PDA

View Full Version : Massive panoramic photo of Orion Nebula (324,000,000 pixels)


srobert
Jan 13, 2006, 12:42 PM
Anybody downloaded the Hubble's massive panoramic view of the Orion Nebula?

It's so gorgeous I'm thinking about having it printed poster size. At 300 dpi it would make a 5x5 feet poster! The file is a 18,000 x 18,000 pixel, 385 MB tif file. The amount of detail is staggering.

To fit this image at 100% on a computer display, we would need a 21x21 feet screen. Come on Apple, you can do it! ^_^

This picture is so large, that we could cut it in pieces and make enough completely unique avatars for 57,600 MacRumors Forums members. :D

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2006/01/image/a+warn

Click the thumbnail to see a sample. The full size picture is 22.5x larger on each side.

freeny
Jan 13, 2006, 01:01 PM
Nice! downloading the 394.3 mb file now. only 14 minutes to go....

Mr. Anderson
Jan 13, 2006, 01:05 PM
excellent! I'm downloading it for my dual 24" displays (the 6000x6000). I might get a large print of it as well if the image quality is good - I'm going to try downloading the larger image later.

D :D

Lord Blackadder
Jan 13, 2006, 01:26 PM
Very cool, I'll definitely download this when I get home.

It would be a nice poster to put on your ceiling.

jayscheuerle
Jan 13, 2006, 01:49 PM
Very nice. My first telescope is due to arrive next week (an Orion XT8 dob) and I can't wait for the weather to clear and get out to a good viewing spot.

I have no idea what to expect looking through it, though of course I realized we've all been spoiled by these Hubble shots (among others). The Orion Nebula (M42) will be my first Nebula to seek out (because I know where it is), but I can't wait to see the Cassini division in Saturn's rings and cloud bands around Jupiter (with 4 of its moons).

Can somebody make this into a quicktime VR file? :D

Thanks for the link! - j

srobert
Jan 13, 2006, 01:55 PM
Can somebody make this into a quicktime VR file? :D

Thanks for the link! - j

Well, there's always the zoomable version on their site:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2006/01/image/a+zoom

Congrats on your scope.

iSaint
Jan 13, 2006, 01:58 PM
If God's not here she's certainly out there! What beauty and mystery!

jayscheuerle
Jan 13, 2006, 02:05 PM
She must have left as soon as her son was born because Orion is 2000 light years away!

srobert
Jan 13, 2006, 02:13 PM
It's amazing to thing that even though we have very powerful telescopes, we still can't see the nearest star as a disc. It's still only a dot. I can't wait to see the pics taken by the next generations VLTs and OWLs.

thedude110
Jan 13, 2006, 02:38 PM
Absolutely beautiful. Thanks for the link, srobert.

Lacero
Jan 13, 2006, 03:07 PM
Any chance this pic is a fake computer generated image? No way it can be real. :p What, did some dude fly into space and snapped the picture with a digicam? I think not.


Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

jayscheuerle
Jan 13, 2006, 03:13 PM
You're being facetious, right?

floyde
Jan 13, 2006, 03:19 PM
Is that an ant on the lens? :confused:

jayscheuerle
Jan 13, 2006, 03:31 PM
Is that an ant on the lens? :confused:
It's an Edge-on Protoplanetary Disk in the Orion Nebula (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/45/image/c)

plinkoman
Jan 13, 2006, 03:37 PM
correct me if i'm wrong, isn't a panoramic photo one that is widescreen? this pic, though massive, is a square...

and i can say this for it, preview sure as hell doesn't like 18000x18000 pixels :eek:

jayscheuerle
Jan 13, 2006, 03:42 PM
Just means a broad, wide view, but when you're terrestrial based, your panoramas are going to be along a horizon (i.e. horizontal).

kwajaln
Jan 13, 2006, 03:46 PM
This picture is so large, that we could cut it in pieces and make enough completely unique avatars for 57,600 MacRumors Forums members. :D
I want one I want one!!!

floyde
Jan 13, 2006, 04:35 PM
It's an Edge-on Protoplanetary Disk in the Orion Nebula (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/45/image/c)
Ahh.. "the floydian protoplanetary disk", I like the sound of that. If only I'd been the first one to notice it, they could've named that one after me;)

simie
Jan 13, 2006, 04:59 PM
I think we should use the 394.3mb image for the Photoshop Test.

I wonder what the times would be?

Xephian
Jan 13, 2006, 05:59 PM
I think we should use the 394.3mb image for the Photoshop Test.

I wonder what the times would be?
Probably a few days. Lol.

stoid
Jan 13, 2006, 06:06 PM
Probably a few days. Lol.

Not likely, in the course of my design work for school my PowerBook 1.25Ghz has crunched easily through 500MB files. And a professional design I know has a similar system, and has worked with Photoshop projects larger than 3GB. Granted most of that data is because of the layers and not from sheer pixel count, but if you had a G5 I'm sure it would handle it without difficulty.

crdean1
Jan 13, 2006, 06:06 PM
As a Christian, believing that God created the universe, etc., I thought this pic of the heart of the whirlpool galaxy to be pretty neat. It has been my desktop pic for a while.

Also from Hubble site:

Plymouthbreezer
Jan 13, 2006, 06:09 PM
Has anyone had luck viewing the 18K x 18K image without a complete system lockup?

My 1GHz G4 did fine with the 6,000 x 6,000 image, but I'm worried about what 324,000,000 pixels will do to the machine. What are y'all viewing it in?

Mitthrawnuruodo
Jan 13, 2006, 06:17 PM
That file totally brought my iBook G4@800 to it's knees. Just opening (the large JPEG) in either Preview or Photoshop took forever and made the whole iBook beachballing and unresponsive and ate up most of what little HD space I got left for virtual memory... :eek:

But it was worth it: Awesome image... :D

Abstract
Jan 13, 2006, 06:45 PM
It's an Edge-on Protoplanetary Disk in the Orion Nebula (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/1995/45/image/c)

That's just a cover-up. Its really an alien spaceship.

Laser47
Jan 13, 2006, 07:47 PM
That's just a cover-up. Its really an alien spaceship.
The Truth Is Out There,
Hmm,,, I wonder if aliens use macs?

simie
Jan 13, 2006, 08:00 PM
Not likely, in the course of my design work for school my PowerBook 1.25Ghz has crunched easily through 500MB files. And a professional design I know has a similar system, and has worked with Photoshop projects larger than 3GB. Granted most of that data is because of the layers and not from sheer pixel count, but if you had a G5 I'm sure it would handle it without difficulty.



I have just tried the Photoshop Test using CS2 with the 394.3 mb image file and the it can't be done - out of memory error. Photoshop can only address 3.5 GB's of memory.

http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/04/photoshop-cs2-how-much-ram-fact/

Plymouthbreezer
Jan 13, 2006, 08:08 PM
That file totally brought my iBook G4@800 to it's knees. Just opening (the large JPEG) in either Preview or Photoshop took forever and made the whole iBook beachballing and unresponsive and ate up most of what little HD space I got left for virtual memory... :eek:

But it was worth it: Awesome image... :D
Yeah, I did get beachballed for a minute here and there, but it did well.

I doubt my G3 could even take it though.

joepunk
Jan 13, 2006, 08:41 PM
Wow! what an image.

Thanks a lot.

wiggy4ever
Jan 13, 2006, 11:00 PM
simply incredible, thnx!

reberto
Jan 13, 2006, 11:05 PM
Has anyone had luck viewing the 18K x 18K image without a complete system lockup?

My 1GHz G4 did fine with the 6,000 x 6,000 image, but I'm worried about what 324,000,000 pixels will do to the machine. What are y'all viewing it in?
It sohuld so fine. I have the same iMac G4 as you do (but I have 256 more ram than you do) and it loaded up fine. Just don't have anything else open...not good

Platform
Jan 14, 2006, 12:02 AM
Thanks a lot...on it's way down :D

EricNau
Jan 14, 2006, 01:22 AM
Is there a reason to download the TIFF instead of the JPEG? Is the TIFF better quality (even though it has the same number of pixels)?

srobert
Jan 14, 2006, 01:54 AM
Is there a reason to download the TIFF instead of the JPEG? Is the TIFF better quality (even though it has the same number of pixels)?

No compression, no artefacts. Yup, Tif is better quality I'm pretty sure.

obeygiant
Jan 14, 2006, 01:55 AM
thats an incredible and gorgeous image...
they should use that camera to find bin laden.

EricNau
Jan 14, 2006, 02:43 AM
No compression, no artefacts. Yup, Tif is better quality I'm pretty sure.
Thanks. It turns out the TIFF is just too big for my computer to handle (iMac G5 in sig). So I guess I answered by own question.

EricNau
Jan 14, 2006, 03:20 AM
OK... Now I'm trying to get rid of that 300 MB TIFF file, and I can't. When I try and delete it from the trash it says it can not because it is in use. I tried restarting, still get the same error. :confused:

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out. The computer was trying to show me a thumbnail of the image in the trash, so it was reading it. Once I waited long enough, I could delete it.

MacSA
Jan 14, 2006, 03:35 AM
What, did some dude fly into space and snapped the picture with a digicam? I think not.

Yes someone did.......

Hubble uses a CCD Camera to capture it's images, and it's flying in space.

sethypoo
Jan 14, 2006, 03:59 AM
Well, I can say that that's my new desktop! Thank you srobert!

sethypoo
Jan 14, 2006, 04:06 AM
So, I can't find an easy answer to this, but what are the specs on the camera the Hubble is using? And geez, how many megapixels does it have? 324?

dogbone
Jan 14, 2006, 04:28 AM
So, I can't find an easy answer to this, but what are the specs on the camera the Hubble is using? And geez, how many megapixels does it have? 324?


Here's (http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm) a camera that take 2.5 gigapixels in a single shot.

dogbone
Jan 14, 2006, 04:33 AM
It's amazing to thing that even though we have very powerful telescopes, we still can't see the nearest star as a disc. It's still only a dot. I can't wait to see the pics taken by the next generations VLTs and OWLs.

More amazingness:...

Remember that scene from Start Trek when Q slung the Enterprise so far out into space that even if the spaceship was travelling at it's top speed of 10 x the speed of light it would have taken them 700 years to get back to Earth? Well they hadn't even left the milky way galaxy.

When two galaxies of a hundred billion stars each collide the stars are so far apart that it is unlikely that any individual stars will collide.

Toreador93
Jan 14, 2006, 04:34 AM
Very nice. My first telescope is due to arrive next week (an Orion XT8 dob) and I can't wait for the weather to clear and get out to a good viewing spot.

I have no idea what to expect looking through it, though of course I realized we've all been spoiled by these Hubble shots (among others). The Orion Nebula (M42) will be my first Nebula to seek out (because I know where it is), but I can't wait to see the Cassini division in Saturn's rings and cloud bands around Jupiter (with 4 of its moons).

Can somebody make this into a quicktime VR file? :D

Thanks for the link! - j

I'm a fellow amateur astronomer (I have a 10" Meade LX200), and I congratulate you on your purchase!
Sadly, galaxies and nebulae don't look nearly as spectacular as photographs. Those pictures are usually very long exposures. You might see some color in the Orion Nebula, but don't expect too much. Most deep-space objects look grey.
However, planets look fantastic, especially if the sky is steady! Also, I recommend you spend some time looking at double stars and star clusters. Contrasting-colored binaries look very beautiful on a very dark night.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I haven't really star-gazed in a long time, and I've been trying to get back into it. I even brought my 85lb telescope to school, in hopes that I get bored one night and take it out (even though it's a bit chilly. However, cold nights are generally good nights for viewing).

MacSA
Jan 14, 2006, 06:15 AM
So, I can't find an easy answer to this, but what are the specs on the camera the Hubble is using? And geez, how many megapixels does it have? 324?

That image was taken with the ACS instrument:

http://acs.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/overview/

http://hubblesite.org/sci.d.tech/nuts_.and._bolts/

Cinematographer
Jan 14, 2006, 09:36 AM
Thanks a lot. This picture is awesome.

BarfBag
Jan 14, 2006, 09:38 AM
That's insane. I set it as my wallpaper. I just sit here doing nothing starring at it. It's beautiful! I'm such a softy. :p

jayscheuerle
Jan 14, 2006, 11:51 AM
Is there a reason to download the TIFF instead of the JPEG? Is the TIFF better quality (even though it has the same number of pixels)?

If it's a high quality jpeg made from the original tiff, your eyes won't be able to tell any difference. If you kept opening this jpeg up and saving it as a jpeg (even high quality), you would start to see artifacts in blocks of 8x8 pixels, which is the grouping size that jpeg uses for its approximations of the original.

PlaceofDis
Jan 14, 2006, 12:00 PM
awesome picture. just stunning.

jayscheuerle
Jan 14, 2006, 12:05 PM
So, I can't find an easy answer to this, but what are the specs on the camera the Hubble is using? And geez, how many megapixels does it have? 324?

I can't seem to find any information in megapixel terms either, but you can bet that this is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands of frames. Each frame may contain many exposures as well.

"This extensive study took 105 Hubble orbits to complete. All imaging instruments aboard the telescope the ACS, Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2, and Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer were used simultaneously to study the nebula. The ACS mosaic covers approximately the apparent angular size of the full moon." (from the image's site.)

Plymouthbreezer
Jan 14, 2006, 12:33 PM
Here's (http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm) a camera that take 2.5 gigapixels in a single shot.
Amazing stuff!

MacSA
Jan 14, 2006, 02:03 PM
I can't seem to find any information in megapixel terms either, but you can bet that this is comprised of hundreds, if not thousands of frames. Each frame may contain many exposures as well.

"This extensive study took 105 Hubble orbits to complete. All imaging instruments aboard the telescope the ACS, Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2, and Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer were used simultaneously to study the nebula. The ACS mosaic covers approximately the apparent angular size of the full moon." (from the image's site.)


The Advanced Camera for Survyes (ACS) is actually several cameras in one.

Wide Field Camera: http://acs.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/detectors/WFC/
# 350 - 1050 nanometer spectral response
# 202" 202" field of view
# 0.049" pixel size
# 2 butted 2048 4096, 15 m/pixel CCD detectors

High Resolution Channel: http://acs.pha.jhu.edu/instrument/detectors/HRC/

# 200 - 1050 nanometer spectral response
# 29.1" 26.1" field of view
# 0.028" 0.025" pixel size
# 1024 1024, 21 m/pixel, near UV-enhanced CCD detector

Solar Blind Camera:

# 115 - 180 nanometer spectral response
# 34.59" 30.8" field of view
# 0.033" 0.030" pixel size
# 1024 1024, Csl 25 m/pixel MAMA detector (STIS spare)

Deefuzz
Jan 14, 2006, 04:56 PM
Wow...Simply stunning.

Such amazing wonders out there!

Thanks for sharing...going to snag the big file shortly

howesey
Jan 14, 2006, 05:54 PM
Not a bad image from a camera that has 800x800 pixels. That's a lot of stitched photos.

edesignuk
Jan 15, 2006, 06:00 AM
Absolutely stunning picture. Thinking I might have to get it printed up large at the Kodak shop or something.

Wow.

ObsidianIce
Jan 16, 2006, 09:55 AM
this is definitely an impressive picture, and actually didn't have any trouble openeing it up on my G3 ibook in photoshop 7 which surprised me a bit

Lincoln 6 Echo
Jan 16, 2006, 06:28 PM
That's just a cover-up. Its really an alien spaceship.

My thoughts exactly, Protoplantary Disc my arse... they Photoshopped out some alien craft I say.
:eek:

mgargan1
Jan 16, 2006, 10:49 PM
I think, just a hypothesis, that this place is going to give google maps a run for its money. I mean imagine the possibilities...! ;)

zimv20
Jan 16, 2006, 10:51 PM
a stunning project and image, indeed.

but may i bitch for a moment?

i d/loaded the 24 meg jpeg and opened it in preview. eventually. i didn't time it, but it took something like 5 minutes to open and brought my powermac to its knees. my dual g5, 2.0 GHz powermac w/ 2 gig of RAM to its knees.

why is this? if the image were several gig, i'd understand. but i've got a damn powerful computer that can't even handle a large image. where is the breakdown? is it some deficiency in the 970 design? the motherboard design? does osx not handle this stuff well? preview? my 128 meg ATI video card? what is it?

it's the 21st century, goddamnit. when are these macs gonna start acting like it?

mgargan1
Jan 16, 2006, 10:53 PM
Is that an ant on the lens? :confused:


no, the government doesn't want you to know about that one particular star

mgargan1
Jan 16, 2006, 11:00 PM
wow, I just opened my activity monitor... I have 2GB of RAM, and this pic is eating 922.65MB of it... and 1.09GB of VRAM...

wow!

jayscheuerle
Jan 17, 2006, 07:55 AM
a stunning project and image, indeed.

but may i bitch for a moment?

i d/loaded the 24 meg jpeg and opened it in preview. eventually. i didn't time it, but it took something like 5 minutes to open and brought my powermac to its knees. my dual g5, 2.0 GHz powermac w/ 2 gig of RAM to its knees.

why is this? if the image were several gig, i'd understand. but i've got a damn powerful computer that can't even handle a large image. where is the breakdown? is it some deficiency in the 970 design? the motherboard design? does osx not handle this stuff well? preview? my 128 meg ATI video card? what is it?

it's the 21st century, goddamnit. when are these macs gonna start acting like it?

Breakdown is in the application, not the machine. Try Photoshop, with an external chosen for primary scratch disc space.

The jpeg opened up to 900+MB.

kretzy
Jan 17, 2006, 08:18 AM
Every time I try to d/l it, Safari crashes.

srobert
Jan 17, 2006, 12:09 PM
For those who can't open the image. Here are a few zooms to give you an idea of the incredible level of detail. I've indicated in each shot the area corresponding to the next shot.

The last frame (500x500px) is in 1:1 scale with the original picture

_

dops7107
Jan 17, 2006, 12:16 PM
Remember that scene from Start Trek when Q slung the Enterprise so far out into space that even if the spaceship was travelling at it's top speed of 10 x the speed of light it would have taken them 700 years to get back to Earth? Well they hadn't even left the milky way galaxy.

Woah... OT trekkiness... I love it :rolleyes: ! I thought that was the best episode, and I was thinking about it the other day... you don't happen to know the name of it do ya? :p :eek:

Back on-topic... even the 6000x6000 image is huge. I don't think I'll torture my eMac with the mega-sized one, however.

zimv20
Jan 17, 2006, 12:58 PM
Breakdown is in the application, not the machine. Try Photoshop, with an external chosen for primary scratch disc space.

The jpeg opened up to 900+MB.
thanks for that.

Lacero
Jan 17, 2006, 01:01 PM
More amazingness:... <snip> When two galaxies of a hundred billion stars each collide the stars are so far apart that it is unlikely that any individual stars will collide.
So what you are telling me is that the MW galaxy and pretty much the entire universe is... huge? So large in fact, we ourselves cannot comprehend the utter humongousness of it all.

p.s. I did see that Q episode. I've seen every one of the ST:TNG episode and I didn't know they were still in the Milky Way galaxy. Do you remember when Barclay went superbrainiac and created a rip in space and sent the Enterprise to the center of the universe where they met a bigheaded God?Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

dops7107
Jan 17, 2006, 01:04 PM
"Cannot complete your request because of a program error"

So says Photoshop 7. I opened up the 6000 pixel image, and tweaked it a little using curves. But I am unable to save it in any format. Photoshop is the only program open (I rebooted the computer) and it has plenty of available RAM according to the scratch size (185/605 MB). Any ideas what's going on? Resizing makes no difference either, so it seems to be an issue with that particular file (others are fine). Anyone else having troubles? :confused:

EDIT: I should add, I downloaded the tif version, but the jpeg file does the same thing. Totally weird.

QuantumMac
Jan 17, 2006, 01:08 PM
So what you are telling me is that the MW galaxy and pretty much the entire universe is... huge? So large in fact, we ourselves cannot comprehend the utter humongousness of it all.

p.s. I did see that Q episode. I've seen every one of the ST:TNG episode and I didn't know they were still in the Milky Way galaxy. Do you remember when Barclay went superbrainiac and created a rip in space and sent the Enterprise to the center of the universe where they met a bigheaded God?Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)


Two things:

The Orion Nebuale is very close to us. The light only takes 1600 to get to us ;)

The other thing, I believe that Q took them to the other side of our galaxy... You know, thou I am an astronomer I am still a human so I don't really know that much... But the Universe is big enough to inspire me with awe, even being the subject of my everyday study...

EDIT: Ok, I had only read the thread superficially... I see now that is what you were saying...

iBlue
Jan 17, 2006, 01:28 PM
For those who can't open the image. Here are a few zooms to give you an idea of the incredible level of detail. I've indicated in each shot the area corresponding to the next shot.

The last frame (500x500px) is in 1:1 scale with the original picture

_

thanks for that. :) i am too nervous to open the big one... i'm rather unlucky and don't want to somehow cause a problem with my one functioning mac right now. :o

it looks amazing.