PDA

View Full Version : Real or CG you tell me.



aurora
03-14-2011, 09:33 AM
I'm just curious to see which you guys think is the real image and which is the one generated by galaxy evolution simulations.

jay3d
03-14-2011, 10:43 AM
The colorful grain and lens flares tells u that left is real :)

wrightyp100
03-14-2011, 10:49 AM
just a guess... left.

probiner
03-14-2011, 10:58 AM
I would be very suprised if the real one turned out to be the right one. I would ask how that picture was obtained.

So i say Left!

edit: because left one looks more clear, but that sometimes means CG. But if the right one is real, then it's a crude photo

toddd240
03-14-2011, 11:03 AM
I would be very suprised if the real one turned out to be the right one. I would ask how that picture was obtained.

So i say Left!

I also think left is real.

Titus
03-14-2011, 01:27 PM
Many features in the right image are duplicated. Left is real.

cresshead
03-14-2011, 01:52 PM
pretty simple none are 'real' as you can't see color in galaxies with visible light imaging you have to make 3 b/w images with different colored filters on each red,green and blue, then assemble in a paint app like photoshop.

so none...all are photoshopped to some degree!

both images are C.G (computer generated)
the real one is a false color composite.

show me the 3 b/w real images against the 3 b/w cg images and ask me again!

gerry_g
03-14-2011, 02:31 PM
before I read Cress' comment I was going to say why in hell would you want to copy so slavishly anything as artificial and contrived as a space photo, most of the gaseous stuff only ever shows up due to some kind of filtering that favours one wavelength or another anyway, and in light of the above written, why would you want to copy those lurid and oversimplified colours and that false chromatic aberration, I mean for what – so that you can produce an image that not merely looks as bad as the original but one that looks far worse.

Tonttu
03-14-2011, 04:49 PM
pretty simple none are 'real' as you can't see color in galaxies with visible light imaging

I understood this to be about form and not color ("galaxy evolution simulations").

Greenlaw
03-14-2011, 04:57 PM
I'm going to buck the trend and say the right image is real, only because the left image is 'prettier' and makes me think it's an enhancement of reality. (That said, I think I'm wrong.)

G.

Edit: I just looked at some other galaxy 'real vs. sim' comparisons and, yeah, I think I'm wrong. The real images are much prettier than the sims (though I'm sure the 'real' images get quite a bit of enhancement anyway.) :)

aurora
03-14-2011, 05:20 PM
pretty simple none are 'real' as you can't see color in galaxies with visible light imaging you have to make 3 b/w images with different colored filters on each red,green and blue, then assemble in a paint app like photoshop.

so none...all are photoshopped to some degree!

both images are C.G (computer generated)
the real one is a false color composite.

show me the 3 b/w real images against the 3 b/w cg images and ask me again!

Its true that Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra and 'most' other satellites use only b&w imaging with various wavelength filtering. However the general point you are trying to make is absolutely false. You will not 'see' color in nebula's or galaxies till you have a mirror > 22". A mirror of >=24" finally opens the realm of galaxies (yes you can see a couple with the naked eye but most are small and dim after all they are just a little far aways) and galaxy color will start to be seen with mirrors > 34". Exception to this rule is M82 outflow which can be seen as a dim rust with a 24" mirror. Imaging can reduce that when using decent cameras and even better when chilled, either film or ccd. Normally an earth based scope will image with at least 3 filters and an rbg pass. Plus now a-days the rule of the roost is a ton of short exposures and then stake them. This trick always some pretty funky cool magic to happen for even the smallest scopes.

probiner
03-14-2011, 05:40 PM
So...
(I want to know if i keep on winning $$$ or i go home)

aurora
03-14-2011, 05:52 PM
I give the info in a day or two.

bazsa73
03-14-2011, 08:19 PM
I dont know...

jrandom
03-14-2011, 09:09 PM
The one on the left is real, the one on the right still looks a bit too artificial.

lwanmtr
03-14-2011, 10:12 PM
The one on the right is cg..you can see where part of a real shot was photoshopped into the image...a softer fade would have been more effective...hehe

jrandom
03-14-2011, 10:17 PM
The one on the right is cg..you can see where part of a real shot was photoshopped into the image...a softer fade would have been more effective...hehe

The interior lighting also isn't right for a galaxy. You'd need to do some heavy volumetric radiosity or at least fake it really well.

JeffrySG
03-14-2011, 10:27 PM
I'd have to go with the left one being real as well. Mostly because the left image has a huge artifact that looks as if it was stitched from two different cameras/shots. Why would the cg image have that artifact?

lwanmtr
03-14-2011, 10:30 PM
actually, the right also has that..however, its from the imposed photo that was painted out to reveal the cg galaxy...

erikals
03-15-2011, 12:22 PM
right is real

kopperdrake
03-15-2011, 03:12 PM
I'm with Titus - the left is real - there are 3 galaxy clusters that seem identical in the right-hand one.

Matt
03-15-2011, 05:19 PM
I picked left

bobakabob
03-16-2011, 05:58 AM
Left is real... right looks a little too 'granular'.

lardbros
03-16-2011, 06:17 AM
I think the right is real... just looked less perfect :D

3DGFXStudios
03-16-2011, 06:47 AM
Both fake! ;) but I picked left ;)

aurora
03-16-2011, 08:13 AM
I want to thank everyone who has answered. In case you were wondering (no, no answer yet) I have nothing to do with either image. However I do work with both the simulation and viz software to create the 'fake' galaxy. Some of you have brought up very interesting comments which will be very helpful in the future. Strangely there's one HUGE questions/comment I'm surprised no one has brought up dealing more with the actual modeling/simulation then the viz.

I'm going to let this go another day or two, spelled probably till this weekend, to see whatever other hopefully useful comments come up.

art
03-16-2011, 08:21 AM
I voted the right is real simply because it is "less perfect", but I'm a bit less certain now. I also noticed that the right one is missing a few big stars. Most of the other stars seem to match.

jrandom
03-16-2011, 10:26 AM
There are some big give-aways that mark the right image as being CG:

1. The grain of the galaxy doesn't match the grain of the rest of the image -- it's too blobby and looks like a regular noise texture applied over a volume.

2. The self-lighting of the right image isn't physically accurate. Compare the center of the left galaxy to the center of the right galaxy.

3. The left image has various scales of noise in the color channels from the photographic CCD outputs (endemic to any long-exposure gain-compensated digital photograph). The right image does not exhibit these artifacts.

#3 was especially obvious to me since I deal with noise artifacting from my photography hobby (http://jrandom.smugmug.com/).

(Aurora: you work on galaxy-scale sims? Color me green with envy -- that's fantastic.)

Traveler
03-16-2011, 10:56 AM
I think the right one is the real one. I find the right one has the appearance of rotation that is lacking in the left one.

Also, regarding the whole blurry/graininess issue. Surely if there's a program dedicated towards duplicating these kind of images, wouldn't grain and blur be one of it's strongest points?

jrandom
03-16-2011, 11:02 AM
Also, regarding the whole blurry/graininess issue. Surely if there's a program dedicated towards duplicating these kind of images, wouldn't grain and blur be one of it's strongest points?

Oddly enough, computer-generated noise in CG applications is generally distinguishable from physically-generated noise since real noise is completely random while CG noise is usually tweaked to be random but evenly distributed. If you work with both it becomes pretty easy to tell the two apart.

Rule of thumb: Real noise is "clumpy", CG noise is staggered but evenly distributed across larger scales.

If both images had color grain it would be tougher to tell them apart, but the right image is missing that color grain entirely. Also, the scale of the grain in the right galaxy is too large compared to the photographic grain of the rest of the background stars image.

art
03-16-2011, 11:24 AM
Aurora? :)

lardbros
03-16-2011, 12:11 PM
Well, i haven't changed my mind, but think my description isn't quite right...

the right one seems less perfect in image quality... I can certainly say that the left one looks higher fidelity, and as if more detail has been added (in CG sim software), that the camera CCD couldn't pick up in the second image... just my interpretation of them. :)

I've seen some of the galaxy sim stuff that NASA has done in the past, as Siggraph, and it did look a little blobby in places, but still quite incredible.

lardbros
03-16-2011, 12:13 PM
To add to my comments a little more:

The left one looks to me how a galaxy should look in a film/CG whereas the right one looks less impressive, and therefore more likely to be the real one :D

Not sure if my crazy logic is correct, but can't wait to find out.

aurora
03-16-2011, 01:47 PM
(Aurora: you work on galaxy-scale sims? Color me green with envy -- that's fantastic.)

I do indeed. I do alot of HPC NBody-SPH work both for astrophysical and molecular dynamic simulations. It really sucks having access to 10's of thousands to hundred's of thousands of cores to work with:dance:

My end goal, as a few of you know, is to turn Core into a viz system for scientific viz, there are no really good viz apps out there. The few that do a decent job are restrictive and designed by people more concerned with the science then the visual aspect. Thus mixing a truly powerful CG application with model/sim data would be beyond freaken awesome and a HUGE step forward in scientific viz. And happily I won't be the first to do this thanks to VoluMedic:thumbsup:

The big issue for me with Core is the need for decent disk swapping since data files are several to hundreds of gigs in size. Some of the atmospheric and climatology simulations I have ran have generated several terabytes of data for a single sim. Happily Vapor loves large data sizes and is CUDA enhanced.

jrandom
03-16-2011, 02:01 PM
Wow.

Figure out how to get volumetric radiosity to work with that size of dataset and you'll be able to make the prettiest simulated galaxies ever.

Heck, to fund your research your team could uh... y'know... rent out time on that thing as a massive render cluster... :hey:

eracer
03-16-2011, 02:10 PM
before I read Cress' comment I was going to say why in hell would you want to copy so slavishly anything as artificial and contrived as a space photo, most of the gaseous stuff only ever shows up due to some kind of filtering that favours one wavelength or another anyway, and in light of the above written, why would you want to copy those lurid and oversimplified colours and that false chromatic aberration, I mean for what – so that you can produce an image that not merely looks as bad as the original but one that looks far worse.

The Hubble nebula pics (as manipulated as they are) can't in good conscience be called 'bad looking.' That's like saying pointillism is 'bad looking.' The wonder of astronomical imaging is that it allows us to see things we couldn't otherwise see.

Is what we see in the images exactly what is there? I would argue that it is. It's just not what we would see without the augmentation that our technology allows.

jrandom
03-16-2011, 02:14 PM
The Hubble nebula pics (as manipulated as they are) can't in good conscience be called 'bad looking.' That's like saying pointillism is 'bad looking.' The wonder of astronomical imaging is that it allows us to see things we couldn't otherwise see.

Is what we see in the images exactly what is there? I would argue that it is. It's just not what we would see without the augmentation that our technology allows.

Exactly. Our eyes see such a limited range of the EM spectrum. The false-color images from the hubble show us all sorts of things depending on what filters are used, like what the mix of hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon is in the structure of whatever it's looking at.

This reminds me of this beautiful rant from the otherwise-disappointing later seasons of Battlestar Galactica:


Brother Cavil: No? Well, I have. I saw a star explode and send out the building blocks of the Universe. Other stars, other planets and eventually other life. A supernova! Creation itself! I was there. I wanted to see it and be part of the moment. And you know how I perceived one of the most glorious events in the universe? With these ridiculous gelatinous orbs in my skull! With eyes designed to perceive only a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. With ears designed only to hear vibrations in the air.

Ellen Tigh: The five of us designed you to be as human as possible.

Brother Cavil: I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! I'm a machine! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body! And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way!

hcoat
03-16-2011, 07:40 PM
The image on the right has stars that repeat by use of the PS clone tool. If you look at the star cluster that looks like the "Enterprise" you can see that there is less noise where it has been cloned as well as other splotchy less noise patches. The stars in the right are all taken from the left but move in or cloned to make room for the fake galaxy to cover the glowing noise from the (left)real galaxy. Light escaping a dusty, gassish galaxy would definitely have a diffused light while be view a the apparent distance. This diffusion is correct in the left but right shows to holes in it that wouldn't be possible at that viewing range. Also the right galaxy is grayish and should be more red to take into account red shift.

The Left (real) galaxy has obviously been stitched. which is apparent by the different colors of noise, and the two big over lapping stars. Knowing that the sky moves in the camera lens as fast as the earth rotates means that the two images can't be perfectly aligned. the so the option is to line up the stars or galaxy. This show that it was a real camera that took the pictures for the left. The stars on the seam are the only stars that repeat on the left. There has been no cloning on the left. So, there is no question that the left is the real galaxy.

erikals
03-16-2011, 11:53 PM
The Left (real) galaxy has obviously been stitched...

i noticed that later too, maybe the left indeed is the real one...

erikals
03-17-2011, 12:01 AM
(sorry, wrong thread)

Bona
03-17-2011, 05:27 AM
I chose left, when boosted the level in photoshop I can see clearly the right one is keyed. :)

prometheus
03-17-2011, 07:42 AM
Well...the left image is prettier...I´d go with the left image as real.
The pure resolution of it just makes me think it must be real.

Michael

aurora
03-17-2011, 08:20 AM
I know alot of you think that CG means modeled in LW, Houdini, ICE or whatever and/or created/enhanced in PS. HOWEVER, the 'FAKE' one was created by NBody-SPH HPC simulation software which was ran on a super computer. PS was not used to create the galaxy at all, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, none 'for the galaxy'. The background is indeed a single Hubble image for the star field, that is the ONLY PS-esque work done on the 'FAKE' image.

Sorry to disappoint many of you with your logic but that, in fact, is the kind of information I want to hear about so don't stop telling me exactly what you think of when you look at the two images.

Note: this does not indicate which is real and which is fake. You'll have to wait till this weekend to learn that.

probiner
03-17-2011, 08:48 AM
I hate ninja questions... :D

Pavlov
03-17-2011, 08:49 AM
well.. imho most people would spot several reasons to say left is better: better/more matching grain, better look of gaseous masses (right one really looks like it has been simulated by a low quality a particle system, you can easily see constant-size dots), richer spectrum, an so on.
But since this seems a bit obvious (maybe for people without a knowledge of astronomic photography like me), personally i wouldnt have run such a thread if there wasn't a surprise ;) So, i think right one will result to be real one.

Paolo

prometheus
03-17-2011, 08:55 AM
yeah I understood that the fake image was to be simulated with supercomputers.

It´s utterly confusing thou, since you might have seen better resolutions in in real galaxy shots than the right image, but then again I wouldn´t be surprised either if the left image is the simulated one.

after seeing fractal renders, you might think that the supercomps should be able to produce far superior renders, thou It´s by far more data to handle.

Michael

GandB
03-17-2011, 09:24 AM
I picked left one as real; as the one on the right didn't seem "whole", in that it didn't blend well with the rest of the image.

Bill Carey
03-17-2011, 09:35 AM
I picked the left as real, it looks like several stitched images, like you would get from registar or something along those lines. Stitching on the right is irregular. Abberation on the left looks better.

jrandom
03-17-2011, 10:35 AM
I know alot of you think that CG means modeled in LW, Houdini, ICE or whatever and/or created/enhanced in PS. HOWEVER, the 'FAKE' one was created by NBody-SPH HPC simulation software which was ran on a super computer.

It's not the shape of the galaxy nor the background that tipped it off for me, it's the digital photo grain (or lack thereof), the scale of blobbyness of the galaxy body, and the physical accuracy of the lighting (this one being the most glaring).

The fake one looks like it has an opacity noise channel applied to the volume of the galaxy, or had a 2D noise texture applied when summing the medium-scale density of particle locations. Either way, it looks a little wrong. What is the source of this artifacting? Simulation? Visualization process?

hcoat
03-17-2011, 01:05 PM
The background is indeed a single Hubble image for the star field, that is the ONLY PS-esque work done on the 'FAKE' image.


That was my point.:) The background on the right shows lots of PS work. The star cluster that is looks like the "Enterprise" appears at least 3 times on the right. the grain is not distributed evenly across what would have been stitch panels on the right. Even the best super computers can't account for an almost infinite amount of data(gravity, magnetic fields, molecules, photons, various practicals, etc.). So when trying to simulate a galaxy something will have to give. That is why the galaxy on the right is splotchy and grayish. I am also sure that the super computer wasn't trying to replicate the grain that would happen as result of using film or a CCD, CMOS or whatever imaging censor that was used. Hence the galaxy on the right doesn't blend well. I am sure that if you were using the a super computer for just visualization it would look a lot better. The image on right shows that it is trying simulate much more than just looks.

aurora
03-19-2011, 08:20 AM
answer


which galaxy is real?
A galaxy from governato and colleagues’ simulation (left) appears in all respects identical to a real galaxy (right) and background image from the sloan digital sky survey collaboration.

Image courtesy of chris brook (the jeremiah horrocks institute at the university of central lancashire) and patrik jonsson (center for astrophysics, harvard).




Artificial Observations via Shared Memory

To further verify their findings, Quinn, Governato and their colleagues have turned to PSC’s shared-memory system, Pople, for “artificial observations” of the dwarf galaxies formed in their simulations. “After we run the simulations, we want to look at them as an observer would,” says Quinn. “What would this galaxy look like if you looked with the Hubble space telescope at five different wavelengths, five different colors? To do that we have to trace how the starlight propagates through the dust and the gas of the galaxy.”

For this analysis, they use a program called SUNRISE (a Monte Carlo ray-tracing code developed by Patrik Jonsson), which takes the data generated by the simulations and produces images of the light distribution based on the masses and ages of the stars, their chemical compositions, and how they are distributed in the galaxy. The galaxy’s light distribution might make it look blue, or red, or ultraviolet.

This kind of data analysis is best suited to a shared-memory computing system. “Photons are flying all over the place,” says Quinn. “You can’t easily domain decompose and expect reasonable communications between domains. To handle the photons from a single dwarf galaxy simulation requires about 50 gigabytes of memory, and you really need to have the whole simulation in shared memory.” The improved processor speed and larger shared memory of the new SGI Altix UV system at PSC will help with the larger datasets and artificial observations produced by this group and others.

“This is what’s really new in our field,” says Governato. “You don’t just run the simulation, you want to analyze the data so that they look like data out of a telescope, because when you compare data with observers you want to compare apples with apples. We find that our artificial galaxies look remarkably similar to those observed. They have the same light distribution, they form the same amount of stars, the same light profile without the bulge, and based on how fast the stars and the gas move, they have the same amount of dark matter as the real galaxies. And this confirms the results of our Nature paper.”

“We’ve learned two things,” he continues. “One is that you can create realistic galaxies within what we think is the correct model for structure formation — the CDM model. So it removes a major problem for this model. And second it shows that we’ve started to understand what physical processes shape the distribution of mass at the center of galaxies, namely these large gas outflows caused by supernova explosions.”

jrandom
03-19-2011, 09:05 AM
You have got to be kidding me. The left one is CG?

The RIGHT one is REAL??

I don't... it doesn't... but see...

Great. You broke my brain. This is going to haunt me all weekend.

erikals
03-19-2011, 09:07 AM
hehe, smart trick with the stitching of the left image there, almost had me... ;]

Traveler
03-19-2011, 09:20 AM
Well, there go all the grain/blurry/stitching theories.... :neener:

jrandom
03-19-2011, 09:23 AM
I swear, my world doesn't make sense anymore! Black is White! Up is Down! Light is Both a Particle and a Hamburger! Kesha is a Real Singer! Windows is Superior to Mac!

SSSOOOOMMMEEEE WHEEEERRREEE OOOOVERRR THE RAAIIINBOOOOOOWWWWW.....

*explodes in a shower of unicorns and neutrinos*

hcoat
03-19-2011, 10:56 AM
You got me. It was a nice trick having the real galaxy on PS'd background. :thumbsup: That totally through me off.

Greenlaw
03-19-2011, 10:58 AM
So my first impression was correct: Pretty is fake!

Should have stuck to my instincts. :)

lardbros
03-19-2011, 11:36 AM
So my first impression was correct: Pretty is fake!

Should have stuck to my instincts. :)

That was exactly my thought process... and my vote too :)

probiner
03-19-2011, 11:49 AM
Reality sucks!!!
I mean... the capability to capture it... :D

jrandom
03-19-2011, 11:52 AM
We've been hit with the sad fact that reality is unrealistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealityIsUnrealistic).

Titus
03-19-2011, 12:09 PM
Well, now explain the cloned stars in the real image.

Dexter2999
03-19-2011, 12:30 PM
I voted for the left one because it looked more natural. The transparency of the cloud and the visibility of the other stars through it.

Of course right after I voted, I thought I was probably wrong. No doubt it is the more appealing image though.

erikals
03-19-2011, 12:36 PM
Well, now explain the cloned stars in the real image.

urm, well... those are... \:O

http://erikalstad.com/cgtemp/attack%20of%20the%20clones.png

evenflcw
03-19-2011, 12:48 PM
Yeah, right one wins! I am so smart! I am so smart! S! M! R! T!

lwanmtr
03-19-2011, 02:39 PM
Well, now explain the cloned stars in the real image.

Those are obviously starhsips...the ones from the secret nasa projects

kopperdrake
03-19-2011, 03:18 PM
Well, now explain the cloned stars in the real image.

Yep - I want to know too :D

prometheus
03-19-2011, 03:47 PM
As I understand it the right image with the real galaxy was somewhat faked with photoshop mixing to further give an illusion of not being real?

interesting test, but a comparison to a fully true space shot image compared to a simulation would have been more interesting.


Michael

Liber777
03-19-2011, 03:51 PM
Well, now explain the cloned stars in the real image.

Gravitational lensing?

aurora
03-19-2011, 04:59 PM
urm, well... those are... \:O

http://erikalstad.com/cgtemp/attack%20of%20the%20clones.png

Easy, those are not stars, they're galaxies.

Theres no 'faking' with the right

No lensing, the beauty of ancient galaxies is they are not pretty like most people think about when thinking of galaxies.

Windows is superior to Mac. :twak::argue::beerchug:

And truth be told when I first read the paper I thought the left was real too.:bangwall:

Dexter2999
03-19-2011, 06:43 PM
Still dubious that the photo on the right wasn't doctored somehow.

That close up looks cloned. Also the large orange "star" on the lower left is pixel identical to the one at the top left. Check it out, each of those orange cirlces have to red dots in identical positions.

It's almost like it was stitched together from different exposures so parts got duplicated.

Titus
03-19-2011, 06:52 PM
Easy, those are not stars, they're galaxies.

They can be starships, but that doesn't answer the question.

Titus
03-19-2011, 06:59 PM
Still dubious that the photo on the right wasn't doctored somehow.

That close up looks cloned. Also the large orange "star" on the lower left is pixel identical to the one at the top left. Check it out, each of those orange cirlces have to red dots in identical positions.

It's almost like it was stitched together from different exposures so parts got duplicated.

That makes some sense.

hcoat
03-19-2011, 09:10 PM
Easy, those are not stars, they're galaxies.

Theres no 'faking' with the right

No lensing, the beauty of ancient galaxies is they are not pretty like most people think about when thinking of galaxies.

Windows is superior to Mac. :twak::argue::beerchug:

And truth be told when I first read the paper I thought the left was real too.:bangwall:

Well there is plenty of faking on the right image weather or not it is the real galaxy. I Think you caught someone cheating on the their research. :D

The image below shows that some of the stars or galaxies that repeat once on the left and multiple times on the right. I did lighten the mid-tones to make easy to see the cloning tracks. Notice that on each of these clones the noise doesn't match the background but it does match the originals from the bottom portion of the image.

Somebody was definitely using some fakery to make us think that the real image was the fake image, but that is some good tricking. :thumbsup:

aurora
03-19-2011, 10:09 PM
You know what I find amazing even at 35,000 feet in a jet the Earth still seems flat, a huge endless disk, no matter how I look at it its flat. And while Apollo 16 was all staged and filmed here on Earth, Apollo really happened on the moon. And I once saw this picture of Big foot that.........
;)

aurora
03-19-2011, 10:16 PM
Sorry hcoat you posted while I was typing.

The image on the right is an image from the Sloan digital survey. The one on the left is and NBody TreePM simulation which overlays the simulation over the same plate sans the central galaxy. Whats so hard to believe? Why the snipe hunt.

Although I have to admit when I was a boy scout and was subjected to my first snipe hunt I happened to do it with a kid who was an avid bird watcher and out on the plains where much to the older kids surprise he came back with a real snipe. Nothing like busting myths which aren't myths and having fun in the process.

Sekhar
03-19-2011, 11:15 PM
Well there is plenty of faking on the right image weather or not it is the real galaxy. I Think you caught someone cheating on the their research. :D

The image below shows that some of the stars or galaxies that repeat once on the left and multiple times on the right. I did lighten the mid-tones to make easy to see the cloning tracks. Notice that on each of these clones the noise doesn't match the background but it does match the originals from the bottom portion of the image.

Somebody was definitely using some fakery to make us think that the real image was the fake image, but that is some good tricking. :thumbsup:

Nice catch. Kind of sad, the lengths people go to to feel smart.

erikals
03-20-2011, 02:46 AM
Nice catch. Kind of sad, the lengths people go to to feel smart.

not really, i voted for the right image, but it has been altered in some way for sure...
i think they might have added some larger stars /small galaxies to make it look more interesting...

csandy
03-20-2011, 03:28 AM
The image below shows that some of the stars or galaxies that repeat once on the left and multiple times on the right. I did lighten the mid-tones to make easy to see the cloning tracks. Notice that on each of these clones the noise doesn't match the background but it does match the originals from the bottom portion of the image.

Good job!

csandy
03-20-2011, 03:30 AM
not really, i voted for the right image, but it has been altered in some way for sure...
i think they might have added some larger stars /small galaxies to make it look more interesting...

Does that mean you also voted for the correct image? :)

erikals
03-20-2011, 04:31 AM
maybe neither are correct... hehe.... ;]

jrandom
03-20-2011, 09:12 AM
I can't believe anything anymore. I stare in the mirror. Am I real? I have this shape, this... this human shape. Is Aurora simulating humans now? Am I nothing more than a cache-optimized chunked array of floating point numbers barely held together against the onslaught of rounding precision errors?

I watched the moon last night. It was supposed to be 19% brighter... something about it's orbit. I don't think it's real either. Photoshop, I'm sure of it. I can tell by the pixels they call "stars" and having seen a lot of photoshops in my time.

The neighbor's cat is meowing at me. I do not think it is real, either. It tries to rub against me, purring, but it only succeeds in repeatedly bonking its head into my leg. Bonk bonk purr bonk purr bonk bonk. That cat is too silly to be real. I do not think it is.

jasonwestmas
03-20-2011, 09:38 AM
I was wrong. =P

Sekhar
03-20-2011, 09:52 AM
As was pointed out immediately here, there is no such thing as real in astronomy pictures because pretty much all are processed/merged/reconstructed/etc. due to limitations in capturing. Still, it would've been a fun exercise if the images were otherwise untouched. Messing with the images with the intent to mislead people is just pathetic.

jrandom
03-20-2011, 10:03 AM
As was pointed out immediately here, there is no such thing as real in astronomy pictures because pretty much all are processed/merged/reconstructed/etc. due to limitations in capturing.

Astronomy pictures are just as real as regular pictures. All photographs are "processed" whether they're captured on film or CCDs or CMOS chips, no matter if the images is of the tiny visible spectrum or from a wider group of them.

Since we can only see a limited range of the EM spectrum, astronomy photographs can be taken through various filters that capture certain items of interest -- x-ray spectrum, hydrogen emission spectrum, etc. While the colors are different (we can't see x-rays with our eyes!) due to the remapping, the shape, structure, and brightness are all real things.

But the same thing happens with visible light photography as well! The photons of different energies are processed in a way that results in a picture we can look at. Are the colors unaltered? NO! You've seen the "white balance" setting on a camera? Contrast? Sharpness? All these things are part of the processing stages that any photograph goes through before it leaves the camera.

Film has the same kind of steps, only instead of digital sensors it works via photo-sensitive silver salts. The sensitivity to different wavelengths of light, the contrast of the film, the color balance (hence the different between daylight film and indorr film), all these things are "processing" too.

So yes, astronomy photographs are just as real as any other regular photograph you've ever seen. :)

Sekhar
03-20-2011, 10:59 AM
So yes, astronomy photographs are just as real as any other regular photograph you've ever seen. :)

Right, and we're all just as bad as Charles Manson because hey, nobody's perfect.

jrandom
03-20-2011, 11:16 AM
Right, and we're all just as bad as Charles Manson because hey, nobody's perfect.

Well I... wait, what?

csandy
03-20-2011, 11:22 AM
From astronomy to photography on to philosophy. This truly is fascinating!

lardbros
03-20-2011, 03:34 PM
As was pointed out immediately here, there is no such thing as real in astronomy pictures because pretty much all are processed/merged/reconstructed/etc. due to limitations in capturing. Still, it would've been a fun exercise if the images were otherwise untouched. Messing with the images with the intent to mislead people is just pathetic.

Hmmm, calm down a bit... slightly over reacting methinks. Doubt anything this trivial is worth getting annoyed about :)

frantbk
03-20-2011, 04:41 PM
The third answer is neither one is real. :beerchug:

aurora
03-21-2011, 08:27 AM
The only thing that is important to me is that the visualizer has an extremely viable concept and produces output that can cause CG artists to rip things apart to see whats real and whats not. That's something which is EXTREMELY rare in scientific viz and thus very exciting to me.

inakito
03-24-2011, 06:34 AM
my vote went for right one as real...