Top
Best
New

Posted by wallflower 3 days ago

My astrophotography in the movie Project Hail Mary(rpastro.square.site)
515 points | 145 commentspage 2
scientism 3 hours ago|
That's really great news. For anyone looking for the astrophotography equipment, this is from one of his posts:

Telescope: William Optics UltraCat 76 Mount: Sky-Watcher Wave 150i Camera: ZWO ASI2600MM-Pro

mourner 4 hours ago||
Amazing achievement, congratulations! Can't seem to be able to read it though, it greets me with "Sorry, you have been blocked" CloudFlare page — is this a HN overloading the website, or did the host accidentally block IPs from Ukraine perhaps?
mkehrt 5 hours ago||
I was wondering what these images were! I wasn't sure if they were real photographs or not. They're great!
inaros 3 hours ago|
The stars were stripped out with neural network tools (StarNet++/StarXTerminator) at the studio request so text credits would read cleanly over them. The underlying nebula data is real, but removing every star from the field puts this firmly in the category of art photography, not scientific imaging.

No one has ever or could ever observe a nebula with zero stars in the frame.

hectdev 6 hours ago||
As an amateur astrophotographer, I am both so envious and so happy for you. What a wonderful recognition of your talent and dedication to the craft. Kudos!
TyrunDemeg101 5 hours ago||
Congrats man! That's an awesome accomplishment!

Amazing movie and the end credit visuals WERE incredible!

Xenoamorphous 2 hours ago||
Astrophagology?
AnDaltan 4 hours ago||
Dude, amazing! The images are beautiful and it's 1000 times better when you know they're real and not CGI/AI.
inaros 3 hours ago|
They are not real ... https://astrobackyard.com/starnet-astrophotography/
HeavenFox 3 hours ago|||
That is not what starnet does. It just removes the star from the picture you took, nothing else. It also predates generative AI by a few years.

If by "not real", you mean "you removed the stars so it no longer reflect reality!", then real photograph doesn't exist. For example, OP uses narrow-band filters, and it's common to map H-alpha wavelength, which is red, to green in the images. Does that make it unreal?

In the end, astrophotography is more art than science; the goal is more about producing aesthetically-pleasing images than doing photometry. Photographers must take some artistic license.

inaros 3 hours ago||
https://astrobackyard.com/starnet-astrophotography/

“StarNet is a neural network that can remove stars from images in one simple step leaving only the background. More technically, it is a convolutional residual net with encoder-decoder architecture and with L1, Adversarial and Perceptual losses.”

BenjiWiebe 3 hours ago|||
They're a lot more real than CG/AI. It's very rare and maybe not even possible to have a "true" astrophotography photo. At those light levels, eyes and camera sensors work very differently and even a "plain" astro photo has either been processed a lot, or else doesn't look like what our eyes would see.
inaros 3 hours ago||
>> They're a lot more real than CG/AI.

Fine, but is still art photography with heavy processing. Not to criticize the amazing work of Rod Prazeres, who has now commented on this thread.

HeavenFox 3 hours ago||
Even straight-out-of-the-camera JPG files have been heavily processed - they are just hidden behind the RAW processor which we have taken for granted; not to mention smartphone photographs, which employ neural network in the processing pipeline.
manyaoman 6 hours ago||
Those shots are stunning. Too bad I rarely pay attention to the credits. I always assumed a lot of effort goes into them though, and this post seems to confirm it.
More comments...