Why does NASA use black and white video

[e24ohm]

Folks:
I am not into film, or photos; however, I am having a hard time understanding why NASA would still use black and white for film and video. With all the advancements in photo/video compression - I would think color video/photos would not be hard to have, yet this could be only my lack of understanding the benefits of black and white photo/video.

Can anyone enlighten me on this topic?

[Ctrl-Alt-F1]

Yes it's all about how the photo-catatonic membrane of the lens commutes the approach of the atomic horizon...*runs off into the night screaming*

[Austin25]

What footage are you referring to?

[jrusso2]

There really are not a lot of colors in space and its easier to colorize the photo's later.

This cuts down on the amount of data to transmit.

[ve4cib]

Actually, according to an astronomy class I took in university, NASA's photos are taken in multiple black-and-white stages. To get the best resolution possible they take multiple images with different-coloured filters, resulting in multiple black-and-white images. Each image corresponds to a different portion of the spectrum. So you'd have one image that shows the blue range of the spectrum, another for red, another for green, and so on. You can also have infra-red, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc... filters (which often get used in the false-colour images you see from NASA.)

If you take a set of black-and-white images from different filters you can re-apply the colours, stack the images up, and get a true-colour image out the other end. But each individual filter results in a black-and-white image for that particular spectral range.

[mendhak]

Because black and white photos are more artistic.

[kahumba]

Moon Rising should give you some ideas but be prepared to be called conspiracy theorist (or so) by different people for different reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ3wh2cjekE

[Brunellus]

Actually, according to an astronomy class I took in university, NASA's photos are taken in multiple black-and-white stages. To get the best resolution possible they take multiple images with different-coloured filters, resulting in multiple black-and-white images. Each image corresponds to a different portion of the spectrum. So you'd have one image that shows the blue range of the spectrum, another for red, another for green, and so on. You can also have infra-red, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc... filters (which often get used in the false-colour images you see from NASA.)

If you take a set of black-and-white images from different filters you can re-apply the colours, stack the images up, and get a true-colour image out the other end. But each individual filter results in a black-and-white image for that particular spectral range.

This makes sense to me--particularly when dealing with wavelengths outside visible light, what does "color" really mean, anyway?

[Rasa1111]

Moon Rising should give you some ideas but be prepared to be called conspiracy theorist (or so) by different people for different reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ3wh2cjekE

Indeed.

Many people cannot accept new thoughts and/or ideas.
and so instantly throw them out with the bath water, so to speak.

One reason is because B&W images are easier/faster to transmit...
but that is not the 'main reason.' lol

You are not supposed to know what's really 'out there'..
and "they" prefer it if everyone were to keep believing the moon was grey.

Though it is not.

Here are the true colors of the moon.
Yes, it is true color, none added.
Only contrast enhanced to bring out the colors that are naturally there.
But the majority of people do still believe/think that the moon is dull and grey and colorless.
http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=168361&stc=1&d=1283499787

[3rdalbum]

You are not supposed to know what's really 'out there'..
and "they" prefer it if everyone were to keep believing the moon was grey.

Though it is not.

Here are the true colors of the moon.
Yes, it is true color, none added.
Only contrast enhanced to bring out the colors that are naturally there.
But the majority of people do still believe/think that the moon is dull and grey and colorless.

Does NASA force the telescope manufacturers to implement a special secret filter in their optics that makes the moon look grey through telescopes without changing the colours of other objects?

Because the moon doesn't look anything like that through MY telescope. Or with the naked eye, for that matter.

[mobilediesel]

Does NASA force the telescope manufacturers to implement a special secret filter in their optics that makes the moon look grey through telescopes without changing the colours of other objects?

Because the moon doesn't look anything like that through MY telescope. Or with the naked eye, for that matter.

No, they built a light-filtering bubble around the planet. That's why you hear about the "launch window" when they're going to send anything outside the atmosphere. It's a literal window in the optical bubble that they have to fly through.

:lol:

Hmmm, now that I've posted that there are bound to be some nut bags starting up new websites about the REAL moon.

[Rasa1111]

Does NASA force the telescope manufacturers to implement a special secret filter in their optics that makes the moon look grey through telescopes without changing the colours of other objects?

Because the moon doesn't look anything like that through MY telescope. Or with the naked eye, for that matter.

lol :lol:

uhmm, no.

The atmosphere of Earth (and what little there is on the moon, yes there is some atmosphere) is the "filter".

You an astronomer, and don't know that? lol :p

[Rasa1111]

No, they built a light-filtering bubble around the planet. That's why you hear about the "launch window" when they're going to send anything outside the atmosphere. It's a literal window in the optical bubble that they have to fly through.

:lol:

Hmmm, now that I've posted that there are bound to be some nut bags starting up new websites about the REAL moon.

haha,
again, that "light filtering bubble" is called the atmosphere! lol
Jeesh!

good analogy though, it is indeed a "filtering 'bubble'" .
even though you didnt mean it and were trying to be sarcastic. lol

Look at some of Alan Beans artwork/paintings of the moon.
(he walked on it). He depicts it as he saw it.. in color.

Also, that color pic of the moon is from NASA. lol

They just dont make announcements on the news that "the moon is not grey!)
hollywood celebrities are more important.

[Brent0]

lol :lol:

uhmm, no.

The atmosphere of Earth (and what little there is on the moon, yes there is some atmosphere) is the "filter".

You an astronomer, and don't know that? lol :p

It's like the sun at sunset. It doesn't actually turn red. The light is just being filtered by more atmosphere at that angle.

[Rasa1111]

It's like the sun at sunset. It doesn't actually turn red. The light is just being filtered by more atmosphere at that angle.

Logic Points for you my friend! lol :D

or, like a 'harvest moon'
the moon is not actually bright orange on certain nights!
It is a simple illusion. lol

[Paqman]

Actually, according to an astronomy class I took in university, NASA's photos are taken in multiple black-and-white stages. To get the best resolution possible they take multiple images with different-coloured filters, resulting in multiple black-and-white images. Each image corresponds to a different portion of the spectrum. So you'd have one image that shows the blue range of the spectrum, another for red, another for green, and so on. You can also have infra-red, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc... filters (which often get used in the false-colour images you see from NASA.)

If you take a set of black-and-white images from different filters you can re-apply the colours, stack the images up, and get a true-colour image out the other end. But each individual filter results in a black-and-white image for that particular spectral range.

^ This

You've got to remember that a lot of imagery in space is shot using sensors that see different parts of the spectrum from the human eye. There are actually several large space telescopes for example, and only one (Hubble) snaps pics in the visible range IIRC. The others are doing X-rays, gamma rays, and IR.

A lot (most?) of the images you see coming out of NASA or other space agencies have been altered to suit public expectations, and isn't exactly what the original sensor would have recorded.

[uljanow]

Since the moon landings NASA has learned that black and white photos are easier to fake.;)

[samalex]

If you take a set of black-and-white images from different filters you can re-apply the colours, stack the images up, and get a true-colour image out the other end. But each individual filter results in a black-and-white image for that particular spectral range.

I believe this is correct... Generally scientists use multiple colored filters and take a series of shots from each color spectrum which can reveal lots more info than one single color photo. In most of the astronomy books and magazines I read, you'll often see photos referred to as 'false color' which means the photos were taken this way. The colors might be interpretations of a computer as it adds colors to the filtered B&W images then combines them into one larger image. This is why so many astronomical photos have such brilliant photos.

For years I scratched my head because when I watched Voyager 2 pass Neptune live in 1989 all the photos were B&W, yet years later the Voyager 2 photos were a vibrant blue. B&W layering is how and the colors were added here on earth.

Secondary reasons are also bandwidth and technology. It takes much less bandwidth to send a B&W photo than color, plus most of the up-close photos we see of the outer planets were taken years ago by spacecraft created in the 70's - Voyager 1 & 2 for example - so color photography just wasn't that advanced. What's neat though is scientists now can still take those color filtered B&W photos from even the Voyager 1 & 2 missions and reapply modern techniques to yield new discoveries.

Sam

[Rasa1111]

Damn you Sam,
Just had to give a proper reply didnt you? lol :P

well done. :D

though you did forget, it also makes it easier to airbrush. :lol: ;)

<3

[samalex]

Damn you Sam,
Just had to give a proper reply didnt you? lol :P

well done. :D

though you did forget, it also makes it easier to airbrush. :lol: ;)



Sorry :-\"

When I was a kid I submerged myself in all things related to astronomy and NASA, but I got out of it as I got older. Now that I'm in my mid-30's I'm trying to get back into it, and I've started re-reading lots of the books I've collected over the years. There was even a time I thought about pursuing Astrophysics as a career, but it never happened. For now I'll settle for being an amateur astronomer if I can only get a decent telescope.

[Rasa1111]

Sorry :-\"

When I was a kid I submerged myself in all things related to astronomy and NASA, but I got out of it as I got older. Now that I'm in my mid-30's I'm trying to get back into it, and I've started re-reading lots of the books I've collected over the years. There was even a time I thought about pursuing Astrophysics as a career, but it never happened. For now I'll settle for being an amateur astronomer if I can only get a decent telescope.

It's all good. lol :)

Yeah I was the same way as a kid.
Coulda swore I was going to be an astronaut by the time I was 30 or so. (just turned 30, i fail!) lol :lol:

Then , like you.. as I got older.. "life" seemed to get in the way, and I didnt pay attention to anything astronomy for a long time.

Then when I was about 23-24, I started to get interested in it all again.
So i bought a telescope, took some courses, and signed up with the astronomical society at the local observatory, and have been there since, and now I work there. lol

and now I have access to a $1/4-mill. 20 inch scope whenever I want,
and get to choose from 3 different domes each with different scopes, as if they were my own! lol
and I can stay with them until Sol rises if i like. :D

I can't believe I let it go for so long.

But now, every night I spend at the observatory (most nights),
or every night I am out under the stars, I feel just as I did when I was a child, towards it all.

I think it is the feeling of "nostalgia" but im not sure... :lol:
But I feel like a little kid again, and that rocks! lol

What kinda scope do you want to get?
If you weren't soo far away I could probably get you a saweet deal! lol

Clear skies. <3

[samalex]

It's all good. lol :)

Yeah I was the same way as a kid.
Coulda swore I was going to be an astronaut by the time I was 30 or so. (just turned 30, i fail!) lol :lol:

Then , like you.. as I got older.. "life" seemed to get in the way, and I didnt pay attention to anything astronomy for a long time.

Then when I was about 23-24, I started to get interested in it all again.
So i bought a telescope, took some courses, and signed up with the astronomical society at the local observatory, and have been there since, and now I work there. lol

and now I have access to a $1/4-mill. 20 inch scope whenever I want,
and get to choose from 3 different domes each with different scopes, as if they were my own! lol
and I can stay with them until Sol rises if i like. :D

I can't believe I let it go for so long.

But now, every night I spend at the observatory (most nights),
or every night I am out under the stars, I feel just as I did when I was a child, towards it all.

I think it is the feeling of "nostalgia" but im not sure... :lol:
But I feel like a little kid again, and that rocks! lol

What kinda scope do you want to get?
If you weren't soo far away I could probably get you a saweet deal! lol

Clear skies. <3

That's awesome!!! What a dream job working in an observatory! I was a member of our local Astronomical Society (http://www.centexastronomy.org/) about 8-10 years ago, but other interests and commitments just kept pulling me away. I'll rejoin soon and try to get active, plus they have their own observatory which would be neat to use.

For me I think it is very nostalgic. I grew-up watching every show I could get on astronomy and NASA, reading books, subscribed to a few magazines, etc, but living in the city and having a crappy department store telescope I didn't have any way to really see the stars, or at least deep sky objects.

As for a telescope, they've changed so much since I researched them. I'd love to 'roll my own', but I don't know if I have the science down well enough to do that. Also I'd love to have one with the tracking capabilities to do some astrophotography, but I want to learn how to find objects without the assistance of the computer.

Where we live it's right in town, but we live far enough on the cusp of town to get some light pollution. There's a 3 acre park in our neighborhood with an empty field behind it that I can see me using for sky watching, but it'll probably be next year before I have the funds to get a telescope.

At any rate, I've deviated way off topic, so I'll end :) I'd love to chat more about this in PM or possibly another thread if others would like to jump in.

Take care --

Sam

[Rasa1111]

Thanks Sam. :)
That would be cool. ;)

yeah you should definitely rejoin.:)

I became a member of the astro society,
Just because I wanted to get into it,
and the next thing i know they are offering me a job. lol
Kind of a 'Blessing from the U-n-Iverse." lol

One more shot (GIF) of the moon,
only posting it to show the color of the surface in a "regular" image
(not B&W)... [looks more like Earth than many think/believe].
The anomaly is cool to though. lol

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b32e980f005.gif

[MasterNetra]

This makes sense to me--particularly when dealing with wavelengths outside visible light, what does "color" really mean, anyway?

As I understand it sense light is really just waves of photons and varies wavelengths and or combination of wave lengths get translated into the reds,blues, etc by our brain. With Black of course being no photon waves and white consisting of all the wavelength combinations or at least all the combinations our brain recognizes.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Actually, according to an astronomy class I took in university, NASA's photos are taken in multiple black-and-white stages. To get the best resolution possible they take multiple images with different-coloured filters, resulting in multiple black-and-white images. Each image corresponds to a different portion of the spectrum. So you'd have one image that shows the blue range of the spectrum, another for red, another for green, and so on. You can also have infra-red, x-ray, ultraviolet, etc... filters (which often get used in the false-colour images you see from NASA.)

If you take a set of black-and-white images from different filters you can re-apply the colours, stack the images up, and get a true-colour image out the other end. But each individual filter results in a black-and-white image for that particular spectral range.

The part about capturing each spectral range is really important, too. The photographs are scientific data, and the specific light that reaches the camera is really valuable information. They can learn an incredible amount by those images alone.
The James Webb Telescope is pretty exciting as far as science is concerned, for example, because it will capture more in the infrared spectrum.

Wikipedia's article on the Mars Reconaissance Orbiter (the one that gives us those amazing pictures of various rovers from space (http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/space_missions/mars_reconnaissance_orbiter/hirise_lander_search.html)) has some information you may find enlightening, too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Reconaissance_Orbiter#HiRISE_.28camera.29

Another thing to keep in mind is that some of these instruments can seem a little bit weak to us lucky earthlings, but the difference with them is they will survive in the cold, empty darkness of space. Things have been known to use plain old components for that reason (I believe Hubble is one such case), since new designs are much more fragile.
Here's a fun article to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_embedded_computer_systems_on_board_t he_Mars_rovers

The computers in Spirit and Opportunity are special radiation-hardened jobs, built for satellites, that do about 35 MIPS (million instructions per second). Mars Science Laboratory (the amazing new beast close to being launched) does 400 MIPS.
The CPU in an Xbox 360 does around 19,200 MIPS, but those things die if you look at them funny.

I'll see if I can find a comparison for flying things, but the computers in Spirit and Opportunity say it all. What distant land has your computer explored lately, hm?

[MasterNetra]

Thanks Sam. :)
That would be cool. ;)

yeah you should definitely rejoin.:)

I became a member of the astro society,
Just because I wanted to get into it,
and the next thing i know they are offering me a job. lol
Kind of a 'Blessing from the U-n-Iverse." lol

One more shot (GIF) of the moon,
only posting it to show the color of the surface in a "regular" image
(not B&W)... [looks more like Earth than many think/believe].
The anomaly is cool to though. lol

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b32e980f005.gif

Aye, not sure what someone is trying to prove with that shadow part, after watching it carefully i noticed the shadow part is just a shaded side of a large rock. But I suppose people will see what they wanted to see. Becomes more apparent at the frame before last.

[Rasa1111]

Aye, not sure what someone is trying to prove with that shadow part, after watching it carefully i noticed the shadow part is just a shaded side of a large rock. But I suppose people will see what they wanted to see. Becomes more apparent at the frame before last.

hey,
yeah I didnt even pay any mind to that part.
I just wanted to show the surface color again.

Soo many people point out 'anomalies' on the moon,
most of which are just to weak to even speculate on. lol
But there are plenty of good, real, unexplainable anomalies on Luna.
I just don't see this as one.

(but i guess the "ufo" in the sky is cool.)
But still to weak to bother with.
I already know they exist. lol
:P
:)

[SoFl W]

Everyone knows when the moon was discovered by an American in 432 A.D. and it is made out of cheese. "THEY" took the moon and currently store it at Area 51 along with the team of people that shot Kennedy. The moon has been replaced with a Styrofoam cup to fool people into thinking humans landed there.

[Cam42]

the next mars rover is going to have a 3D camera, thanks to James Cameron...
Not sure if that's relevant to your interests, however.

[SoFl W]

the next mars rover is going to have a 3D camera, thanks to James Cameron...
Not sure if that's relevant to your interests, however.

I thought NASA already used stereoscope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscopy) type/like cameras.

[Rasa1111]

Everyone knows when the moon was discovered by an American in 432 A.D. and it is made out of cheese. "THEY" took the moon and currently store it at Area 51 along with the team of people that shot Kennedy. The moon has been replaced with a Styrofoam cup to fool people into thinking humans landed there.

no silly,
the moon was towed here by a giant spaceship, duh!
(or is the moon itself a giant spaceship and it was 'driven' here?)
or maybe it was towed half way and flew the rest of the way on it's own. lol :P

ill have to ask next time i go.
i miss lunar base.

oops.. lol

[trodas]

Rasa1111 -
You are not supposed to know what's really 'out there'.. and "they" prefer it if everyone were to keep believing the moon was grey. Though it is not. Here are the true colors of the moon. Yes, it is true color, none added.

http://s8.postimage.org/bqy40ag41/colorfull_moon.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/bqy40ag41/)

But if this is true, then all the NASA pictures of gray only Moon are fake. Mainly and mostly the wast numbers of Apollo pictures are fake, witch means the Apollo itself if a fake...

Now I did not like where this is going, because that means you can fool almost whole world into believing that we CAN make it to the Moon, while we CAN'T.


...

And that suxx.

Where is the source for your image? So we can check and verify the colors?

[llanitedave]

Yeah, the wast numbers of photos you can take of the Moon through backyard telescopes are fake too, right?

[CharlesA]

Where is the source for your image? So we can check and verify the colors?

You mean finding it by using tineye?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1538.html

[Bandit]

Folks:
I am not into film, or photos; however, I am having a hard time understanding why NASA would still use black and white for film and video. With all the advancements in photo/video compression - I would think color video/photos would not be hard to have, yet this could be only my lack of understanding the benefits of black and white photo/video.

Can anyone enlighten me on this topic?

Simple, it has better clarity. I know that sounds strange looking at NASA's fuzzy half - blurred - feed form the space station and all. But you can get better contrast with BW images.

[Bandit]

no silly,
the moon was towed here by a giant spaceship, duh!
(or is the moon itself a giant spaceship and it was 'driven' here?)
or maybe it was towed half way and flew the rest of the way on it's own. lol :P

ill have to ask next time i go.
i miss lunar base.

oops.. lol

Lies lies lies.. We all know the moon is really the planet Remus, thats why one side always faces us.

[cariboo]

This thread is drifting off topic, aside from the fact that it's almost 3 years old. Thread closed.