Why Russian Space Images Look Different From NASA's 203
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the behind-the-iron-filter dept.
from the behind-the-iron-filter dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Russians have published two amazing photos of Earth using their new Elektro-L satellite, in 30,000km high orbit around the equator. The quality is stunning, and they look quite different from NASA's Earth images. But why are they different? And are they better than NASA's?"
borked link (Score:0, Informative)
Is it just me or is the gizmodo link borked?
Re:borked link (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it is faulty the 1st time you click the link
After it sets its cookies it works fine ...
Please don't link to Gizmodo (Score:5, Informative)
Gizmodo redirects any traffic to their localized versions. For example, I'm in Brazil and if I follow the link provided in the summary, they redirect me to http://www.gizmodo.com.br/#!5787176/this-is-the-moon-and-the-earth-like-you-have-never-seen-them-before -- that doesn't exist and goes to the front page of the localized version.
Note that I both my OS and browser are in English. I even made sure that my "preferred language for displaying pages" are only English. I guess they do the redirection based on IP only, and find that quite rude.
Bla (Score:4, Informative)
In my experience with remote sensing better looking means nothing. What matters is the what kind of information we're able to extract from images. Like:
http://www.sciencephoto.com/images/download_wm_image.html/E750009-F._colour_Landsat_image_of_a_reservoir_in_Virginia-SPL.jpg?id=697500009 [sciencephoto.com]
This a useful Landsat image (or composition, actually). It's also very ugly. But it's very useful.
We often had a guy to make a few beautiful images. Do the composition in the GIS software we used normally and our designed retouched it on Photoshop. People often went "wow" when looking at it but it was useless.
REAL LINK (Score:0, Informative)
http://uk.gizmodo.com/5787176/this-is-the-moon-and-the-earth-like-you-have-never-seen-them-before [gizmodo.com]
The one linked in TFS seemed to take me to the front page with adverts. The above link goes straight to the article.
Re:borked link (Score:5, Informative)
Gizmodo always does that. The links all revert to their home page like the fucken inbred assholes that they are.
Remove the "#!" part.
http://gizmodo.com/5787176/this-is-the-moon-and-the-earth-like-you-have-never-seen-them-before [gizmodo.com]
Re:borked link (Score:5, Informative)
tl;dr (Score:5, Informative)
summaries should summarize, not tease. (Score:5, Informative)
Stop linking to Gizmodo! (Score:2, Informative)
These clowns can't produce reliable URLs. Don't reward them with links.
The image [russianspaceweb.com].
Re:Whatever (Score:3, Informative)
Re:borked link (Score:5, Informative)
Thank god the old site is still there and works even better:
http://ca.gizmodo.com/5787176/this-is-the-moon-and-the-earth-like-you-have-never-seen-them-before [gizmodo.com]
(the ca. prefix is applicable to all Gawker sites, couldn't live without it)
Re:Please don't link to Gizmodo (Score:4, Informative)
Fixed link: http://us.gizmodo.com/#!5787176/this-is-the-moon-and-the-earth-like-you-have-never-seen-them-before [gizmodo.com].
Pages that try to detect your language and present it in-place are just retarded, whatever using Accept-Language like you suggest or based on IP (Gizmodo, Google, YouTube, ...). Landing pages that 302 you to a language edition or offer a manual choice are fine -- they don't break bookmarks or links.