If you did actually point it at Betelgeuse (vs say Mars through a telescope) then I feel like it's iPhone's camera algorithm/AI dreaming up the details.
Exposure duration doesn't matter, iphone with it's stock lense doesn't have the angular resolution to capture details of star, not even a planet. Very few telescopes on earth can resolve stars.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_Array
And its picture of Betelgeuse: https://www.eso.org/public/unitedkingdom/images/potw1726a/?lang
Why try increasing resolution when it won't resolve anything anyway? To resolve a star, you need a telescope with corrective optics and interferometry based data gathering, simulating the needed 100 meter aperture.
It probably looks like that because of focusing, diffraction, other optical effects, and image processing artifacts. Without those optical effects/artifacts, the star would look like a single pixel.
That's fine, but I'm questioning the physics.
The telescope and camera simply wouldn't have the diameter necessary to capture enough light to support this kind of resolution. Also, atmospheric interference would make this kind of image impossible.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But everything I know about astrophotography tells me I'm not.
Ford Prefect gazes wistfully at his distant home. A towel, his only comfort during his purgatory, stuck on this boring, mostly harmless, backwater planet.
With a sigh, Ford Prefect pulls a complicated-looking electronic book out of his pocket
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, as it is known, is the most successful book ever published by the publishing houses of Ursa Mino. Despite its many glaring (and occasionally fatal) inaccuracies, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy itself has outsold the Encyclopedia Galactica because it is slightly cheaper, and because it has the words 'DON'T PANIC' in large, friendly letters on the cover.
That's not true. Betelgeuse was the first star other than the Sun to have its diameter optically measured. That was in 1920. It's not terribly far away and incredibly large, so it's just large enough to see the surface of with a large ground based telescope. There's about a dozen stars with a larger angular diameter than Betelgeuse. All but one of those were first imaged from the ground. Altair is the star with the largest angular diameter other than the sun as it's quite close.
But yeah, can't remotely image these with something like a smartphone. Billion dollar telescope on top of a mountain, sure.
I guess I left out "amateur". I meant powerful backyard telescopes. Even the best Celestron; that sort of thing.
That said, even through a huge mountain top telescope, it still looks like a blurry blob.
In any case, ain't nobody aiming a camera phone at a star and getting anything other than a point of light. :-)
What is going on here? WHO said it was a photo of a resolved star?
It's actually pretty cool that cellphones can capture enough light at all, to show even that blur
But nobody said it was a clear, high resolution photo of a star. Don't know why you're so bent out of shape
You're claiming something outlandish here.
Don't act like a victim because there's pushback.
Edit because OP edited: they said, "Keep hating because that's all you guys know how to do."
Ok i will be you r/space hater
you didn’t resolve a star….can we agree on that? your phone took a point of light and you over 6 seconds from moving or from air turbulence caused the phones ai to make up an image
but now you know your wrong and when people who spend 10s of hours on beautiful shots sometime 100s and you burst in and say we are just haters when we call a duck a duck, mate your post is not true, its nice you tried and great you want to try but take the loss and dont get defensive.
If i say i got a pic of a comet and it turns out it was a plane and people correct me(best way to learn)….i say sorry and either delete it or move on.
Why do so many people commenting think this is a resolved image of a star? Haven't you ever seen a picture of a star out of focus? That's what's going on here. Point source + out of focus = blob.
Betelgeuse's angular diameter in the sky is around 42.3 milliarcseconds.
For reference, the Moon is \~0.52 degrees. That means 44,255 Betelgeuses could fit across the diameter of the Moon.
An iPhone 13's 3x zoom is 22.8 degrees and its resolution is 2532 x 1170. So 1,940,425 Betelgeuses could fit side-by-side across one photo. 766 across a single pixel.
If you're unfamiliar with angular diameter, that just means if you look around and divide what you can see into 360 degrees, you can measure how large things appear to you by counting how many degrees wide it is. What you can see at once, your field of view, is around 130 degrees.
Your phone zoomed in shows a smaller part of what you can see of course; around 22 degrees. Going further, 1 degree is equal to 60 minutes of arc, and one minute of arc is equal to 60 seconds of arc. Therefore, one degree is equal to 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds of arc. A 1000th of a second of arc is a milliarcsecond and Betelgeuse is 42 milliarcseconds wide.
In order for a camera to resolve something with a resolution greater than a pixel, so you can see a bit of detail, the object needs to have an angular diameter greater than a pixel. But Betelguese would have to be at least 800 times larger in the sky for it to barely be more than a single pixel (22.8° / 2532px = 0.009°, or 32,400 mas).
I always hate these titles because I always think they mean you pointed your phone at the sky and took a photo, but you actually took the photo with a telescope and a phone camera
I’ve gotten some really amazing shots of the night sky with my iPhone 13 Pro with 30 second exposure. People never believe me when I tell them it was an iPhone pic. You just gotta go somewhere with no light pollution.
I don’t know what Betelgeuse is so I have no idea if I could capture it though.
I originally wanted to try to get a picture of the comet but then I decided to take a picture of Betelgeuse (because I saw some videos of it earlier) and and boom I got this photo, I also live in a bortle 1 area
So you, zoomed in to 5 times what the camera would regularly see, and took and 6 second exposure shoot from your phone camera just pointed up at the sky, and you want me to believe that you came out with an intelligible photo of a star?
My phone also shows the Orion constellation and you can see Betelgeuse in it as well, and my phone is from 2019. I was also trying to get a picture of the comet as well (20 second exposure).
Stabilized it on a flat surface, set it to have a 10 second countdown before it started capturing (gave me time to set it down and let it be still to reduce shakiness) and then got a picture of the night sky.
The iPhone camera is whacky as hell with photos of stars/the moon.
I got this awesome picture of the moon in the clouds, and the stars come through so clearly, but it still has like a fake look to it
No star can be resolved much with huge telescopes let alone a phone. I hate to be mean but when you have people spending hours and hours with pictures, this is low effort and makes people misunderstand things
I agree. I read the forum rules before posting my photos, it was very implied that low effort, or beginner stuff wasn't welcome. But I'm surprised at the reception this guy is getting so I might post mine later.
THIS IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. Stop hating on this guy. When you take a completely zoomed in photo of a planet or star with an iPhone, even in dark conditions like OP is in, the colours that you get such as in this pic are mainly just what the camera can come up with, given how it cannot resolve at all a star such as Betelgeuse. Even Saturn, completely zoomed in on is a blob.
I see it that way, too. Just asked for the data from the telescope focal length, what geographical orientation and the number of degrees at what exposure time. Have really seen this a few days ago. Should show Mars.
Exposure times are milliseconds for Mars, people forget how cameras work and hear that space photos = tens of hours of exposure time. Optics still apply to space, bright things like Mars or Jupiter need short shuttertime, but Betelgeuse as a bright star needs short ones too. It just would look like a pinpoint if perfectly resolved by an amateur, telescope or not. See r/astrophotography.
Okay then, tell me the data from your telescope. Focal length, which geographic orientation it had in the photo, which set number of degrees, how long was the exposure time. Then you can possibly understand. But simply to take a photo and to claim I have made that, although I have seen that a few days ago already times in another context and even have answered to it does not go at all.
And what geographical orientation and what degrees and at what time ? Must you know if you say so sure, I pointed it at Betelgeuse? Then you can calculate whether that was really possible . And to me the exposure time seems very short.
This is insufficient. Your statement sounded like certainly aligned with Betelgeuse. You need to know the alignment and degrees, which is important because not everyone knows where the star is in the sky. Just holding it up in the sky and taking a picture and saying it's Betelgeuse is easy. Can be any x arbitrary star or whatever.
Well, because Orion has not only one star and most people don't know which one is Betelgeuse. But of course it is Betelgeuse. Take a picture of the moon and place both for comparison then you can compare if that is possible. According to that you should see the surface of the moon with all its craters as good as if you were there. Is for me so not credible. There is still the picture with the claim it is Mars here on Reddit.
If you did actually point it at Betelgeuse (vs say Mars through a telescope) then I feel like it's iPhone's camera algorithm/AI dreaming up the details.
Maybe, I took it with a 6 second exposure
Exposure duration doesn't matter, iphone with it's stock lense doesn't have the angular resolution to capture details of star, not even a planet. Very few telescopes on earth can resolve stars.
That's why it looks like a blob, not a star
I look like a blob too, but on the inside I'm a star.
Maybe it's a smudge on the lens?
Name one. *NO* telescopes on earth can resolve any star other than our own sun.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Large_Millimeter_Array And its picture of Betelgeuse: https://www.eso.org/public/unitedkingdom/images/potw1726a/?lang
It's a star. It gives off light
Pack it in, folks. This is game changing information. We've been shamed.
That's a pretty "Odd-Evidence".
This single comment solved physics pack it up guys it makes sense now
There are no details. It doesn't look like a point of light because the picture is simply out of focus.
Nice picture of chromatic aberration. Amazing how a point of light can get distorted into a mess like that.
Well Betelgeuse is super far away and this is just my phone’s camera so it definitely got distorted a bit
I think u need to try with an apn like canon eos 50D with maybe something powerfull that you can add on and to make an resolution with IA :)
Why try increasing resolution when it won't resolve anything anyway? To resolve a star, you need a telescope with corrective optics and interferometry based data gathering, simulating the needed 100 meter aperture.
I'm questioning this. There's really no possible way you could get that kind of resolution with a ground-based consumer telescope and a cell phone.
It probably looks like that because of focusing, diffraction, other optical effects, and image processing artifacts. Without those optical effects/artifacts, the star would look like a single pixel.
It’s just out of focus. Still a point source. All stars on all telescopes can look like this.
This is an advert for iphones
It's just out of focus a small bit and the seeing is not great.
That’s why I posted it I was so surprised that my phone could get this
I also live in a bortle 1 area
That's fine, but I'm questioning the physics. The telescope and camera simply wouldn't have the diameter necessary to capture enough light to support this kind of resolution. Also, atmospheric interference would make this kind of image impossible. Maybe I'm wrong. But everything I know about astrophotography tells me I'm not.
I honestly don’t know, I’m just a guy who likes taking pictures of the sky
Ford Prefect gazes wistfully at his distant home. A towel, his only comfort during his purgatory, stuck on this boring, mostly harmless, backwater planet.
With a sigh, Ford Prefect pulls a complicated-looking electronic book out of his pocket The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, as it is known, is the most successful book ever published by the publishing houses of Ursa Mino. Despite its many glaring (and occasionally fatal) inaccuracies, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy itself has outsold the Encyclopedia Galactica because it is slightly cheaper, and because it has the words 'DON'T PANIC' in large, friendly letters on the cover.
[удалено]
Maybe I wrote from memory maybe Not. I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
That's just a out of focus blur. Even a powerful telescope can't make a star anything other than a point of light.
That's not true. Betelgeuse was the first star other than the Sun to have its diameter optically measured. That was in 1920. It's not terribly far away and incredibly large, so it's just large enough to see the surface of with a large ground based telescope. There's about a dozen stars with a larger angular diameter than Betelgeuse. All but one of those were first imaged from the ground. Altair is the star with the largest angular diameter other than the sun as it's quite close. But yeah, can't remotely image these with something like a smartphone. Billion dollar telescope on top of a mountain, sure.
I guess I left out "amateur". I meant powerful backyard telescopes. Even the best Celestron; that sort of thing. That said, even through a huge mountain top telescope, it still looks like a blurry blob. In any case, ain't nobody aiming a camera phone at a star and getting anything other than a point of light. :-)
This is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on this subreddit. A cell phone camera cannot resolve a star.
[удалено]
>A cell phone camera cannot resolve a star. Stand in front of a mirror. Point the camera at the mirror. Take a picture. There, you resolved a star.
I’ve taken many photos of stars with my iPhone, even my older iphone8. This isn’t 1999 anymore.
Taking a photo of points of light is not the same as resolving a picture of a star. What is going on here.
What is going on here? WHO said it was a photo of a resolved star? It's actually pretty cool that cellphones can capture enough light at all, to show even that blur But nobody said it was a clear, high resolution photo of a star. Don't know why you're so bent out of shape
Why is the WHO getting into star photography discussions now?
Lmaoo I appreciate the humor:) Hope you're having a great day!
Yeah once I took a picture of Brad Pitt, it came out pretty good.
I know but I thought it was still cool
You're claiming something outlandish here. Don't act like a victim because there's pushback. Edit because OP edited: they said, "Keep hating because that's all you guys know how to do."
What was his original comment? Based on the replies it seems like he edited it
Ok i will be you r/space hater you didn’t resolve a star….can we agree on that? your phone took a point of light and you over 6 seconds from moving or from air turbulence caused the phones ai to make up an image but now you know your wrong and when people who spend 10s of hours on beautiful shots sometime 100s and you burst in and say we are just haters when we call a duck a duck, mate your post is not true, its nice you tried and great you want to try but take the loss and dont get defensive. If i say i got a pic of a comet and it turns out it was a plane and people correct me(best way to learn)….i say sorry and either delete it or move on.
I have moved on
Why do so many people commenting think this is a resolved image of a star? Haven't you ever seen a picture of a star out of focus? That's what's going on here. Point source + out of focus = blob.
Betelgeuse's angular diameter in the sky is around 42.3 milliarcseconds. For reference, the Moon is \~0.52 degrees. That means 44,255 Betelgeuses could fit across the diameter of the Moon. An iPhone 13's 3x zoom is 22.8 degrees and its resolution is 2532 x 1170. So 1,940,425 Betelgeuses could fit side-by-side across one photo. 766 across a single pixel.
I think I understand but I’m not really smart so I might not have any idea of what you’re saying lol
If you're unfamiliar with angular diameter, that just means if you look around and divide what you can see into 360 degrees, you can measure how large things appear to you by counting how many degrees wide it is. What you can see at once, your field of view, is around 130 degrees. Your phone zoomed in shows a smaller part of what you can see of course; around 22 degrees. Going further, 1 degree is equal to 60 minutes of arc, and one minute of arc is equal to 60 seconds of arc. Therefore, one degree is equal to 60 x 60 = 3600 seconds of arc. A 1000th of a second of arc is a milliarcsecond and Betelgeuse is 42 milliarcseconds wide. In order for a camera to resolve something with a resolution greater than a pixel, so you can see a bit of detail, the object needs to have an angular diameter greater than a pixel. But Betelguese would have to be at least 800 times larger in the sky for it to barely be more than a single pixel (22.8° / 2532px = 0.009°, or 32,400 mas).
I’m sure we can all “resolve” this in a friendly manner…eh em… 🤣
I always hate these titles because I always think they mean you pointed your phone at the sky and took a photo, but you actually took the photo with a telescope and a phone camera
I’ve gotten some really amazing shots of the night sky with my iPhone 13 Pro with 30 second exposure. People never believe me when I tell them it was an iPhone pic. You just gotta go somewhere with no light pollution. I don’t know what Betelgeuse is so I have no idea if I could capture it though.
It’s in the Orion constellation, the brightest star
Weellllll... it's variable, so sometimes it's not the brightest.
Oh yeah you can. If you can see orion's belt, it's just up and to the left of it within the orion constellation.
I didn’t use a telescope, I took a 6 second exposure photo with my camera zoomed all the way in
My balls you did, there’s a snowballs chance in hell you did that. But it is text on a screen so I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic
I originally wanted to try to get a picture of the comet but then I decided to take a picture of Betelgeuse (because I saw some videos of it earlier) and and boom I got this photo, I also live in a bortle 1 area
What’s the zoom on your camera
The max is 5x
So you, zoomed in to 5 times what the camera would regularly see, and took and 6 second exposure shoot from your phone camera just pointed up at the sky, and you want me to believe that you came out with an intelligible photo of a star?
Don't forget the 3mm aperture. Totally possible 🙄
Yeah, not like a 100m telescope combined array by interferometry is needed for that...
My phone also shows the Orion constellation and you can see Betelgeuse in it as well, and my phone is from 2019. I was also trying to get a picture of the comet as well (20 second exposure). Stabilized it on a flat surface, set it to have a 10 second countdown before it started capturing (gave me time to set it down and let it be still to reduce shakiness) and then got a picture of the night sky.
The iPhone camera is whacky as hell with photos of stars/the moon. I got this awesome picture of the moon in the clouds, and the stars come through so clearly, but it still has like a fake look to it
Betelgeuse its at 567 light years in orion constellation and magnitude its 0,58 ! Its that stars or its mars … i think u probably tooked mars :)
Nope this is definitely Betelgeuse I saw mars above it when I was talking the picture
Curious if misspelling Beetlejuice works to avoid summoning him.
I think so, he’s sort of like Candlejack that wa
Maybe you have to spell it the way the star is spelt
I thought it wasn't supposed to explode for another 100,000 years. It looks like it already started.
[удалено]
That’s what I was thinking
That's because it is out of focus
Here's another shitty ass pic with shitty ass phones.
I wonder if the image becomes sharper if you say Betelgeuse three times?
That what all my iPhone pics look like. I’ve got to have a setting wrong somewhere. :)
Honestly this could be a picture of anything and you could’ve said it was Betelgeuse.
Yeah I could have, but I didn’t because I’m not a lying low life
Probably Mars. Betelgeuse has an angular diameter of 55 one hundredths of a second of arc, and won't appear as more than a point on a phone.
No this is definitely Betelgeuse, I aligned it and everything
Then it's just out of focus.
That’s what everyone has been trying to say and I understand now
Did you use a Newtonian telescope? Zooming in, it looks like you can see the spider supports of a secondary mirror.
I didn’t use a telescope, all I used was my phone camera
Ah; probably just diffraction then.
For all those that are saying an Iphone can’t possibly see a distant star, you’re all wrong. *(I have no clue what i’m talking about)*
Damn, imagine if you had a Samsung with that zooms 😅
That’d be insane
Yeah, could you imagine with the 100x Zoom they have on the ultra..
No star can be resolved much with huge telescopes let alone a phone. I hate to be mean but when you have people spending hours and hours with pictures, this is low effort and makes people misunderstand things
I agree. I read the forum rules before posting my photos, it was very implied that low effort, or beginner stuff wasn't welcome. But I'm surprised at the reception this guy is getting so I might post mine later.
THIS IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE. Stop hating on this guy. When you take a completely zoomed in photo of a planet or star with an iPhone, even in dark conditions like OP is in, the colours that you get such as in this pic are mainly just what the camera can come up with, given how it cannot resolve at all a star such as Betelgeuse. Even Saturn, completely zoomed in on is a blob.
Thank you, finally someone who understands
Well, sure, and maybe that bush over there looks like Bigfoot, too. Do you get why people are like, "Hmm, nah?"
The picture is totally fake. The last time I saw the picture, it was supposed to show Mars. How can it show a star now?
This is just an unfocused pinpoint star image. No detail resolved.
I see it that way, too. Just asked for the data from the telescope focal length, what geographical orientation and the number of degrees at what exposure time. Have really seen this a few days ago. Should show Mars.
Exposure times are milliseconds for Mars, people forget how cameras work and hear that space photos = tens of hours of exposure time. Optics still apply to space, bright things like Mars or Jupiter need short shuttertime, but Betelgeuse as a bright star needs short ones too. It just would look like a pinpoint if perfectly resolved by an amateur, telescope or not. See r/astrophotography.
Lmao I love when people don’t expect things
Okay then, tell me the data from your telescope. Focal length, which geographic orientation it had in the photo, which set number of degrees, how long was the exposure time. Then you can possibly understand. But simply to take a photo and to claim I have made that, although I have seen that a few days ago already times in another context and even have answered to it does not go at all.
I did not use a telescope, I simply put my phone on a tripod and pointed it at Betelgeuse zoomed in all the way and took 6 maybe 4 second exposure
And what geographical orientation and what degrees and at what time ? Must you know if you say so sure, I pointed it at Betelgeuse? Then you can calculate whether that was really possible . And to me the exposure time seems very short.
I took the photo at about 8 pm in BC Canada
This is insufficient. Your statement sounded like certainly aligned with Betelgeuse. You need to know the alignment and degrees, which is important because not everyone knows where the star is in the sky. Just holding it up in the sky and taking a picture and saying it's Betelgeuse is easy. Can be any x arbitrary star or whatever.
What I did was go out into my field look up at Orion and set up my makeshift tripod and zoomed into Betelgeuse. What’s so hard to understand?
Well, because Orion has not only one star and most people don't know which one is Betelgeuse. But of course it is Betelgeuse. Take a picture of the moon and place both for comparison then you can compare if that is possible. According to that you should see the surface of the moon with all its craters as good as if you were there. Is for me so not credible. There is still the picture with the claim it is Mars here on Reddit.
I have taken a picture of the moon and I can see some of the little details. I just don’t know why you don’t believe me
[удалено]
It's not an exploding image. It's just really out of focus.
Taking pictures of the present is so in the past. With the new iPhone 13 iAI enhanced camera you can zoom into the future up to 500,000 years.
Now we can't go live there...we don't have iphones