| ▲ | rvnx 6 hours ago |
| How come the pictures have such bad quality ? Is it a bandwidth issue ? Or there are really constraints that are not so obvious ? Because fundamentally it is a large object illuminated by sunlight. |
|
| ▲ | sgt 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, it's BBC's compression of that image. Look at the original: https://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/fd02_for-pao/ It's grainy, but the detail is terrific. |
| |
| ▲ | AndroTux 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No GPS coordinates in the EXIF data. Would've been funny. | |
| ▲ | consumer451 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | @dang, mods: maybe this should be the post's link. The image quality is much higher. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | Sharlin 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's the night-side Earth, taken at a high ISO value to keep shutter speed fast to prevent blur. |
| |
| ▲ | rvnx 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ok thank you, makes more sense, I thought it was the day-side | | |
| ▲ | Sharlin 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I was also confused when I first saw it – how could the aurora be visible?! The bright sliver of atmosphere in the lower right is, of course, backlit by the sun which is itself eclipsed by Earth. It's the near-full moon that provides most of the illumination here. Besides both auroral rings you can also see airglow, city lights, and lightning flashes, it's a marvellous photo. |
|
|
