Even in our age of technological connectedness, it is difficult to imagine the actual, physical distance between, say, Los Angeles and New York, which - for those curious - is roughly twenty-five hundred miles. Some people would be surprised to learn that the moon is further than two-hundred thousand miles from Earth; an even harder distance to grasp. The average distance to the sun from Earth is nearly ninety-three million miles, or one astronomical unit. From our sun to the next nearest star, Proxima Centauri: more than two-hundred-fifty thousand astronomical units or just over 4 light years. There are thousands of stars observable to the unaided eye in the night sky; there are billions more shrouded by cosmic dust and billions that are simply too far and too faint to see, each thousands of astronomical units from the next, all within our own Milk Way galaxy. Compared to the vast emptiness between each other, ours and other galaxies are seemingly dense - packed tight with brightly glowing gas, dust and stars; and even of galaxies there exists billions. And that's just what we can see.
To say that the size of our universe is unfathomable would be an understatement.
To say that the size of our universe is unfathomable would be an understatement.
Category Photography / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 396 x 1920px
File Size 1.08 MB
The farther out you get, the less important distances become; you don't have to go very far to get to a point we'll never reach.
It is stitched, thanks. 6 shots from horizon to horizon. Stitched using PTGui. I was actually really surprised that it was able to automatically stitch it all together; I was expecting it to get confused, all the separate images being a jumbled mess of white specks.
It is stitched, thanks. 6 shots from horizon to horizon. Stitched using PTGui. I was actually really surprised that it was able to automatically stitch it all together; I was expecting it to get confused, all the separate images being a jumbled mess of white specks.
Sorry, had to sleep.
Photostitch for the win.
Let us not forget that Star Wars took place in a single galaxy. It might have been far, far away but it was one single galaxy.
Time and distance become very interesting when dealing with the Universe. 13.6 billion years is a blink of the eye to the lifespan of the Universe. Only the thirteenth cosmologic decade.
Quote from a college professor: The Universe will turn into a big lump of iron at zero Kelvin in ten to the one hundred years.. so, plan now. That's assuming, of course, that the Universe will die of heat death. If the Big Rip happens, then the Universe will turn into confetti at that time.
Photostitch for the win.
Let us not forget that Star Wars took place in a single galaxy. It might have been far, far away but it was one single galaxy.
Time and distance become very interesting when dealing with the Universe. 13.6 billion years is a blink of the eye to the lifespan of the Universe. Only the thirteenth cosmologic decade.
Quote from a college professor: The Universe will turn into a big lump of iron at zero Kelvin in ten to the one hundred years.. so, plan now. That's assuming, of course, that the Universe will die of heat death. If the Big Rip happens, then the Universe will turn into confetti at that time.
Take it that's a pano. What focal length? You went with 10" exposure, so I would guess roughly 50mm (or slightly wider if you were being cautious about streaking), unless you were using a star tracking tripod. Did you image stack these for noise reduction? I know that camera has amazing ISO capabilities and the image is shrunk down quite a bit, but that ISO is nuts and the noise seems quite low, so I wonder if you did stack them with noise reduction.
Any time I've shot the milky way, I found ISOs above 1600 started to introduce TOO many background stars, that the milky way became lost. But then I was in the middle of nowhere and the milky way could be seen by the naked eye. I suspect, especially with the glowing at the ends that you were closer to the city and the ISO was needed to bring out the milky way from the nearby lights.
XD Sorry, I just like to break down really good shots so I can learn from them. Hyper analytical side of me, lol.
Any time I've shot the milky way, I found ISOs above 1600 started to introduce TOO many background stars, that the milky way became lost. But then I was in the middle of nowhere and the milky way could be seen by the naked eye. I suspect, especially with the glowing at the ends that you were closer to the city and the ISO was needed to bring out the milky way from the nearby lights.
XD Sorry, I just like to break down really good shots so I can learn from them. Hyper analytical side of me, lol.
FA+

Comments