Space isn't as colourful as you think | BBC Global
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2024
- Have you wondered what it would be like to see space through your very own eyes?
We spoke to the experts who process images from the James Webb Telescope to find out how close the pictures of our Universe are to reality.
Subscribe to BBC Global: ruclips.net/user/bbc_global?...
For the latest news, analysis and features visit: www.bbc.com
#bbc #space #nasa
“It gives a glimpse into the reality beyond our physical perception.” I just can’t appreciate of how advanced us humans have become and are still developing. From making fire in caves to finding miracles in the universe
"Making fire in caves" Hah! Hardly anyone lived in caves. There are very few caves on Earth, and most of them are a long way from areas with plenty of food. The only reasons people think humans lived in caves in the Stone Age is because human skeletons are much more easily preserved within a cave than elsewhere. "Making fire in a clearing in the bush" would be more accurate.
@@DieFlabbergastI think you missed the point of the comment…
This creates comon misconceptions not only about how space actually looks but also how planets appear; most images of the Earth from orbit are enhanced to reveal greater detail, so people may be surprised when they watch the live feed from cameras aboard the ISS to see how washed out and "overexposed" the Earth appears (also, the absence of visible stars jars with what conventional space photography would lead them to believe), and recently it was determined that, due to conventions around processing images from the Voyager probes, the common conception of Neptune appearing deep blue is actually erroneous; it is a pale blue-grey in reality.
Strangely, as a child of the 1980s-1990s, I remember the original Neptune images before they were enhanced at some point in the 2000s. Seeing that I was an adult before the enhanced images came out I never really encountered them. So I was kind of surprised when everyone was saying Neptune was dark blue because I had only seen it as pale blue. So theses effects can really be generational.
@@patreekotime4578 it's something I'm very disappointed in finding out. I thought of Neptune as a very beautiful ocean blue, but instead it's a bit uglier, less unique,/more similar to Uranus. I hope we get a photograph a beautiful alien dark blue waterworld, one day.
@@skycloud4802 Even the earth looks lighter blue from far away, even though we dont have total cloud cover. So you would need a planet that somehow maintained a surface ocean and zero cloud cover.
And this is why people have trust issues with certain aspects of astronomy. Lots of the images are doctored and edited.
@@averyb.476 This is not even remotely the same thing as "doctoring" photos. Virtually ALL space photography is "edited" in some way because the cameras are not like normal digital cameras we use on earth. The images from space telescopes are often showing spectrums of light that humans cannot see and making them visible. They don't do it to make them pretty or to fool people, they do it so researchers can SEE the invisible light and make observation. This isn't like using a tanning filter on Tiktok.
One day they’ll no doubt be able to make eyeballs/lenses that can perceive space this way. What a sight that would be….
You could do that now. Just look through the correct filter
@@SuperAloeFreshare you my uncle?
@@SuperAloeFreshcan see all the deception that way
If you've ever photographed (or seen a photo of) an aurora you'll get a bit of a grasp of what the human eye misses. It's a pale version of a modern camera's capacity for spectrum gathering.
Space isnt black and white but is not the color you see in many satellite pictures.
I'd like to see a completely unedited picture of space... not saying it would look interesting but i'd still like to see it
Same, the colour enhanced images are beautiful but I'd really love to see some images of objects as they would look if you were flying past in a spaceship.
Most Hubble photos are that. Just with each photo is just using a different filter then combining the images in a composite image to show the true colour with far greater detail then using all the filters at once blocking a lot of detail.
Go to a Dark area in your country, where there are no city lights.
Buy a decent telescope and astrophotography setup and you'll be amazed by the awe inspiring photos you can take of space yourself.
Or just search it on youtube :p
Go to a dark area, use a telescope or binoculars. The star clusters are noticeably bluer than images would have you believe, and nebulae are more washed out in colour
still looks amazing
I kind of want to see images of space how WE would see it with our own eyes along with the images NASA provides.
you mostly see darkness,just go outside an view the naked sky there isnt much to see
@@zukisamkhize4303 No stars at all either. Like white dots in a black field?
Color is in the eye of the beholder....if not ask dogs
they usually don’t have much to say.
anyway they have no idea what they’re missing
This video is a little misleading, I'm actually surprised at BBC. Everything they said is factual, but presented in a way that's missing context. For example, the Hubble and James Web telescopes capture very different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Hubble does indeed capture visible light, but using a monochrome camera, so it doesn't capture any color information per se. Fun fact, all digital cameras are monochrome cameras, but they add a Bayer matrix on top with red/green/blue filters to capture the color data. Hubble does a similar thing, but more tedious. It first takes a picture with just the red filter, then a second image with just the green filter, and a third with just the blue filter. It then combines the three images into a single image. To make it even more complicated, hubble's red/green/blue filters aren't aligned with what most people would consider "pure" red/green/blue. They capture shades of these colors. Then someone in processing make the reds more red, greens more green, and blues more blue. This is because the most interesting star data is contained in colors that most people would consider bland. Their first priority is to capture the data, and then make it more appealing to the general public. So unless you find it cool to look at a spreadsheet filled with numbers, they do this fudging for you. Then we have the James Web which images purely in the infrared which we can't see, so the colors must be interpreted to make a visible image, otherwise you would be looking at a pure black screen.
Nice
That's not the issue. The question is, if you were near these structures yourself, would you see them as they are represented..?
RUclips has longer videos on this same topic that explains in greater detail. Just look it up. This is a short one
@@DesmondKaranithe video seems to imply that if there were no dust clouds blocking your view then they should look like this. If the formations are releasing the same waves but higher up in the spectrum than infrared then this up shifting should make basically the same image
@@DesmondKaranican you see in infrared?
Yes, if the only way to learn about the human body was through X-ray images, there would still be so much we don't know. This is because X-rays only tell us half the story. Similarly, the infrared images from billions of light years away tell no more than a tenth or perhaps less of the story. It's important to face up to this truth instead of portraying it as if we know everything that there is out there.
Colours add values to our life. Well done to the team
The question I have is what the human eye would see if someone were close enough to the nebula to see it as a broadly extended object. Even though the eye cannot see infrared or ultraviolet I imagine there would be color in the luminescence of the ionized gas, and perhaps passively from the starlight penetrating through the gas clouds.
Good question.. well the Orion nebula for example looks pretty grey through a telescope so I believe if you could see a nebula when you're in space it wouldn't appear in bright colors
Maybe there are plenty of other things in space which is still invisible to us 😮
@@ivaerz4977someone discovered a colossal oxygen cloud near Andromeda so there's definitely plenty more out there to find
It would be grayish cloud
Are there special glasses by chance which will allow me to see the night sky with such vibrancy?
Color grading and adding color to it would also be nice. The detail makes it color looks vibrant
Interesting, I love looking at pictures of space. Nice explanation. I also make science videos, want to see them?
I completely love how they Edit the JWST photos. It's incredible. Many astro photographers come up with similar coulours, so to me they are definitely real.
I knew this since 2007. Haha I read so much on the computer in those days.
So is our planet make it better❤❤🎉🎉thks
Do we alter images to display non-visible light with any other form of photography?
ultraviolet flashlights are common to find and photograph, infrared vision is also seeing outside of the spectrum in thermal cameras
not at this scale...they do so to keep a narrative alive
Actually we do the opposite. Digital cameras have filters on them to keep them from picking up light frequencies that humans cannot see. So we actually ALTER digital photographs so they align with what we THINK the world should look like. Basically, your brain is telling you a big lie about what the universe looks like, and cameras have had to be adapted to continue this lie, otherwise your brain would get upset seeing things you don't normally see.
I wrote a whole reply explaining this, but RUclips deleted it for some reason. 🤔
The reality is that every digital camera image you have ever seen is altered to make the world look the way your brain thinks it should look. Digital cameras have filters on them to remove the frequencies of light that we don't see. Early digital cameras often would display weird purple or pink flares around heat sources or solar reflections, as well as to some degreee, to see through clothing. So yes, we atler every digital image to look more human vision.
Yes! But the opposite! All digital cameras use filters to remove spectrums of light humans cannot see. Older digital cameras without these filters showed weird purple/pink fringes around heat sources and solar reflections and were known to see through clothing. So yes, every modern digital camera image is altered to look more like human vision.
This video came one day after the QuantumFracture video, coincidence?
Depends what you mean by colorful. Humans can only see in a small spectrum. So sure.. it's not that colorful, but what are we missing out on in terms of color
It's because our eyes can't see.
We can see bones with our eyes. Trust me.
I am fifty five years old, and, for all that time, I've been used to seeing Neptune with a glorious deep blue colour. Then, less than a year ago, I learned on another astronomical channel, that it is a much lighter colour indeed, its true colour is, in fact, much closer to that of it's neighbour Uranus.That wonderful vibrant blue hue was laid on its images to help astronomers discern various features on its 'surface'... and decided to release those enhanced images for public viewing, for whatever reason, rather than switching back to its true colour.
So thank you, whoever you are, for perpetrating the biggest deception ever. I'm not sure when that first enhanced image was releases, but since then it's been repeated and disseminated across the planet. Millions of people my age and younger have spent their lives believing we had a beautiful sapphire jewel in our solar system when nothing could be further from the truth!
Lots of people see colors differently so even if someone makes colors for the picture people might be swing that picture differently
I love how astronomers are convinced they just know everything about the universe when out species has barely been able to get into space.
first of all, all those starts are in a patch of sky equivalent to the area of a grain of sand an arm's length away, so we can't even see it to begin with, so let's not think much about colors here.
That's right, show us more of the color pictures and less of the grey. It's not like we came here to see the unedited images.
Oh well then what can we do. So I can’t see infrared. My life must be over. dear diary. What is the point? We all know. Well done James Webb.
You cant SEE infrared .. but you can FEEL it !!
It's Heat.
Cant SEE ultraviolet.. but you FEEL it !! your skin knows when there is UV .
Imagine all the things in the universe we'll never be able to perceive.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
The diffraction spikes of stars are also an abberation but the likes of Nasa seem happy enough to exagerrate these Bethlehem stars at their studio. A Maksutov design is more accurate, when you see Arcturus with a perfectly colimated Mak, you soon realise that stars have more of a round disc like shape, just like our own Sun.
Yeah. Newsflash. Many telescopes etc aren’t made to detect visible light
Right. So 1968's 2001 A Space Odyssey is infinitely more realistic than any Marvel multi-rainbow HDR space scenes.
Very problematic video title. Look at visible spectrum captured Hubble images.
most people watching this video are human, not a Hubble telescope
And trust Satanic NASA? Your crazy
I actually kinda somewhat knew this lol
It actually pisses me off that they do this. Oversells space, and then gaslights me for wanting the pictures to be, you know, EFFING PICTURES.
So if we could see the full spectrum of light would these clouds be different shades of red?
Like they said in the beginning.... they would be mostly grey... it's dust lit by stars giving off mostly "white" light.
@@patreekotime4578 It would be grayscale using our eyes now because we cant see infra red that passes through. They say that's what James Webb is seeing not whit light, I am wondering if we could see the full spectrum of light would we see the clouds as shades of infra red
@@bigbobelow6147 I mis-read the question. But yeah... infra-red not "red".
Guys space with your raw eyes is NOT greyscale, only the raw picture data are, because it’s essentially recording how much brightness is in each point of the data. With ur eyes it wouldn’t be greyscale, but it would be like the pictures show either. It would be in the middle, leaning more towards greyscale
@@icinnalatteno it would be grayscale
This is true that we can't see many things with our eyes, but we can feel them.
NASA's views and imagination about Universe are nice and to dispute either, especially about scientific theories of time travel.
I watched this video on mute while am high it was actually amazing ❤🔥
I understand the use of the edited images, but it would be nice to know what space actually looks like to the human eye, should we decide to consider space as a possible vaca destination in the future
No, it is more colorful than we think.
Gazes have no color to the human eyes so nop
Wish they didn't edit the photos. Bad analogy with regards to X-ray images, it would be equivalent to arbitrarily colouring the x-rays.
We can take infrared pictures of everyday life. However, it would be disingenuous to pass off an infrared image as a regular photo without an obvious disclaimer. Infrared images are just as real as regular photos, but they are not the same thing. Think of how much different infrared images look. They look cool and tells us a lot of information, but they would not represent a regular photograph.
I knew this already.
What people want to see is the view from a space ship if you were flying near to these objects, like if you magnify something a 10 billion miles aways, 1 million times, we want it to look like we are in a space ship 10000 miles away from the object. No an xray
Yes, but the images are not made for the general public's entertainment. They are made so scientists can visually differentiate things that are otherwise invisible.
@@patreekotime4578 Its still a bit disappointing to find out that what you will see if you fly near these object is not what you see in these photos. Also, that flying near to these objects would probably lead to instantaneous death.
@@KENKENNIFF I mean, if we have the technology to do a flyby of a molecular cloud, presumably we would have the technology to be able to just wear glasses and see them this way if you wanted to. Or like the view screens in Star Trek... just display a false color image. They never took advantage of that ability enough in the show.
@@patreekotime4578 The technology would be far beyond anything we have at the moment, to the point of impossibility.
wait your narrator is a intern?
Static
1:58 am I the only one seeing this?!?!
... and the Director of Animation just adds that little touch here and there...
Space is pitch black
I agree. If we were aboard a spaceship and looked out the portholes, we would see black, black and more black. As long as you're facing away from the sun, you may be able to discern the very distant stars as bright pin points. It would be a boring and depressing ride until you've reached your destination e.g. Mars etc.
Pimento? what are you doing there
1:08
" we are taking shorter wave length and longer wave length and assigning them to visible wave length.."
BUT JWST ONLY "SEE" INFRARED...
So HOW can you tell if it's ANYTHING ELSE than infrared??
You only have infrared spectrum..
Short and long wave length infrared spectrum.
Alternate title: Space sucks
I'm disappointed in this because I was hoping it would show unmodified, true color (visible light) images of space objects. Most of the images sent back from our orbiting (and terrestrial) telescopes are monochrome, but some are various spectra of visible light, which could be combined into an image showing what the view from a spaceship's window would be. Unfortunately, I've never seen any processed that way. Also, I'm curious what it really looks like on Mars at noon because most of the images we've seen are enhanced to show brighter light than actually exists.
Well, the second part is a bit of a trick question because your eyes and brain don't operate on absolute exposure values either. If you step outside your house at night it might seem really really dark... but if you stay out there for a long time, your eyes adjust and eventually you should be able to see fairly well... although you won't see all of the colors because the rods and cones have different sensitivities. So the world at night looks roughly monochrome bluish. On a full moon night you might be able to see well enough to read a book. And the longer you stay out in the dark, the less you are aware of how dark it is, it just begins to feel normal. And of course, all of that experience is subjective... different people may experience these things differently. So honestly, the only way to really know what it will look like on Mars... is to go there.
@@patreekotime4578, I agree and understand that. Being a photographer (including doing some amateur astrophotography), I know our modern cameras automatically adjust, too (when we let them). But I'd like to see some approximation of what it would be like to walk out of a normally lit room onto the Martian surface at a given time of day, or to look out of my spaceship window at the Pillars of Creation or the Orion Nebula. I notice every sci-fi flick has very colorful things going on outside, but I suspect most of the structures we picture from the beautiful false color imagery is much more mundane in real life (but I'd still like to know).
Pretty much all the emission nebulae in space (such as eagle nebula [pillars of creation])are actually almost completely red because of the hydrogen-alpha emission line (which is red). Lots of people capture them in real color with unmodified DSLR/mirrorless cameras and you can even see them with your eyes under dark skies with binoculars.
Hubble images of galaxies or reflection nebulae are in real color (though they are not captured in color straight out of the camera), it is because galaxies and reflection nebulae emit light in the broad spectrum which means that narrowband filters don’t work on them, so scientists use RGB filters to form a real color image. Everything out of JWST is in false color because you can’t even see the colors in captures.
Does this means if we were able to see space through our own eyes it would be the same colourful?
No, the color is made up, photoshopped.
@squintps thank you…as it’s in the infrared and other range of the spectrum in which we can’t see.
I missed it in the very start of the video.
I’ve always knew the pictures were bullshit!! lol
Don’t tell me what I think.
It's all very confusing. Does it mean if I were close enough to the photographed objects, I wouldn't actually see the colours? If so, why am I able to see the Milky Way in its splendid colours with my naked eyes?
It’s not grayscale in real life, but it’s also not as vibrant, somewhere in the middle, maybe leaning more towards muted colors
I knew it, first image was also stolen from Elon musk's kitchen table.
Why does the narrator sound like shes forcing her indian accent to be american
I thought she was just British.
Space simply doesn't exist! We're all under the roof - FIRMAMENT.
Exactly but be careful people shudder at the truth, and it might make them scared.
@JordanWallace-nb4id ,
Yes, but we still cannot be ignorant or silent.. And one day, liars will be shamed to its fullest !
@@XPJV absolutely agree Jesus Christ said this, everything hid will be revealed. Amen 🙏
Please next time do not deceive the people about the color of the universe. I prefer the real colors over fake ones even if it's black and white or gray.
What universe? This is it my friend the earth is the center of everything.
Clickbait. There was no Supernoba since 1604 AD.
First, I found out my wife has been lying to me about having a boyfriend, and now telescopes are lying to me about the colors in space? FML!!
Space isnt black and white. But its not colrless either. Got it.
We need more fake images of earth....
Hahaha !! yeah! 🤟
0:55
"IMAGE CREATED"
by definition... NOT REAL
2:00
Bad comparison..
Cant compare images of our bones taken with Xrays, with images taken with JWST.
The reason is that ; we CAN CONFIRM that the Xray images are REALLY our bones because we ALREADY SEEN bones with our eyes in real life.
On the other end, for all we can be absolutly sure about the images of the JWST, is that they are only REPRESENTATIONS and INTERPRETATIONS.
If we are here to observe the Universe for God, as some Philosophers and Theologians have suggested, then these images are the Universe as God would see it.
That's just the point isn't it, they want to hide God from you.
All we see on the internet are lies... They keep feeding us the wrong interpretation of what the space and universe really look like. Why won't they show us unedited images?
What would the "unedited image" be? A string of bits on a file? If it’s not information that our eyes can capture you need to translate the different wavelenghts into visible ones. And those are what we perceive as colors
Because God is true and every man a liar. They don't want you to see God's handiwork. Psalm 19 KJV
Space is full of colour:
* X-rays
* Gamma rays
* radio waves
* micro waves
STOP LYING BBC
Given colour is the visual interpretation of the electromagnetic spectrum, and we can't see at those frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum without the assistance of shifting them to frequencies we can see... I would humbly submit your posited theory is bunkum.
@@relwalretep i would humbly submit u have had at least 4 gene therapy shots, minimum
@@relwalretep stop with your BLIND nonsense. Have you really never heard of Tetrachromats or Thermoreception (Nobel Prize 2021) or aphakia? Go back to primary school
TIL Space is boring and I'm a dog
Liars!
horrible, dishonest headline. space is very colorful. I and the tens of thousands of other astrophotographers around the world know this
That's cuz the cameras can pick up colors the eye can't see right.
@@2painful2watchless about our eyes not being able to see those wavelengths. Its more that our eyes are just terrible at seeing color in the dark. Our cone cells (the ones that see color) need a good amount of light to actually differentiate color, so in low light theyre practicality useless. Thats why you cant see the color of nebulae when you look through a telescope eyepiece
@@JML_Astrophotos Okay thanks for responding. So if you were a passenger on a spaceship looking out portholes would you still be able to discern some color of say, a distant star i.e. red giant etc and nebulae or the Ring Nebula?
@@2painful2watch stars are easy since they're bright. But nebulae are harder since they're dimmer. You'd have similar problems as on earth
@@JML_Astrophotos Thank you so much sir.
That thing is called AI generated image
Also, Mars isn't red or orange. It's gray. Pictures are photoshopped.
Its Called the Firmament and the Heavens, and it declares God's glory and His handiwork. Psalm 19 King James Bible.
BBC you will be judged by God for every deception and lie you have ever told. The more you lie, the more God judge you on that day.
ID LIKE TO THINK OF IT AS PLAYING MUSIC but you ARENT. You are giving us FALSE images. Showing pictures and playing music are 2 completely different things idgaf how you justify it.
normie narrative is starting to crumble
Is your iq that low that you didn't understand the purpose ?
We've all been lied to about existence. Creation is true.