Ironically, the same technique used to remove the stars and isolate the satellites could have been used to remove the satellites and isolate the stars.

It would take 100X less effort to remove the satellites.

▲

happytoexplain 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why is that ironic?

You're just pointing out that there are tools to automate this.

	▲	Aurornis 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The photographer didn’t use automated tools. He edited it manually and said it took a very long time. It’s ironic because stars outnumber visible satellites by a lot, so exiting out the stars is a lot more work than the satellites.

▲

1e1a 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why any less effort? Masking the stars out and masking them in should take the same amount of time and effort.

	▲	Aurornis 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		From the article: > Much of the time was spent painstakingly erasing stars, to reveal the satellites. Many more stars than satellites in every frame. Erasing a couple satellites at most is quick. Erasing every star in the sky and keeping a couple satellites is not.
	▲	StellarScience 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, this image is hand-crafted art that looks cool, but in fact both approaches can and have have been automated! - Astronomers have automated software that anticipates each streak based on the space object catalog and automatically removes satellites from long-exposure wide field-of-view images. - Those whose job is to track satellites and update the space object catalog have software that anticipates each star location based on star catalogs, and automatically removes stars so they can see where the satellites are.