this


Edited by FastFourierTransform - Friday, 09.09.2016, 15:34
 
steeljaw354Date: Friday, 09.09.2016, 19:47 | Message # 14
World Builder
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 862
Status: Offline
Jupiter is more oblate and not a perfect sphere as shown in the video. When I said 'fake' I mean that the images taken aren't what you would see if you were looking at it through a telescope or if you were on one of it's moons, the colors of the video aren't as dark as you would see at jupiter. I'm not one of those retards that think Earth is flat or something else

Edited by steeljaw354 - Friday, 09.09.2016, 19:52
 
Bells_TheoremDate: Friday, 09.09.2016, 20:27 | Message # 15
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 188
Status: Offline
Quote steeljaw354 ()
Jupiter is more oblate and not a perfect sphere as shown in the video. When I said 'fake' I mean that the images taken aren't what you would see if you were looking at it through a telescope or if you were on one of it's moons, the colors of the video aren't as dark as you would see at jupiter. I'm not one of those retards that think Earth is flat or something else


I get what you mean, however, I think using the term "fake" attaches unintended implications that there is somehow an intent to deceive. When you read through the comments of the video, it is quite clear that this is the intended meaning by the posters when they say it is "fake" or "CGI".

The problem is that there is a growing community of conspiracy theorists who flood every scientific video, news article and social media. This culture is affecting how newcomers to science view and trust established science. It affects how people view and trust scientists as a whole. It affects how people make decisions or vote on serious issues like climate change or how people make medical decisions. It provides non existent cracks where people with agendas can inject their own doubt or woo. I'm saddened and concerned by how much this culture has grown in just the past few decades. It disrupts our growth towards a better future.

The word fake implies a deception. So unless you wish to perpetuate the NASA and Science conspiracies, I would suggest using a less condemning and more accurate term like "enhanced" or "modified".
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Science and Astronomy Discussions » Is this Jupiter Video Real or CGI?
Page 1 of 212»
Search: