You must log in or register to comment.

fatihisi t1_irmlt8y wrote

What are those purple and pink areas on the moon ?


-SmackMyBitchUp- t1_irmp1u6 wrote

I think they're certain filters to see elements in more color. If that's true, I think that's titanium from an asteroid smacking the moon! The more red areas could be like iron or copper. Different asteroids, meteors etc have different compositions of what makes them, them. If a heavily saturated asteroid with titanium hits the moon it'll disperse it's materials farther the bigger and faster it's going when it hits


nialltg t1_irmzyhh wrote

nothing to do with minerals really, as you can see from this map. the colours in this picture don’t relate to anything you can see in the geological map in this link


-SmackMyBitchUp- t1_irocpc4 wrote

I'm confused. You say it isn't about minerals, but show me a mineral map. It's just oversaturation of an exposure I believe so its the reflection of the elements since the moon doesn't have much of an atmosphere to distort or block it, and it's pretty dang close, relatively speaking.


nialltg t1_irocxwj wrote

you notice how the colours in the picture and the colours in the map don’t align? that shows the colours cannot be representing different minerals.


-SmackMyBitchUp- t1_irp1adm wrote're being sarcastic right?

Edit fortunately I follow this person on insta so I can see her awesome posts, even her explanation says:

"A northern lunar portion shows minerals reflecting different colors which including Iron, Oxygen, Silicon, and titanium."


Cutthechitchata-hole t1_irnahbl wrote

Wait...I thought I read that titanium is man made or not naturally occurring in nature. Is that not true? EDIT- so I either am thinking of another metal or maybe an alloy of titanium and something else. It seems like in the 90s there was suddenly an onslaught of new titanium products like eyeglass and sunglass frames as well as rings and I understood the metal to have been created. Maybe I'm misremembering or forgetting which metal I'm talking about. My bad y'all.


Minnakht t1_irneqlt wrote

Titanium is a chemical element. Out of chemical elements, all of them from americium onwards are solely synthetically created in labs and such, while technetium and all elements from polonium onwards are rare naturally and radioactive (except for thorium and uranium, which aren't that rare.)

Titanium doesn't belong to either category.


arcosapphire t1_irngvm4 wrote

You might be thinking of technetium. Titanium is actually pretty common.


rchive t1_iro0aki wrote

If I remember right, elements heavier than iron can't be created in the normal fusion process that happens at the center of stars. Titanium is heavier than Iron. Titanium is created in supernovas, which do have the ability to form elements heavier than iron. So, maybe that's what you were thinking of?

Edit: I misremembered that. Iron is the heaviest element a star can fuse, but Titanium is lighter than Iron so it can be fused in stars. If I figure out why I was thinking Titanium was a supernova only element, I'll report back.


RedactedPerpetually t1_iro7hui wrote

Titanium is not heavier than iron though?


rchive t1_iroovvj wrote

Hmm. Yeah, you're right. I swear I heard Titanium as an example in some Science Channel documentary one time, but it must have been a different element.


-SmackMyBitchUp- t1_irodcj3 wrote

We're not talking star creation or planet creation....

Plenty of asteroids are loaded full of metals and non metals, that's why they burn in different colors when they hit our atmosphere. For example, meteors made from primarily calcium will give off a purple or violet color, while those made out of magnesium will appear to have a green or teal color.

That's why some spots on the moon will appear different colors and in different shades due to age and composition of what hit it.


rchive t1_iroo7ol wrote

Well, yeah, but given that when the universe first formed there were no structures like atoms, all atoms that exist today had to have formed somehow. Titanium can't form in star fusion because it's too heavy, so all titanium that exists today had to have formed in some other process, like a supernova. Some Titanium likely "lived" through multiple supernovae to get to where it is today, in asteroids or on the Moon, etc.


St_Kevin_ t1_irpr078 wrote

Naturally occurring pure, metallic titanium (native titanium) is so rare on earth that i don’t think it was discovered until the last century or something. AFAIK it’s only in little chunks that are smaller than a millimeter and only in a few rare places. Maybe that’s the source of the confusion?


RecklessRelentless99 t1_irmqm7q wrote

Oversimplifying here, but cameras dont copy the exact colors of the world, just try to get real close. It's hard enough on earth that every camera brand/sensor/color science has its own look. It gets more complicated when you point that camera into space where there's more random radiation and electromagnetic stuff going on. I think OP was more focused on the insane level of detail than perfect coloring


gliptic t1_irmzeaq wrote

The saturation is just turned up to reveal subtle differences in color. The moon is naturally almost monochromatic with any sensor.


UDPviper t1_iro6iq0 wrote

Someone punched that moon in the face.


10b-5 t1_irralcy wrote

Editing done a bit too zealously. Still a cool photo, but yeah, might want to tone that down a bit.


Riegel_Haribo t1_irmjl4s wrote

Don't worry, we have the technology to fix this electromagnetic insult:


nialltg t1_irn02vh wrote

much better! i don’t know why this sub is constantly bombarded with these ugly over-saturated moon pics.


jaxisnaps t1_irnbmtq wrote

They get obscene amounts of karma from people who don't know any better.


iMADEthisJUST4Dis t1_irqw2w7 wrote

Thats so rude. OP spent 16 hours working on this, at least you can be polite about the image


Riegel_Haribo t1_irtg4l7 wrote

That's just part of the script that is used every time by these pandering posts. "I spent my life savings to take 100000 pictures of the sun in Mexico" = I am poor and took a video. The same script from online social media spamming guides for game developers, "Me and two friends spent two years on this (insert ad)".


sbenthuggin t1_irootk3 wrote

This edit is definitely not in any way better than the OP. I still prefer the less realistic photo. The color really isn't that big of a deal, seeing as this is not science class; it's just a reddit post.


Riegel_Haribo t1_iroqd15 wrote

Reallllly? Because it actually takes work to recover a moon surface out of the oversharpened ringing black and white pixels meant to fool rubes:


sbenthuggin t1_irquimb wrote

I don't care how much work it takes. It still doesn't look better than OP's photo. You are absolutely the definition of someone who needs to go outside and touch grass. Life isn't this serious


bpopbpo t1_itwyzr4 wrote

It takes a lot of work to pound statues to sand, that doesn't make sand better.

The oversatureated photo shows tiny color variations that human eyes couldn't normally see, so I don't see the issue.

Do you do the same to jwst images and end up with just a black screen because it's invisible wavelengths?


BartyB t1_irmlfp8 wrote

What a beautiful picture. I wish I had knowledge of how space photography works. It blows my mind seeing stats like 16 hours and 380 photos to make this one picture. Sure is stunning


AtmosphereMaterial61 t1_irmt1z6 wrote

same, idk how to do it all i can do is admire the work of others


ProtonPacks123 t1_irn6k6c wrote

You can get amazing results with freeware and a simple tutorial such as this one


AtmosphereMaterial61 t1_iu5ff02 wrote

Thanks dude, now all I need is a telescope and I'll be good to go 😂


ProtonPacks123 t1_iu5g3cg wrote

Hell, you'd get some ok results just shooting some video of the moon with just your phone.


AtmosphereMaterial61 t1_iu5ga7o wrote

That's what I plan on doing. I've got free time this weekend. Maybe try to get a decent image


ProtonPacks123 t1_iu5h9c9 wrote

Yeah the image processing is more or less the same so if nothing else, it's good practice for when you do get a telescope.


Fiverocker t1_ironvjf wrote

Interesting image, but heavily edited colors. It's detailed for sure. I'm always having trouble with size and dimensions when it comes to the moon. Are there images projecting the exact size of some of earth's big cities or continents on moons surface? I guess a city like New York or Tokyo would take up probably most of the visible area in that image?


reddit0832 t1_irpqdaa wrote

The moon is about 1/4 the diameter of the earth. Definitely closer to the scale of continents than cities. I'm not sure Tokyo or New York would be particularly visible.


durgadas9645 t1_irmiwdf wrote

Fantastic. Can you share the link to download this in uncompressed?


willdabeast464 t1_irqgun6 wrote

Yes this exactly. This looks beautiful and I bet it is rendered in full quality somewhere


Houki01 t1_irps6u6 wrote

Probably not your preferred response: "wait, the moon is pink and purple?"


AbsenseG t1_irp57zs wrote

Question. Is it possible to take a telescope and take a high def singular picture of the moon? With no need for stitching hundreds of photos together?


BokehMonkeh t1_irrazzr wrote

Yes and no. The problem is of course that the moon is really fucking big, so if you take a photo that fits all of it into a single exposure, you're going to lose out on a lot of details.

So it kinda depends on the quality you want. If you want this level of detail, then no, you can't do that in a single exposure. If you just want a high res photo of the moon, then you definitely can, but it won't look particularly exciting.


AbsenseG t1_irt98rv wrote

You probably just answered this question and I just didn’t get it but is it possible to have a ground telescope aimed at a specific location on the moon, such as the Apollo 11 landing site for example, and take a detailed photo of it with one exposure? Enough to make out things left behind, even if kinda blurry?


BokehMonkeh t1_irzthdx wrote

In theory yes, in practice no. I'll skip over all the physics of angular resolution, and say that to see details such as footsteps on the moon, you'd need a telescope that magnifies approximately 330,000 times. That'd need a mirror with a diameter of around 160 meters. That's 16 times bigger than the largest telescope on Earth right now.

So in short; could it be made? Yes. Are we even remotely close to doing so? No. It's simply cheaper and easier to send up a satellite with "normal" cameras than to build something like that.


FunctionFluffy4932 t1_irpj07b wrote

Fantastic picture! This hits my photography/ocd buttons though, with the Moon being off-center. I get why it's done, to show off the lit up side of the moon. But as someone who is aware of the rule of thirds and object centering... You know what, it's a great picture, I'll leave it at that.


ArrowRobber t1_irn8z42 wrote

Now get a high quality rendition of this printed on black velvet.


ss023459 t1_irnechz wrote

So good! How did you get the depth ? Is every shot taken close to the terminator line ?


ChipsAhoy2022 t1_iro04me wrote

Well you fucked It up. There ain't no purples on the moon 🤣

No enjoyment!


BoldOneKenobi69 t1_irpkg6t wrote

Broskis, every time one of ya posts a portrait such as this one, my background changes. Keep ‘em coming!


badrabbithole t1_irqbl08 wrote

I think moon photos are one of those things you can never get enough of.


Snoig t1_irnb67s wrote

What's that extra bright spot at middle, about 1/4th from top


redwing1970 t1_irnyjuy wrote

I think that's the studio where the moon landings were filmed.


RFtinkerer t1_irnzx4v wrote

Flash from the alien's camera taking a picture of earth.


SpaceBoJangles t1_irpomom wrote

Why can’t I see any of the rocks? Absolute garbage. /s

Great work man, looks incredible.


PhoenXman t1_irqgc6u wrote

What an amazing shot. I hope you registered it with the copyright office!


Berancules t1_irrds9s wrote

Did you upload some sample raw images somewhere, please?


rhysermc t1_iro8v6l wrote

Can anyone ELI5 to me please what it means when photographers 'merge' the photos? How do they all line up? How separately are these photos taken?


robert1005 t1_iroksw3 wrote

You can line them up when the object stays the same whilst photographing, which is the case with most space objects. When you then get many almost identical photo's you can use software to stack those photo's on top of each other.

There's another thing you need to know; the more light reaches the sensor of your camera, the more data you have, the more detail you can get in the end result. So when you take many photo's you have a lot of data and thus a lot of detail as well, when everything goes right that is.


rhysermc t1_irq4f0k wrote

Okay I get that part, but are you saying that the photographer is calibrating the camera every night? The editing makes the most sense to me... I guess I'm hoping for someone TO ELI5 or to literally walk me through what the photographer physically does to get this...


robert1005 t1_irq88sl wrote

Sounds like a good video on the topic will help you out more than a comment about it. It will visualise the process.


SharpClaw007 t1_iroou7q wrote

Anywhere I can download like a stupidly high-definition picture of the moon?


Few-Paint-2903 t1_iroqxm2 wrote

Wow! The sharpness of the image is beautiful! It looks like a 4k image!


[deleted] t1_irouj84 wrote

I don't save moon pics often but this is beautiful. Thank you for all of your efforts <3


KiraNear t1_irowfni wrote

So wunderful. I'm tearful and speechless. Thanks for sharing!