Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

background filament networks (Murray mesh) in deep sky photos-- noise artifacts? Boehringer: Murray 2004.06.15 rmforall

Expand Messages
  • Rich Murray
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AstroDeep/5 background filament networks (Murray mesh) in deep sky photos-- noise artifacts? Boehringer: Murray 2004.06.15
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 14, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      background filament networks (Murray mesh) in deep sky photos-- noise
      Boehringer: Murray 2004.06.15 rmforall

      2004 June 15 Bob, thanks for your lucid and careful comments about the
      very reasonable interpretation that the faint background filaments noticable
      in the background of many extremely deep space photos at very high red
      shifts are possibly just noise.

      I welcome civil debate on these images.
      Anyone can post to AstroDeep@yahoogroups.com

      I had to place low-resolution JPG images in the archive at my discussion

      However, the filaments are even more convincingly obvious in the original
      TIFF images, up to 100 MB of color coded data, especially if the gamma is
      shifted from 100 to 200 or 300.

      They show up in images of different sky locations, with different
      wavelengths, various color codings, and from a variety of large telescopes.
      They are easy to see in color deep sky photos in popular astronomy
      magazines, especially when the gamma has been shifted to about 200 to render
      the black background more luminous.

      Try it with selections from the recent Hubble photo of Abell 1689 at



      This 1.89 MB TIFF image at 1X or 2X clearly show myriad red and black
      filaments in what I intrepret as a deep 3D mesh, which can been seen behind
      the translucent foreground galaxies. I haven't seen any signs of
      gravitational lensing, which might be because they are too far behind the
      lensing cluster to be "in focus".

      The 3D effect with paired identical color photos is very striking for me-- I
      can do it with tourist picture postcards in a store. I'm interested in how
      many people can readily experience various versions of 3D perception this

      In mutual service, Rich

      From: "Rich Murray" <rmforall@...>
      Subject: Hubble sees via Abell 1689 to 2 B ly 1.7.3
      Date: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 5:01 PM

      Hubble sees via Abell 1689 to 2 B ly 1.7.3

      Hubble Sees Deep Universe Using Cosmic 'Zoom Lens'

      Updated 2:32 PM ET January 7, 2003

      By Deborah Zabarenko

      SEATTLE (Reuters) - Using a cosmic "zoom lens" made up of cluster of a
      trillion stars, the Hubble Space Telescope looked back in time to see
      the universe just 2 billion years after the theoretical Big Bang,
      astronomers said on Tuesday.

      Hubble's new Advanced Camera for Surveys looked straight through a
      massive galaxy cluster known as Abell 1689. The gravity of the cluster's
      trillion stars acts as a monster magnifying glass in space, warping and
      magnifying the light of galaxies far behind it.

      Abell 1689 is 2.2 billion light-years away, and it acts as a 2
      million-light-year-wide "zoom lens" in space, scientists said at a
      meeting of the American Astronomical Society meeting in Seattle.

      A light-year is about 6 trillion miles, the distance light travels in a

      The new image appears at first glance as hundreds of jewel-like bright
      objects -- distant galaxies -- against a black background, much like
      previous Hubble pictures.

      On closer examination, there are faint arcs of red and blue, the light
      from even more remote galaxies smeared by the gravitational bending of
      the light as it is magnified.

      "We create a kind of pothole in the geometry of the universe," said
      Narciso Benitez of the Johns Hopkins University, referring to the
      warping known as gravitational lensing.

      Some of these galaxies have been seen before, but the new picture
      reveals 10 times more arcs than would be seen by a telescope on the
      ground, and makes an image twice as sharp as previous images from the
      orbiting Hubble's earlier cameras.

      Hubble scientists also showed a new image of the dusty disk around a
      nearby baby star where planets could lurk.

      The 5 million-year-old star -- a true infant in cosmic terms -- lies 320
      light-years away in the constellation Libra and appears to be part of a
      triple-star system.

      Earlier Hubble images showed two rings separated by a dark lane in the
      star's disk, and this was interpreted as evidence of one or more planets
      around the star.

      The new disk image gives a more complex picture, revealing a tight
      spiral structure with two arms, one of which appears to be associated
      with a nearby double star system.

      In a color image, there is a black blob where the light from the star
      has been masked to highlight the disk.

      "In the picture, we're seeing an interaction between the binary system
      and the disk," said Holland Ford, also of Johns Hopkins. "We're not
      seeing planets in this disk, but there is nothing that would preclude
      planets in this debris disk."

      Hubble images and information are available at


      From: "Louise and Bob" <coatsbob@...>
      To: "Rich Murray" <rmforall@...>
      Subject: Re: a friendly introduction: Beohringer: Murray 2004.06.12
      Date: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:11 PM

      I went to the Yahoo groups and took a look at the
      photos. I have to say that I did not see any
      filaments. I was expecting to see something a little
      more obvious.

      Having worked for several years in image processing I
      was wondering how much of the photos you started with
      were information and how much was noise.

      For example, if an image has 8 bits of depth per pixel
      are there 4, 5, 6, or 7 bits f information. It is
      rare to have the lowest bit as actual information and
      in many imaging situations there are fewer than 6 bits
      of actual information. This means that the lowest 1,
      2, and often 3 bits are noise, ie not information.

      Image processing is often the task of making images
      more pleasing to the eye. This can be simple as in
      changing the brightness or contrast. Gamma is a
      simple change of pixel intensity in which the change
      is greater to darker pixels than to brighter pixels.

      Suppose that the images are 6 bit images. That leaves
      2 bits of noise. Alter the images so that 2 bits are
      information and 2 bits are noise and 4 bits are now
      nothing. What just happened to the information
      content of the image relative to the noise content?

      Also, these images are JPGs. That is a lossy
      compression method. How has that changed the noise
      content of the images?

      Check with the original source of the images to learn
      how much of the images is real and how much is noise.
      Knowing the quality of the images is important.
      Calibrating digital equipment is tricky. Lots of
      different techniques have been employed to adjust
      sensing equipment.

      I am a bit curious about the means of viewing 3-d when
      the images are identical such as in viewing multiple
      tv screens. The composition of images into an
      internal 3-d view by the brain requires that the eyes
      see slightly different images. I sometimes work in a
      virtual reality lab here at VT. The CAVE produces 3-d
      worlds by supplying 24 image pairs to the eyes per
      second. A different image is rendered for each eye.
      The same is true when a head mounted dsplay is used.
      Three-d movies do the same. Two televisions side by
      side or two telescope images side by side are not
      going to create the 3d effect sicne the images do not

      SIRDS (single image random dot stereograms) produce a
      3-d effect, but rely on the use of noise and low
      resolution images to produce the effect. Two
      superimposed images are laid over a noisy background.
      The eyes separate the low resolution images from the
      noisy background. The important point here is that
      two differing images are imbedded inthe single image.
      This is still different than a tv image.

      a friendly introduction: Beohringer: Murray 2004.06.12

      2004 June 12 Hello Bob,

      I enjoyed your website on stereology. You might be interested in my simple
      analysis of mysterious background filaments in very deep cosmological
      photos, for which I set up a group over two years ago. I am organizing
      myself to offer a post on recent images.

      "About two
      decades ago I noticed that when the same photo is set up side
      by side, and viewed with slightly crossed eyes to make a third
      composite image in between, that image is created by the
      brain's visual system as an excellent 3D image. In fact, you
      can visit a TV store, where a lot of sets are all on the same
      channel at once, and find two sets the same size, side by side,
      and watch the composite image in moving 3D. If you settle
      your gaze gently for a few minutes into the composite
      image, the innate image processing facility of the brain's
      visual system will develop and deepen the 3D appreciation
      in remarkable and beautiful ways."

      deep sky background filaments: images and interpretation 2002.01.19:
      Murray rmforall


      Click on the thumbnail photos to get the photos, and click on those
      in turn to get full screen photos.

      Artifacts? Or?-- immense filaments of H, He, and dark
      matter, lit by intense UV from the earliest very massive
      stars, "...during the first 10E8 years of the history of
      the universe at redshifts between 50 and 10...,"
      Prof. Richard B. Larson, Sci. Am. Dec 2001, and
      [7 pages]. This very early intense UV is now redshifted
      into the visible and IR bands, and may supply about half of
      the current cosmic IR background. The filaments are
      generally as thin as 1 pixel.

      Photo #2: deeptt1k.jpg:
      One pixel = .258 arc-sec, about .25 mm on my 15" monitor.
      In MGI PhotoSuite 4.0, I can zoom in to 1600 %, at which point
      each pixel is about 4 mm on my 15" monitor.

      This is a 20KB cut from the center of the
      673 KB original, Photo #1: deeptt1.jpg:
      1024X1024 pixels, a random sample, the first of three,
      a little to the lower left of center of the 1.15X1.15 degree field,
      16000X16000 pixels, 750.3 Mb 24-bit color TIFF,
      the highest available resolution,
      National Optical Astronomy Observatory Deep Wide-Field Survery.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bob" <rboehrin@...>
      Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience
      Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:43 AM
      Subject: Use of stereology

      > How often do people make use of stereology in their research. If you
      > do use it, do you use a software package or do you use a manual
      > technique?


      The Author

      I am Robert Boehringer and presently living in Blacksburg, Virginia where I
      attend Virginia Tech. I have been enrolled in the Masters program for
      Computer Science as a part time student. My GPA is 3.90 (A=4.0 A-=3.7)
      Although part time I am an active student and attend as many of the lecture
      series as possible. I also make good use of the cultural opportunities that
      are available through the university.
      I am employed by MicrobrightField, Inc. the leader in software for
      stereological research and serial reconstructions.
      Outside of the school and work I have hobbies that include bird watching,
      hiking, traveling, and the occasional rock climb.

      My motivation for creating information about stereology is due to the the
      lack of information available online. It also provides me the chance to
      record some of the observations I have made.
      It is surprisingly easy to find misinformation about stereology. Examples
      Suggestions to avoid proper sampling
      Poorly done simulations
      The use of ocular mathematics
      The latter entry is in reference to a joke that several of us started in
      high school. It was suggested that the easiest math would be a discipline
      with a single axiom, "If it looks right, then it is right." It should come
      as no surprise that ocular mathematics is prevalent in many disciplines.
      Stereology is no exception. I have seen corrections for numbers that are too
      large, generate even larger numbers. I have seen counting rules changed to
      forms that were more pleasing to the eye. I have seen assumptions made about
      averages that do not hold under even the simplest conditions. I cannot be
      certain in all cases, but I believe that the ocular axiom was invoked in all
      of these cases as well as many others.
      Please send in suggestions or comments to rboehrin@....

      Tricouni Nail in the Needles of South Dakota

      This page written by Robert Boehringer at Virginia Tech.

      research on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity:
      Murray 2004.06.14 rmforall

      Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@...
      1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 USA 505-501-2298

      [ NutraSweet, Equal, Canderel, Benevia, E951 ]

      Donald Rumsfeld, 1977 head of Searle Corp., got aspartame FDA approval:
      Turner: Murray 2002.12.23 rmforall
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.