News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016) by narag on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @10:50AM (#28221788)
I also thought that wasn't "fair" since many of the comparison images are taken with long exposure times.

I have a very old astronomy book that includes similar drawings of Jupiter and they're much more detailed and realistic.

Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016) by dredmorbius on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @11:40AM (#28222803)
Where "long" may be measured in anything from hours to months.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image (a follow-up to the original 1995 Deep Field image of an "empty" region of sky), has a total exposure time of just under 1 million seconds (11 days), with single channel exposures of a minimum of about 1.5 days.

This somewhat exceeds the duration and light-collecting capabilities of a human observer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

Though granted, such prolonged exposures aren't necessary for the nearer observations (many within the solar system) included in the article here.

Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016) by redisman on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @11:48AM (#28222954)
Especially the Orion Nebula. I see the picture on the left and think oh yeah that’s almost exactly what I see with my scope. Then on the right it’s some crazy photoshopped (playing with channels) long exposure.
Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016) by tusslewake on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @11:12AM (#28222190)
Curious, what is the book?
Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016) by narag on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @12:28PM (#28223558)
"Astronomía" in Spanish, by José Comas Solá. It was a gift for me, almost 50 years ago. I think it was a little dated already.