Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

150 Gigapixel Sky Image Contains 1 Billion Stars

Posted by Unknown on from the scientists-declare-universe-contains-lots-of-stuff dept.

The Bad Astronomer writes "Astronomers have used two big telescopes to create an infrared survey of the Milky Way that is the largest of its kind: the resulting image has an incredible 150,000 megapixels containing over a billion stars. Something that large is difficult to use, so they also made a pan-and-zoom version online which should keep you occupied for quite some time. These data will be used to better understand star formation in our Milky Way, and how far more distant galaxies and quasars behave." The interactive image is powered by IIPImage which happens to be Free Software and is cool in its own right (right click the image to get help — it has a full set of keybindings for navigation).

14 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's full of stars!

    1. Re:Oh my god by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps a silly question... Why do a lot of the stars when you zoom in you get a black dot in the middle...
      I mean if they were a planet. 1. so many of them shouldn't be almost directly in the middle. 2. Those planets would be HUGE (or a rogue planet eclipsing the star (still why then are all of them in the center) So that seems unlikely.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Oh my god by jcgam69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The sensor is supersaturated due to the star's brightness.

    3. Re:Oh my god by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's written in English, so it is most likely using the short-scale (American system, as you call it). The U.S. has always used the short scale system, and the U.K. (and almost all other English speaking countries) have used it since 1974.

      The long system is hardly used any place outside of Europe. So, this is one of the strange cases where the U.S. and the U.K. use the same system, and it's the system used by the majority of the world. In this case, it is France/Italy/Germany/Spain/Portugal/Netherlends that insist on using their own system.

      --
      Free unix account: freeshell.org
    4. Re:Oh my god by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

      If by "American" billion you mean "English" billion, than yes. Since Slashdot is an entirely English speaking site, it is most appropriate to use the English word for 10^9... which is billion.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Oh my god by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the word "billion" in british english means 10^12 to a lot of people too - hence the comment i replied to. before i went into science it meant 10^12 to me, as well, but spend long enough in science and you begin to see just how few people are aware of that - and it seems to get fewer each year.

      Or a little thinking (not too much) can realize that a million-million makes no sense in this context.

      1-million-million is 1,000,000,000,000 (10^12).

      This image is 150,000-million, or 150,000,000,000.

      If 1 billion referred to was defined as million-million, it's easy to see that there would be more stars than pixels in the image by over 6 stars to 1 pixel.

      OTOH, using it as meaning 10^9, it means there's 1 star for ever 150 pixels, which seems to make MUCH more sense.

  2. Daytime? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if we could just get a 150,000 megapixel image of the daytime sky, we wouldn't have to go outside at all.

  3. Re:3D version? by JTsyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would you even be able to tell the difference between things lightyears away without having your two points of view much further apart that 2 sides of Earth orbit?

  4. Re:Where can I download this? by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Was just looking at that and thinking...
    How much would it cost to get a photo quality print made that is 9 feet tall and long enough to wrap around my entire den at my house? That would be the best ever wallpaper.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  5. Re:1 in 150 pixels is a star! by boristhespider · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read up on Olber's paradox you'll find it's even actually a significantly lower density than you might expect...

  6. Re:That's Big! by SureshotM6 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The source is a 91.6GB TIFF file. The filename on the server is in some of the CGI requests.

    -> curl -I http://djer.roe.ac.uk/vsa/vvv/v5.tif
    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 15:42:27 GMT
    Server: Apache/2.2.21 (Debian)
    Last-Modified: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 16:13:29 GMT
    ETag: "f61e88-16e808414a-4bbff6bf3ed80"
    Accept-Ranges: bytes
    Content-Type: image/tiff
    Content-Length: 98382135626
    Proxy-Connection: Keep-Alive
    Connection: Keep-Alive

  7. Re:That's Big! by mikael · · Score: 4, Informative

    Raw CCD sensor data is usually more than 8 bits per channel (or colour filter). 16 bits per pixel is used for professional cameras, but those sensors use Bayer format for red, green and blue. Telescopes just place different colour filters over the entire sensor and correct for different levels of sensitivity.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  8. Re:Doughnut Stars by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Informative

    The sensor is supersaturated due to the star's brightness.

    [If this works, I'm going to become a karma whoring god]

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  9. Re:That's Big! by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who else is somehow expecting to get that thing in a email from one of your less tech-savvy relatives...