PDA

View Full Version : OT: Prospecting the Moon from my back yard



Evan
03-09-2009, 11:02 AM
I took some images of the almost full moon last night using my telescope and the Canon 300D. When I studied them I noticed a trace of color so I enhanced it.

Without enhancement the moon looks like this:

http://ixian.ca/pics6/moonprospect1.jpg

The same image with the color saturation boosted looks like this:

http://ixian.ca/pics6/moonprospect2.jpg

Upon doing some research it turns out the blue areas are rich in titanium while the pink areas are poor in titanium and iron. That was confirmed on site by the lunar landing missions.

Carld
03-09-2009, 11:05 AM
That's interesting Evan. No wonder they want to mine the moon.

Evan
03-09-2009, 11:12 AM
There are a lot more color indicators that can be brought out but I selected only those colors because otherwise it is a complete mish-mash. I don't know why I haven't heard of this. Most likely I have but had forgotten.

I will be off line a good part of the day. I have to see the dentist...:(

pcarpenter
03-09-2009, 11:47 AM
I have to laugh because "enhance" is the term used in all these idiotic tv shows where they can magically take a low-resoution shot from a cheap security camera and make the license plate completely readable :rolleyes:

You do have to wonder, however, about the accuracy of saturating color that is present in an image taken from earth. The light passes through our atmosphere and I would think that what makes it the many miles to the surface is probably well "filtered". What's left to enhance would (I would think) not accurately reflect the spectrum thats actually being reflected from the surface. For example, our atmosphere turns the ambient light we get from the sun very blue...and I don't know that that accurately reflects the actual spectrum that's being radiated into space.

Edit-- of course, now that I think about it a bit more, its not the absolute color values that are important. Rather its just the distinctions in reflectivity between the different areas.

Paul

Evan
03-09-2009, 12:10 PM
As it happens, the pass band of the atmosphere in the range from UV to IR, namely the visible spectrum, is remarkably flat. There are no significant deviations through the entire visible spectrum from a flat pass band profile. This means that not only is the relative color difference useful but the absolute color is also quantifiable and meaningful.

As for the atmosphere turning light blue, that isn't what happens. It merely preferentially scatters blue light but the same amount of blue makes it to the ground as does green and red. The measured proportions of red, green and blue energy are very closely correlated to the emitted values of the solar spectrum.

Liger Zero
03-09-2009, 01:03 PM
Evan, don't you have a die-grinder in your workshop? All you need is some scotchbrite discs and a steady hand. That'll save you from going to the horror that is the dentist. :p

john hobdeclipe
03-09-2009, 01:17 PM
Those are WiFi hotspots.

We are not alone.

websterz
03-09-2009, 01:49 PM
Those are WiFi hotspots.

We are not alone.

I thought they were future Starbucks locations.

RancherBill
03-09-2009, 02:30 PM
You were talking in another thread about changing the firmware in a camera.

The sensor collects 'raw' data and the firmware corrects the data to make it recogniseable to the human eye (JPEG).

Is it possible to play with the firmware and get raw data, as it might, reveal more things at different light frequencies?

Did you visit to have your 'black hole' fixed go well?

RPease
03-09-2009, 02:31 PM
Evan,

Can you enhance it so that only the gold, silver and precious gems (just diamonds, rubies & saphires are necessary) show up?

That way, I'll know where to aim my backyard built spacecraft (got a lot of work to do on it before it's even close to launch ready........not to mention finding a fuel source.......LOL).

Thanks...........Rodg :D :D

lazlo
03-09-2009, 02:42 PM
You were talking in another thread about changing the firmware in a camera.

The sensor collects 'raw' data and the firmware corrects the data to make it recogniseable to the human eye (JPEG).

Is it possible to play with the firmware and get raw data, as it might, reveal more things at different light frequencies?

Not really. Cannon, and several other manufacturers have had the raw (uncompressed) picture format for years -- the hacked firmware isn't doing anything that people haven't been doing on their desktops with Photoshop et al for as long.

The CMOS sensing element in consumer cameras is capable of sensing from deep blue to near infra-red. But they add an IR filter, so even that segment of the spectrum is unavailable unless you remove the filter.

If you're looking for the multi-spectral goggles that the Predator carries, you'll need a better sensor :D

Evan
03-09-2009, 05:34 PM
You can order a Canon SLR without the IR filter for astrophotography. Then you must use an external IR filter for regular photos which isn't much of a chore. Removing the IR filter increases the sensitivity of the array by about double.

Incidentally, the sensor in all Canon SLRs including the top end pro models is CMOS. They developed a proprietary method for making CMOS arrays with far less variation in pixel amplifier gain which is the main issue with most CMOS sensors. From what I understand they fab their own sensors. That is what accounts for the extremely good battery life on the Canon SLRs. The 300/350D cameras can take over 500 shots on a full charge.


the hacked firmware isn't doing anything that people haven't been doing on their desktops with Photoshop et al for as long.


Not quite. I have the hacked firmware from the Russian programmer installed on my 300D. It boosts the ISO to 3200 from 1600. Also the CHDK software, which isn't a firmware hack, will take advantage of capabilities in the Canon Powershot line that are normally locked out of a particular model.

lazlo
03-09-2009, 06:52 PM
Incidentally, the sensor in all Canon SLRs including the top end pro models is CMOS. They developed a proprietary method for making CMOS arrays with far less variation in pixel amplifier gain which is the main issue with most CMOS sensors.

That's arguable. Canon went to CMOS sensors because they're a whole lot cheaper to produce. Nikon, as you know, only uses CCD elements on their high-end cameras.


I have the hacked firmware from the Russian programmer installed on my 300D. It boosts the ISO to 3200 from 1600.

Which is completely useless :) At ISO 1600, there' so much noise from the CMOS sensor that it's a joke. The only reason they have that setting in the stock firmware is because ISO ratings have become a silly consumer marketing point -- to put outrageously high ISO's on the cardboard box.

I'll try the firmware out tonight -- at least I'll get a video game :)

RancherBill
03-09-2009, 07:04 PM
The CMOS sensing element in consumer cameras is capable of sensing from deep blue to near infra-red. But they add an IR filter, so even that segment of the spectrum is unavailable unless you remove the filter.


So I interpret this to mean that there is more data outside the visible spectrum that is being filtered out. This answers my question as to whether you can create a 'false' color picture and find even more riches on the moon. :)

We'll have to start a thread on homebuilt mining equipment - A Universal Metric CNC Radial Arm Indexable Shaft Boring Machine with DRO.:) Maybe the US guys can get some Stimulus Money to do the basic research as it relates to Global Warming. I think there's an idea somewhere in this. :D

lazlo
03-09-2009, 07:08 PM
So I interpret this to mean that there is more data outside the visible spectrum that is being filtered out. This answers my question as to whether you can create a 'false' color picture and find even more riches on the moon. :)

Or night-time pictures reminiscent of Paris Hilton ;)

On web cams it's easy to remove the IR filter. It looks hard to do on a point-and-shoot. Maybe Evan's done that?

Evan
03-09-2009, 07:15 PM
Which is completely useless At ISO 1600, there' so much noise from the CMOS sensor that it's a joke

I suppose you would be surprised to learn that all my astrophotos are usually shot at ISO 1600. The Canon CMOS sensors are extremely low noise.

I have a point and shoot HP that I have taken apart. Removing the IR isn't easy and I set it aside for some other time when I feel like doing such a fiddly job. It can be done on the Canon and if you do a quick search you will find instructions. It is a very major hack and not recommended unless you don't mind ruining the camera accidentally.

madman
03-09-2009, 11:07 PM
Mom told me when i was a kid there was cheese on the Moon. i didnt know till now they also have Blue Cheese. NICE thanx Evan great Picture

macona
03-10-2009, 02:11 AM
Or night-time pictures reminiscent of Paris Hilton ;)

On web cams it's easy to remove the IR filter. It looks hard to do on a point-and-shoot. Maybe Evan's done that?

The sonys with the night shot move the hot filter out of the way for the night shot mode. They do this with a small rotary solenoid that moves a piece of cleat glass in place of the filter. I found the h-bridge responsible for moving the hot filter out of the way and added a small momentary switch to move it open. This was on a Sony DSC-V3.

I had previously modified an old Kodak camera to permanent IR by going in there and removing the hot filter. First try was not so good. The camera will not focus right without the filter because it shifts the focal length just slightly. So I cut and ground a piece of optical glass and put that in its place and solved the problem.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h228/macona/DSC01568.jpg

lazlo
03-10-2009, 11:58 AM
I found the h-bridge responsible for moving the hot filter out of the way and added a small momentary switch to move it open. This was on a Sony DSC-V3.

Very clever hack Jerry!

rowbare
03-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Nikon, as you know, only uses CCD elements on their high-end cameras.

Nikon has been using CMOS in their high end cameras for a couple of years now. However they still have a few DLSRs using CCD (D200, D80...)

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25442/D3X.html

Click on Tech Specs.

Paul Alciatore
03-10-2009, 01:24 PM
I have to laugh because "enhance" is the term used in all these idiotic tv shows where they can magically take a low-resoution shot from a cheap security camera and make the license plate completely readable :rolleyes:

You do have to wonder, however, about the accuracy of saturating color that is present in an image taken from earth. The light passes through our atmosphere and I would think that what makes it the many miles to the surface is probably well "filtered". What's left to enhance would (I would think) not accurately reflect the spectrum thats actually being reflected from the surface. For example, our atmosphere turns the ambient light we get from the sun very blue...and I don't know that that accurately reflects the actual spectrum that's being radiated into space.

Edit-- of course, now that I think about it a bit more, its not the absolute color values that are important. Rather its just the distinctions in reflectivity between the different areas.

Paul


I have to completely agree about the TV show "enhancements". It is often laughable.

On the accuracy of features in a photo of the heavens, yes there are a lot of factors that can change things like the colors. Scientists are well aware of such problems and will take as many as possible into account when viewing such data. They also will run an experiment (photo) many times to rule out random factors that may have effected one run. If it can't be confirmed, then it probably is just an anomaly.

This of one of the big reasons why scientists publish their data. Others will then run the same experiment and see if others using other equipment in a different location can confirm the conclusion. A whole bunch of possible error factors are eliminated in this fashion. Even factors that no one knew about or even suspected.

The fact that Evan’s observation is supported by ground observations is a strong plus for his conclusion.

Also what you say about the relative differences is quite true. There is little chance that there would be large differences due to atmospheric phenomena in the small area of sky that the photo of the moon occupies (about 1/2 degree if I remember correctly).

All of this does not actually prove that the enhanced blue in the photo is actually due to titanium. There could be other causes. Seeing the actual spectrum of the various areas would be a lot more conclusive.

Paul Alciatore
03-10-2009, 01:27 PM
I now fully Evan to build a world class spectragraph and have conclusive pictures by this time tomorrow.

philbur
03-10-2009, 02:37 PM
How many lunar landing missions were there?

Phil


Upon doing some research it turns out the blue areas are rich in titanium while the pink areas are poor in titanium and iron. That was confirmed on site by the lunar landing missions.

Evan
03-10-2009, 02:51 PM
When I said I did some research I found that the evidence for titanium is conclusive.

From NASA


Explanation: Earth's Moon is normally seen in subtle shades of grey or yellow. But small color differences have been greatly exaggerated to make this dramatic mosaic image of the Moon's gibbous phase. The familiar Sea of Tranquility (Mare Tranquillitatis) is the blue area right of center. White lines radiate from the crater Tycho at bottom left, while purplish tones mottle the crater Copernicus left of center. Though exaggerated, the different colors are recognized to correspond to real differences in the chemical makeup of the lunar surface - blue hues reveal titanium rich areas while orange and purple colors show regions relatively poor in titanium and iron. Calibrated by rock samples from the Apollo missions, similar multicolor images from spacecraft have been used to explore the Moon's global surface composition.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060216.html


My telescope isn't as large as an observatory telescope and so did not collect as much light to produce the range of color as seen in the APOD photo. Still, what it does show matches the APOD image.

A spectrograph is in the offing but first I need to do some experiments with solar filters so I can image the sun without burning a hole in my camera sensor. :eek:

I also am researching a project to build an absolute displacement interferometer that will measure distances to the sub micron level.

Spin Doctor
03-10-2009, 05:51 PM
That's interesting Evan. No wonder they want to mine the moon.

I had a teacher in HS rant about how they would never be able to economically mine even diamonds from the lunar surface due the high costs of each Apollo mission. I asked why she thought that humanity would never be able to better than Apollo. She couldn't answer that one and she was the Debate coach.

Evan
03-10-2009, 06:09 PM
I have this nagging feeling she may have been correct.

I just did a little fiddling to see how good the IR filter is on my Canon. As I thought, not good enough to prevent me from taking IR photos the cheap and easy way. Exposed and developed color film or dye based black and white film happens to be an excellent IR pass filter. While it looks almost black at visible wavelengths in the IR it is nearly completely transparent. I cut several disks of unused black area from some microfiche cards (I have several thousand) and stuck them under an A filter on my Canon lens. I didn't bother cleaning them or making sure they were in good condition. I just wanted to see if this would work.

The IR filter in a digital camera is fairly selective but not perfectly so. It filters some visible and passes some IR. The idea is to block as much visible as possible so that the IR is all that is left to make the exposure by "leaking" through the IR cut filter on the sensor.

Poor quality blah blah but it works.

http://ixian.ca/pics6/canonir.jpg

RancherBill
03-10-2009, 08:59 PM
Very interesting photo.

Can you take a similar one in early darkness. I think it would be interesting to see the 'warm' things like the fence post and trunks of the trees 'pop out' while they are warm from the day.

aostling
03-10-2009, 09:35 PM
A spectrograph is in the offing but first I need to do some experiments with solar filters so I can image the sun without burning a hole in my camera sensor.


Are you thinking of using a Mylar filter? I've been thinking about getting one of these Orion glass filters, but wonder about a cheaper alternative (until I get hooked on looking at the sun). http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=filters/~pcategory=accessories/~product_id=07733/~sSearchSession=d7e43bc7-6831-4af9-8f5e-fc9b8483badf

Evan
03-10-2009, 09:53 PM
Warm is a very relative term. As soon as the sun if gone everything will be very cold. The temperature here is around -20 in the shade and will quickly be colder after sunset.

Side note: Snow is an excellent white body in the visible but in the long wave IR it is an almost perfect black body.

Evan
03-10-2009, 10:01 PM
Allan,

I will use a cheaper alternative, namely aluminized mylar "space blanket" material. I have already determined that 4 layers is just about right, maybe on the dim side which is fine. I have no intention of directly observing with my own eyeballs so I don't mind risking the health of my cameras. I'll start with a sacrificial web cam and see if I can take some time lapse sunspot movies.

RancherBill
03-11-2009, 12:24 AM
Warm is a very relative term. As soon as the sun if gone everything will be very cold. The temperature here is around -20 in the shade and will quickly be colder after sunset.

Side note: Snow is an excellent white body in the visible but in the long wave IR it is an almost perfect black body.

I was just thinking that some items will retain their heat (trunks) while other items plunge quickly (branches) and that you'll get an entirely different image. I suggested the early evening because they will not have all cooled off evenly ans they will during the middle of the night.

aostling
03-11-2009, 12:30 AM
The temperature here is around -20 in the shade and will quickly be colder after sunset.

All ambient air temperatures are measured "in the shade." If you expose a thermometer to direct solar, it is no longer measuring a temperature of anything except itself.

I don't think you are confused about this. But thermal engineers never use that terminology (except for one guy I knew, who quickly learned better).

Evan
03-11-2009, 12:40 AM
Sigh. It was a joke. People always say "in the shade" to emphasize that it is hot weather and the thermometer hasn't been influenced by being exposed to direct sunlight. I was making the same allusion in reverse. We broke a record for this date last night at -27 C. It is supposed to be just as cold tonight, in the shade.

aostling
03-11-2009, 01:05 AM
Sigh. It was a joke.


I should have seen that. Now I'm laughing.

Evan
03-11-2009, 02:07 AM
I was just thinking that some items will retain their heat (trunks) while other items plunge quickly (branches) and that you'll get an entirely different image. I suggested the early evening because they will not have all cooled off evenly ans they will during the middle of the night.


A camera with a CMOS or CCD sensor isn't able to record long wave infrared emitted by "warm" objects. They are only sensitive to near infrared such as the IR in sunlight as it is reflected by the objects in a scene. IR photography records the different reflectance of objects in the near infrared compared to the reflectance in visible light. The wavelength of the IR emitted by objects at a temperature around freezing is at least an order of magnitude or about three octaves longer/lower than the near infrared that a camera picks up.

Another side note: The visible spectrum covers almost exactly one octave in frequency/wavelength. Blue is red frequency times two and red wavelength divided by two.

And another: Water looks blue but isn't. As one of the many anomalous properties of water it both reflects blue preferentially and transmits blue preferentially. Normally those two effects are mutually exclusive.

macona
03-11-2009, 02:09 AM
I had a teacher in HS rant about how they would never be able to economically mine even diamonds from the lunar surface due the high costs of each Apollo mission. I asked why she thought that humanity would never be able to better than Apollo. She couldn't answer that one and she was the Debate coach.

I bet DeBeers has already tried to stake a claim!