Slashdot Mirror


Incredible New Gif Shows Cosmic 'Snow' On the Surface of a Comet (gizmodo.com)

Press2ToContinue shares a report from Gizmodo: What you're looking at is the surface of the comet 67p/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, which is orbited by the European Space Agency's Rosetta probe. The photo comes from Rosetta's OSIRIS, or Optical, Spectroscopic, and Infrared Remote Imaging System. The raw data was collected on June 1, 2016, and posted publicly on March 22 of this year. Twitter user landru79 processed the gif from this data release and shared it yesterday. In the foreground is the comet's surface (still several kilometers away from the probe), and three kinds of specks. The stars in the background belong to the constellation Canis Major, according to ESA senior advisor Mark McCaughrean. Some of the foreground stuff could be streaks from high-energy particles striking the cameraâ"it's a charge-coupled device (CCD), so even invisible particles can leave streaks in the results. And some could be dust from the comet itself.

89 comments

  1. So hop on the 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and take it down to K Str. If you see the Baunhof you went too far.

  2. New Gif? by ls671 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    New Gif?

    Who cares about the image format in such a context?

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Although I would still question the use of terminology, the point is that it's animated.

    2. Re: New Gif? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      In TFA, they cite "gif" without any ideas what it means and it just went up the chain as is.

      For your png input, it must be that twitter converted it to png from the gif mentioned in TFA.

      If I didn't know gif format, I would have thought that "Gif" meant "Gallactical Input Facilities".

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:New Gif? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New Gif?

      Who cares about the image format in such a context?

      The only thing GIF is used for these days is animations on the web, so... yes it's useful information.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:New Gif? by caparra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nowadays gif means 'short animation', much more than a particular format. Slashdot seems to be full of cranky Statlers and Waldorfs this days.

    5. Re:New Gif? by caparra · · Score: 2

      Words mean... whatever people decide they mean. Unless you are on a technical enviroment. Or an asshole environment. If someone on the street talks about a gif he saw, and you later find out it was really a PNG, please, please, shut up.

    6. Re:New Gif? by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      And most of the "snow" is just background stars, are they not?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    7. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who cares about the content?

      GIF is limited to 256 colors, which results in very low quality for anything that isn't basically line-art.

      PNG is better than GIF in all cases except animations, but again we are back to line-art, because it also compresses a lot worse than video formats.

      In short: GIF simply means "very low quality".

    8. Re:New Gif? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Actually it seems to matter here. I simply could not see the animation in Firefox. I saw a static image with a [>] button to start the video, but nothing happened upon click. I had to open it in Chrome to see the (indeed beautiful) animation. So it's certainly not a GIF file.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    9. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, is there an animation? The "this data release" from the esa appears to be a single-exposure png file or "photo", so what additional information did "landru79" use to create an animation out of it? In the animation you see, are things moving or are the frames just processed differently?

    10. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it seems to matter here. I simply could not see the animation in Firefox. I saw a static image with a [>] button to start the video, but nothing happened upon click. I had to open it in Chrome to see the (indeed beautiful) animation. So it's certainly not a GIF file.

      Your Firefox install is messed up or something. Works fine for me.

      That said, it isn't a .gif file. It's a video. A video with the word "GIF" in the corner...

    11. Re: New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gif implies lossless compression. Only pngs and gifs have this. As for animation, well it's available but not always done right. Personally I prefer png and it's derivitives for their handling of transparency.

    12. Re:New Gif? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      More likely, your Firefox install is messed up, and his was too until he went to about:config and changed media.autoplay.enabled to false.

      Unfortunately, some websites are so sure the browser is going to autoplay their videos that they don't bother coding for browsers that aren't, because some programmers are assholes.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:New Gif? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it have made more sense to say "animation", given that is the important bit of information that you otherwise have to infer from it being a GIF?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:New Gif? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Calm down. Go watch a film or something. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:New Gif? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Unlikely, for the same reason you don't see stars in Apollo photos.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    16. Re:New Gif? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Slashdot IS an asshole environment.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    17. Re:New Gif? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      When you hear it's a GIF, you are made aware that it is a ridiculous waste of bandwidth, also.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are a SJW. Then words mean what you tell other people words mean. She is not she, it is an oppressive pronoun foisted about feminists by the patriarchy. Therefore, we need 80+ pronouns legislated into existence backed by the gun of the state.

    19. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please shut the fuck up.

    20. Re: New Gif? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      GIF is not really lossless since it's 8-bit and so can only display 256 colours at a time.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    21. Re:New Gif? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Hey man, have you seen the new Star Wars GIF now playing in the theatres?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    22. Re:New Gif? by msauve · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the ESA is using 1960's film cameras?

      You do see stars in Apollo photos. Just not when the camera is set to properly expose the sunlit lunar surface, which causes the stars to be vastly underexposed. Looking at the data for one of the images, it's a 12.5 second exposure. The scene is indirectly illuminated, you can see what appears to be an overexposed, sunlit highlight in the last frame of the animation.

      The "falling" stuff is the starfield, they're all moving in unison. Read the comments at the original source - the images capture NGC2362 (Mag 4.1) and MGC2354 (Mag 6.1).

      The stuff moving in semi-random directions (but mostly toward the upper left, it appears) is the "snow." That includes the streaks. In order for a cosmic ray to produce a streak, it would have to be traveling along the plane of the image sensor (or strong enough to effect an entire sensor row/column).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    23. Re: New Gif? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      GIF is not really lossless since it's 8-bit and so can only display 256 colours at a time.

      It's also very possible a png has been compressed.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    24. Re: New Gif? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I've seen a lot of PNG images with JPEG compression artifacts. That's what happens when non-technical users start using computers.

      Programs need a big fucking warning window when trying to export JPEG to any other format to tell morons that it will NOT increase the quality and will only make the file bigger.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    25. Re: New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people exporting a jpg to png are doing it because someone (or a spec document) told them they needed the image in png format. The warning would be pretty pointless in that scenario.

    26. Re: New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gif was great when we all had 8 and 16 bit machines and low res graphics

    27. Re:New Gif? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Looking at the data for one of the images [esa.int], it's a 12.5 second exposure.

      In that case, a portion of the point-y objects are indeed stars. Just not all of them. And some streaks might be cosmic rays but those don't move.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    28. Re: New Gif? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Then those people/spec documents need to explain why PNG is required, otherwise it's pointless.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    29. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine for me (Firefox 59 on Linux).
      Page information tells me that the animation is actually a MP4 video: https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/DbfSuvHXkAUCKFW.mp4

    30. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nowadays gif means 'short animation', much more than a particular format. Slashdot seems to be full of cranky Statlers and Waldorfs this days.

      No.
      Idiot.

      GIF still still means an image. Animated GIF means a short animation. Nothing about this has changed. You might bump into complete retards who don't know the difference, but they actually don't know what the everloving fuck they're talking about.

    31. Re:New Gif? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Technical words don't change meaning like that. And someone is NOT an asshole for pointing out that someone spoke technically incorrectly.
      Take your dumb little descriptivist opinions and go home.

    32. Re:New Gif? by caparra · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. But they get used in not technical environments, and their meaning just changes. That's a fact on language and live.
      Someone who sends me to fuck myself is an asshole, no mother what you fucking bully say. And so are you.

    33. Re:New Gif? by caparra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yeah. Thats why reddit has r/animatedgifs and not r/gifs for posting animations. OH WAIT!
      But it doesn't matter. The word belongs to YOU and who dares do with it what people do with every word? OWN it and change its meaning over time.

      So if someone says "I saw a ridiculous gif today", she is an idiot. Because she doesn't know 'the difference'.

      No.
      I'm sorry.

  3. Probably no high energy marticles by schure · · Score: 1

    Only stars and dust, no high energy particles in these photographs, is what the experts are writing.

  4. Comet? This misses the real story by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Well, the last time we had an earth-shaking announcement about a comet, the story wasn't the comet. This article buries the lede and doesn't address the real story here: what kind of shirt was the spokesman wearing when he made the announcement? Because we know, from direct empirical observation, that that information is more important than humanity literally landing on a comet.

    The spokesman's description of the difficulty of the Rosetta mission? "She's sexy, but I never said she was easy." The reaction was immediate:

    This is a photo of Matt Taylor. He was watched by millions as he landed his robot on a comet, while wearing an exploitative sexualized shirt.

    His shirt says to girls watching from their elementary classrooms: Science is not for you. You shouldnâ(TM)t be an engineer sending robots into space.

    His shirt says to women in STEM: I have no respect for you as a professional. When I look at you, I see a sex object, and not a colleague.

    "His shirt says to women in STEM: I have no respect for you as a professional. When I look at you, I see a sex object."The Bad Astronomy blog said: If you think this is just a bunch of prudes, you're wrong. It's not about the prurience. It's about the atmosphere of denigration.

    Speaking for the highly respected The Atlantic, journalist Rose Eveleth brilliantly captured what that shirt represents in a community that continues to struggle, if not outright fail, to respect women: No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt.

    The spokesman broke down in tears the next day and apologized. He said, "I made a big mistake and I offended many people and I am very sorry about this."

    If you can force a rocket scientist, celebrating the accomplishment of a lifetime, to cry and grovel and beg forgiveness on international TV for wearing a shirt, you are not unempowered.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  5. Re:Comet? This misses the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    humanity literally landing on a comet

    Well, humanity didn't literally land on a comet.

    At least, I didn't.

  6. Re:Comet? This misses the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now what's your point? Why is all of this so important to you?

    You seem to be emotionally very involved in that thing (that'd be OK), but make a then huge mess. You lost me.

  7. Re:Science for morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3000 degreed scientists can't be wrong

    Is that Celsius or Fahrenheit? Either way those a some hot scientists!

  8. Why incredible? I believed it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have written sensational.

  9. This is why I can hardly be bothered with slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Well, not the only reason, but one of the main reasons. I used to care enough to actually log in and take part in the debates, showing my face, because at one time Slashdot was about news that were often overlooked elsewhere - technology, science and even politics with a bit of depth. Now it is no more than run-of-the-mill non-stories like this: pretty pictures (or 'awesome', God help us). You know, science news is so much more than "Wow, look at this!!!", tech news is much deeper than "Wow, company X just brought this Fab New Gadget For Idiots to market!!!", politics ought to be more than bickering stupidly with semi-literate fascists. And so on.

    Yeah, maybe it all boils down to what the marketing executives think will attract the nano-second attention span of those stupid enough to actually look at adverts online; being marketing suits, they don't really understand or care, but they do like a glossy picture. To hell with it; maybe I should just stop being sentimental. And maybe all of us who can't be bothered with slashdot any more, should demand that they do what they are legally required to do in most countries: delete our data when we demand they do so (which they boldly state that they refuse to do, last I checked).

  10. womens shirts with flowers are so ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boring like couch covers and curtains.

    So girls, be brave, wear a shirt with the statue of david with his dick out

    Fuck ya all who are sensitive , the human race would not advance and duplicate without
    good sex and sexy ladies :) Yes some girls are ditsy and girly, just the way some us like.

  11. If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you take high-fidelity video material and reduce the number of colors, resolution, and frame rate, down to the complete 30 year old crap that is GIF, before you re-post it on the internet, then you are most likely stupid.

    As long as we don't keep telling people to stop the GIF stupidity, it will continue.

    1. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Why would a GIF reduce the resolution and colours? I thought it would just make the file much larger.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    2. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      If you take high-fidelity video material and reduce the number of colors, resolution, and frame rate, down to the complete 30 year old crap that is GIF, before you re-post it on the internet, then you are most likely stupid.

      Or a Facebook user ... Oh wait!

    3. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by 91degrees · · Score: 2

      Because GIF only supports up to 256 colours. Although since this is greyscale it doesn't matter. GIF itself doesn't reduce the resolution but users often do because the file size is usually quite large.

    4. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      I had no idea! I always thought GIFs were zip compressed BMPs, with a few extra stupid features added like animation.

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
    5. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, its even more stupid than that.

      In most instances, it's not a GIF. Firefox, for instance, gets an mp4 file. (But still puts "gif" over the corner of it - unlike one of the other posters, I did actually get a short clip of video )

      (I think it drops back to GIF if it deems the browser is incapable of rendering the other options - I'm not sure what would happen with, for instance, browsers on Fedora that are unlikely to have MP4 decompression built in)

      To me, though, the stupid bit isn't that 99% of the browsers out there will render it as an alternative video format - it's that 99% of the people won't know (Or care) what a GIF is - and the ones that do will mostly go "Why would you use GIF as a format for video?"

      And then idiots come along and sarcastic comments about how stupid an idea it is to call it a GIF when it, mostly, isn't...

    6. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GIF is 30 years old, H264 and other modern video formats are, well, modern. And they benefit from hardware decoding, and they can be displayed and shared just as easily on a webpage as GIF.

      For reasonable normal people that should be enough to make them stop posting animated GIFs, but unfortunately their brain damage makes them persist in using 30 year old backward video technology on today's internet.

    7. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If you take high-fidelity video material

      They didn't. Your post is invalid.

      Wrong too, but invalid even if it were right.

    8. Re:If you post GIFs, you are probably stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would a GIF reduce the resolution and colours? I thought it would just make the file much larger.

      Because an actual GIF is ancient crap left over from the 90s.

  12. Re: Comet? This misses the real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is DNS-and-Bind. His hobbies are mocking the West and starting arguments.

  13. Re: Science for morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3000 degreed scientists can't melt steel beams.

  14. Must be a slow news day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A 12 year old can create gifs online

  15. LOL Gizmodo by ruddk · · Score: 1

    UHH a GIF!
    Gizmodo sucks.

  16. Direct link? by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 3

    Anyone got a direct link to the GIF?

    Stupid Twitter is unusable with w3m.

    --
    Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:Direct link? by BlackSupra · · Score: 2
    2. Re:Direct link? by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

      Thank you, but imgur.com doesn't work either. I could use a link to the GIF file itself.

      --
      Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    3. Re:Direct link? by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

      Perfect, thank you! You did what the Slashdot editors should have done.

      --
      Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    4. Re:Direct link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a direct link to an MP4 version: https://video.twimg.com/tweet_video/DbfSuvHXkAUCKFW.mp4

    5. Re:Direct link? by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1
      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    6. Re:Direct link? by Tablizer · · Score: 1
  17. Welcome by symes · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new speck overloards. May your reign be wipe free.

  18. Glacier skiing became too unreliable anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This news is just in time.

  19. The truth behind the video... by javipas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Seems to be a little different. It's a 25 minute video that has been compressed in that GIF, so the effect is 'dramatized'. https://www.livescience.com/62... According to that report, the GIF, impressive as it is, is somewhat misleading.

    1. Re:The truth behind the video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Stars, like Dust

    2. Re:The truth behind the video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting this; apparently Live Science is capable of displaying an image without javascript, unlike Twitter.

    3. Re:The truth behind the video... by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      That Live Science link has a stabilized version of the video, this visually separates the snow from the background stars and gives a much better view of what's happening.

    4. Re:The truth behind the video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, no. There is no 25 minute video... It is composed of several still shots that were taken over a span of 25 minutes and assembled into a GIF. Not misleading in the least.

    5. Re:The truth behind the video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Livescience THINK IT'S FROM PHILAE !?!

      Why is science so HARD ?! :-D :-D :-D

  20. Re: Science for morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't need to melt. Steel gets very soft when heated. You could try it yourself with a 4mm thick of steel rod, a candle (1000C) and two pliers. I'd provide more details, but I'm afraid you would hurt yourself. Maybe get your mom to show you.

  21. It's bloody damn COOL by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Which is the main point nobody seems to care about.

    Your comment on the time lapse is quite relevant though, as opposed to all the posts about GIF format.

  22. Funny by kbdd · · Score: 1

    Funny that we can get this incredible, mind boggling footage and yet, we still don't know if the earth is flat or not...

    1. Re:Funny by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      If the earth is flat, those Mt Everest climbers will surely be red-faced.

  23. Reminds me of the US Northeast this spring by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Oh the memories. Seems like only a few days ago.

  24. Watch out where the huskies go ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  25. Imagine it's from a movie by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 2

    If I had seen that animation without knowing where it's from, I'd probably assume it was from a crap movie. Because as it turns out, in real life, the effects are shit! :D

    It *is* crazy cool considering it is real though.

  26. Guys,guys....stop. Think about it. by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Watching the dynamic equilibrium of a far space body.
    i'm getting old, and I am REALLY excited at the things I never thought I'd live to see, now become real.
    I don't want to die and miss the next 100 years. Damn!!

  27. Hey, Editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I just had a nerdgasm (but it's been so long I can't be sure).

    Stories like this should be the norm on Slashdot. The social justice warfare and political articles should be the exception.