1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Reka » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:24 pm UTC

Image
Title text: I guess it's also the right setting for pictures of the Moon at night.

If Cueball is anything like the wannabe-photographers I've known, the ISS will have already made its transit while he's sitting there debating about the white balance. (The 19th century had nothing on my dad when it came to stiff, nonsmiling photos.)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:32 pm UTC

Then Cueball forgets that he's also turned on the "sepia" post-processing effect.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:55 pm UTC

How much you wanna bet there's amateurs all over the place that actually do worry about the balance setting when shooting the sun?

I"m also betting that before I even get this posted, someone will have hacked the comic to make a new selection list along the lines of

    direct sun
    direct Alpha Centauri
    direct supernova
    direct warp drive trail
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

Velo Steve
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Velo Steve » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:01 pm UTC

RAW, no color balance works for me.
Attachments
QuickCrop_4868.jpg

qvxb
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby qvxb » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:18 pm UTC

Velo Steve,

Nice photo. It's a shame Pac-Man yawned.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2878
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby orthogon » Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:24 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.

That's no moon...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

speising
Posts: 2243
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby speising » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:14 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.

That's a statement along the lines of "I don't have a blood pressure". You can't avoid to have *some* WB setting in your raw developer.

n_dent
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:39 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby n_dent » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:50 pm UTC

Shouldn't the moon be photographed on an indirect sunlight setting?

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Whizbang » Mon Apr 24, 2017 5:52 pm UTC

speising wrote:
Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.

That's a statement along the lines of "I don't have a blood pressure". You can't avoid to have *some* WB setting in your raw developer.

Pedants United.jpg

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Apr 24, 2017 6:01 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.
Ya got some spot's there. You should've wiped it down before you took the photo.
n_dent wrote:Shouldn't the moon be photographed on an indirect sunlight setting?
It's an object getting direct sunlight.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
Bloopy
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:16 am UTC
Location: New Zealand

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Bloopy » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:05 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.


Fixing your photos up in software later ain't no crime in my books. It can really make them 'pop': :P
Attachments
color cast.jpg

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Flumble » Mon Apr 24, 2017 7:39 pm UTC

Bloopy wrote:
Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.


Fixing your photos up in software later ain't no crime in my books. It can really make them 'pop': :P

Wow, I never knew the Sun had a blue aura ...nor jpeg artifacts. :o


So how is Cueball going to time the photo? The ISS scrolls past the Sun in half a second.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:15 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:How much you wanna bet there's amateurs all over the place that actually do worry about the balance setting when shooting the sun?


Same ones who try to photograph the planetarium show using flash?

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Heimhenge » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:02 am UTC

Check out this lunar ISS transit by Arizona expert Tom Polakis:

http://www.pbase.com/polakis/image/95661776

He doesn't say what he did with the white balance. :)

Brian-M
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 6:31 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Brian-M » Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:54 am UTC

Velo Steve wrote:RAW, no color balance works for me.

What, no link to the RAW image file? :)

McBee
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:01 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby McBee » Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:03 am UTC

Hate to be Captain Obvious, but this seems wrong in both cases...

1. Sun filter = not direct sunlight.
2. Reflected from moon surface = not direct sunlight.

synp
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby synp » Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:19 am UTC

McBee wrote:Hate to be Captain Obvious, but this seems wrong in both cases...

1. Sun filter = not direct sunlight.
2. Reflected from moon surface = not direct sunlight.


1. Sun filter just filters out non-visible light. For visible light it should be ND so it doesn't affect white balance. That said, taking a picture of the sun is not "direct sunlight" because...

2. The "direct sunlight" setting does not mean sunlight falling on the camera. It means that the object is lit by direct sunlight as opposed to reflected sunlight (what you get outside in the shade), incandescent, fluorescent or whatever it is that LEDs output. So the moon is totally a white rock lit by the sun.

User avatar
Khrushy
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:00 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Khrushy » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:48 am UTC

Can someone enlighten me as to what exactly is the joke here?

Because the only thing I'm coming up with is that it's funny because he's using the "Direct Sunlight" setting to photograph the sun directly . . . but surely it's not that simplistic right?
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Copper Bezel » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:17 am UTC

That is exactly the joke. Interpreting the menu item in a different context than it was intended, yet within a still plausibly common use case for the device. Also, his interpretation is more literal than the intended one, which helps, because people reading things literally is inherently funny.

Edit: I guess you're possibly shortchanging the semantics a little - the thing he is taking a picture of is direct sunlight, so he uses Direct Sunlight mode.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby GlassHouses » Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:28 pm UTC

synp wrote:So the moon is totally a white rock lit by the sun.

The moon's albedo is 0.136, which Wikipedia describes as "a reflectance just slightly higher than that of worn asphalt."

So, more like a dark gray rock, (very brightly) lit by the sun. :)

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:31 pm UTC

synp wrote:2. The "direct sunlight" setting does not mean sunlight falling on the camera. It means that the object is lit by direct sunlight as opposed to reflected sunlight (what you get outside in the shade), incandescent, fluorescent or whatever it is that LEDs output. So the moon is totally a white rock lit by the sun.

That begs the question of how shade mode is intended to be used.
Is the camera possibly from beret-guy's yard sale? Does this camera have some sort of D&D style Darkvision mode?

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:47 pm UTC

GlassHouses wrote:
synp wrote:So the moon is totally a white rock lit by the sun.

The moon's albedo is 0.136, which Wikipedia describes as "a reflectance just slightly higher than that of worn asphalt."

So, more like a dark gray rock, (very brightly) lit by the sun. :)


Worn asphalt is fairly white. Take a look at a section of patched road, the black tar will stand out far better than the white fog lines.

We use black as our survey targets because in generally they have a better contrast than white on older roads.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
GlassHouses
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:41 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby GlassHouses » Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:02 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
GlassHouses wrote:
synp wrote:So the moon is totally a white rock lit by the sun.

The moon's albedo is 0.136, which Wikipedia describes as "a reflectance just slightly higher than that of worn asphalt."

So, more like a dark gray rock, (very brightly) lit by the sun. :)

Worn asphalt is fairly white. Take a look at a section of patched road, the black tar will stand out far better than the white fog lines.

We use black as our survey targets because in generally they have a better contrast than white on older roads.

Yeah, I seem to remember an earlier version of that Wikipedia article comparing the color of the moon to coal, which was probably closer to the mark, but a bit too dark. Maybe it should quote a Pantone number, or #222222, instead...

User avatar
J the Ninja
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:08 pm UTC
Location: Portland, USA
Contact:

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby J the Ninja » Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:39 pm UTC

GlassHouses wrote:Maybe it should quote a Pantone number, or #222222, instead...


Now you've triggered me.

#222222 and the like are "output referred" colors. They don't describe the color in any absolute terms, but rather how much a particular output/display device like a printer or screen should be driven to reproduce them. They're relative to whatever space is being used to describe them in the first place.

Pantone's are just a reference, we're right back to albedos and spectral power distributions when you try and describe astronomical objects that way.
Shishichi wrote:Applies a sexward force to counter the sexpression effect that Forward Advection can apply to fluid density, particularly along sextainer boundaries. In this way, the sextribute attempts to conserve the overall fluid volume ensuring no density loss.
(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26353
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 25, 2017 4:59 pm UTC

GlassHouses wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
GlassHouses wrote:
synp wrote:So the moon is totally a white rock lit by the sun.

The moon's albedo is 0.136, which Wikipedia describes as "a reflectance just slightly higher than that of worn asphalt."

So, more like a dark gray rock, (very brightly) lit by the sun. :)

Worn asphalt is fairly white. Take a look at a section of patched road, the black tar will stand out far better than the white fog lines.

We use black as our survey targets because in generally they have a better contrast than white on older roads.

Yeah, I seem to remember an earlier version of that Wikipedia article comparing the color of the moon to coal, which was probably closer to the mark, but a bit too dark.
Why would that be closer to the mark? Aged asphalt averages about 0.12, which is also the average over the surface of the moon.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby da Doctah » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:34 pm UTC

Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:56 pm UTC

At space-type distances, it probably doesn't matter too much. And there'll be a huge IR signature that would take rather tricksy methods to hide, regardless of what they do in the visual spectrum.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:46 pm UTC

Also you want higher albedo on your ship so that your folks inside don't get cooked - its cheap thermal radiation management. Same reason the ISS and shuttle and basically every spacecraft out there is white.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
The Snide Sniper
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 7:25 pm UTC
Location: UTC-6:00

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby The Snide Sniper » Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:51 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.

But if the audience can't see them, they don't exist.
Also known as "RamenChef" on various other fora.
Me on: Drawception | Explain xkcd | NationStates | The Sluggite Zone | Stack Overflow

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby StClair » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:24 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:At space-type distances, it probably doesn't matter too much. And there'll be a huge IR signature that would take rather tricksy methods to hide, regardless of what they do in the visual spectrum.


Beat me to it. Spacecraft, especially ones with the kind of performance common in SF, are going to be bright in IR.

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Heimhenge » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:38 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.


What I wondered about was why those old SF spaceships were so beautifully sleek and streamlined. Knew enough about air drag as a kid to question that. Of course, many of those stories involved VTVL on a planet with an atmosphere, so I guess it kinda made sense. In contrast, I don't think a Borg Cube has ever touched down anywhere.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Flumble » Tue Apr 25, 2017 8:59 pm UTC

StClair wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:At space-type distances, it probably doesn't matter too much. And there'll be a huge IR signature that would take rather tricksy methods to hide, regardless of what they do in the visual spectrum.


Beat me to it. Spacecraft, especially ones with the kind of performance common in SF, are going to be bright in IR.

Except they have magical technologically advanced radiation shielding so they only have a very faint "energy signature".

Heimhenge wrote:What I wondered about was why those old SF spaceships were so beautifully sleek and streamlined. Knew enough about air drag as a kid to question that. Of course, many of those stories involved VTVL on a planet with an atmosphere, so I guess it kinda made sense. In contrast, I don't think a Borg Cube has ever touched down anywhere.

Until (properly) learning mechanics, I hadn't considered the reasons in favour of having a 'streamlined' design: minimizing stresses when accelerating. And to be fair, when you're moving at warp speeds, empty space may very well behave like a fluid. Or a plasma.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:21 pm UTC

Heimhenge wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.


What I wondered about was why those old SF spaceships were so beautifully sleek and streamlined. Knew enough about air drag as a kid to question that. Of course, many of those stories involved VTVL on a planet with an atmosphere, so I guess it kinda made sense. In contrast, I don't think a Borg Cube has ever touched down anywhere.


There's interstellar dust/gas if they're moving fast enough...

User avatar
Heimhenge
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Heimhenge » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:33 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Heimhenge wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.


What I wondered about was why those old SF spaceships were so beautifully sleek and streamlined. Knew enough about air drag as a kid to question that. Of course, many of those stories involved VTVL on a planet with an atmosphere, so I guess it kinda made sense. In contrast, I don't think a Borg Cube has ever touched down anywhere.


There's interstellar dust/gas if they're moving fast enough...


Doesn't seem to bother the Borg Cubes. But back in the SF era we're talking about they didn't have "inertial bubbles" around the craft ... don't think they even used the "warp drive" concept ... they just hit the throttle and booked at some (usually undisclosed) very high speed. Also didn't have the deflection shield used as a major plot device in Passengers. So yeah, maybe that streamlining had a purpose in retrospect, but I'm not sure the SF writers even knew about interstellar dust/gas back then.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3355
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Apr 25, 2017 9:59 pm UTC

Heimhenge wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Heimhenge wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.


What I wondered about was why those old SF spaceships were so beautifully sleek and streamlined. Knew enough about air drag as a kid to question that. Of course, many of those stories involved VTVL on a planet with an atmosphere, so I guess it kinda made sense. In contrast, I don't think a Borg Cube has ever touched down anywhere.


There's interstellar dust/gas if they're moving fast enough...


Doesn't seem to bother the Borg Cubes. But back in the SF era we're talking about they didn't have "inertial bubbles" around the craft ... don't think they even used the "warp drive" concept ... they just hit the throttle and booked at some (usually undisclosed) very high speed. Also didn't have the deflection shield used as a major plot device in Passengers. So yeah, maybe that streamlining had a purpose in retrospect, but I'm not sure the SF writers even knew about interstellar dust/gas back then.


Can't answer for the SF writers, but the knowledge of gas clouds in space goes back to the mid nineteenth century, and the idea of using interstellar gas as rocket fuel at least to 1960 when the Bussard Ramjet was proposed...

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5544
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Eternal Density » Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:21 pm UTC

The Snide Sniper wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Always thought it was silly that the spaceships in movies back in the good old days were always painted gray, white or silver so they'd show up against the blackness of space. Especially when it was part of an invasion force where painting the ships black would make them harder to see until they were right on top of you.

But if the audience can't see them, they don't exist.
Or their time is now.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4589
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1828: "ISS Solar Transit"

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:49 pm UTC

I had a semi-dream last night about the discussion of the moon's albedo and asphalt. I was explaining to someone or someone was explaining to me as I drifted off to sleep: imagine it is a moonless night and you are in the middle of an immense parking lot of old worn asphalt. Everything is black in the darkness, of course. (Suppose the power is out everywhere so there's no city skyglow either, if that's a problem where you live). Then, from somewhere atop a tall building far behind and above you, obscured from your direct vision by a lower but closer building, a very bright, focused spotlight shines a spot onto the asphalt somewhere in front of you; in all the black darkness, only that one circle of asphalt somewhere up ahead is very brightly illuminated. What does that look like? Just a little circle of boring dark asphalt grey in the black? Or a bright almost-white radiance against the darkness surrounding it all around?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: moody7277, Pfhorrest and 28 guests