So I realize I myself am not an expert in photography

All right here it is, cropped out my house but left that area of Interest. I'm pretty sure these are stars.

wow, i'm deeply impressed actually. kinda tiny though
do you live way out in the middle of nowhere with very little light pollution?
did you check what exposure settings it has? like did it snap the pic instantly or did it take a second to do something after you hit the take image button

although, here's the challenge;
do that again but take a video instead of a photo. feel free to let it sit there staring at a star field for a while. see if you can see any stars.

Heh, man I always take pictures like this. Didn't know it was special. As for settings, I'm pretty sure I just turn off flash. Nothing else, and it's an old phone so doesn't have really any snazzy effects. Probably takes your standard amount of time maybe half a second to a second. And I'm really not to rural at all. I would say I'm closer to Urban than rural. Which I suppose that long-winded way to say suburbs.

Yeah I guess I could try that sometime. I guess it just still leads me more clueless as to why some of these photos from space never have stars. Especially since they are not even dealing with the atmosphere.

Too* I swear Google is trying to make us look dumb why does it autocorrect to horrible grammar. But yeah just regular phone. Regular picture settings.

you can test that but adding a bright light source into your photo and trying to take the picture again, even something reflecting bright light, it'll wash the hell out of your quickly taken photo, let alone video
also, colors look wrong in space due to the intense contrast since there's not atmospheric light scattering. everything looks freakishly sharp. Often nasa will color correct official photos by turning the color dials up so the photo doesn't look weirdly cold.

I had all kinds of porch lights and spotlights right around where I cropped. But yeah who knows. And in reference to what you said about NASA, that's what exactly what I'm talking about. They take all of their photos and run it through their touch-up team and do god-knows-what we never see anything wrong. And if they did release something that they claim was wrong how in the hell can we trust them that it truly is. It's not like there is any real oversight as to what they are doing. Someone had to actually hack into the place one time because no one knows what the hell is going on.

Wrong=raw

it's more like nasa puts out what they're doing all the time but it's so catastrophically boring and long winded that people fall asleep
ever watched nasa TV? that's their press event group, those are the people trying to make things interesting

they never had stars in the picture because ever since they began faking the stuff they realized that if they were going to have a bunch of bogus pictures from bogus missions that it would be far too hard to calculate how the Stars would look from each position on each photo and get it right each time. This was before computers were where they are now, but regardless even if they could do it now they have to continue with no stars to be consistent. The whole thing is absolutely retarded.

Yet another valid point I guess. I just see valid points on each side and considering we have no access to anything at all, just what they released to us. It's hard to tell with any certainty what is actually going on. And considering the government lies to us about it each and every other thing I don't have any faith in this being any different.

>that it would be far too hard to calculate how the Stars would look from each position on each photo and get it right each time
that's actually super easy compared to having a realtime earth simulation that matches current cloud behavior over the entire earth accurately every second

getting an accurate star field from any given point is something you can do on an android app

>even when standing in the middle of Times Square at night you can make out at least one

And think how dim all those lights in time square are if they are turned on during the day. You know when a streetlight gets stuck and stays on during the day, it's barely visible. Yet at night it's almost enough to completely overwhelm the stars. Now consider how bright the earth in full, pitiless sunlight is.

...

he's right, see
if they wanted to fake it all, they could fake it way better

*I thought this was pretty funny too. It's almost like he's rubbing it in our faces.

Yeah, but isn't that exactly what you would say? If you are making horrible fakes constantly. I know I would say it, I would say I would so horrible I could definitely do it better if I could fake it. I mean literally that's exactly what I would say.

well, think about what you're suggesting
again, see
why make such an accurate earth then forget to color correct or put in stars?

Forgot something else.

I heard him say that the thing would only broadcast for 12 more hours or something like that I don't know the exact number. But he said that it's too bad because there won't be enough battery for it to get a full picture of Earth as it fades out of the frame. And that is just out of the ridiculous, he shot a brand new expensive car into space and he couldn't add a series of 100 lithium ion batteries to keep it going for a week or two? Like seriously?

My question is, where is the ship?
This picture is an artist's humorous rendition, nothing more.

>Now consider how bright the earth in full, pitiless sunlight is.

I suppose you could be right, but that's just delving into something that is speculation. I am going on what I know. And I do not have a reference point for how bright the Earth truly is as we hardly have any real images that aren't Composites and anything to reference it against. I still find it utterly ridiculous that out of all of the satellites that have left near earth orbit, only one or two have actually looked back to take pictures of the earth, like seriously one or two I would do that every single God damn time

eh, it's a test payload, they just wanted some cool earth shots and the transit away from earth isn't that interesting. plus you'd need more and more powerful radio transmitters on the car plus more and more sensitive receivers on earth to detect it as it moves away

You may be right, but I'm just going off what he said. And he said that it had to do with the batteries dying and that's it just the batteries.

>And I do not have a reference point for how bright the Earth truly is

Have you ever gone outside during daytime?

Of course. But I have never seen the Earth from hundreds or thousands of miles away outside of the atmosphere.

Underneath. It's sitting on top of the third stage, which you would know if you looked at the pictures of the module being assembled.

Op here, that was somebody else. I am not realizing that it may be hard to distinguish myself from other posters now and I have enjoyed our conversation this far. I will continue to respond but I will try to identify myself so as not to confuse any further responses. I appreciate your patience with this I assume it must be annoying if you truly believe in the globe model and what we have been told. I just don't.

...

wtf

dont forget about the mars pictures. They literally increased the red amount by 100 fold.

It just looked like a typical desert on earth then they had to jack up the redness for what they claimed was PR value.

. The truth is it was bullshit from the beginning

They literally still don't know what the color is. Scientists are having debates about it to this day. Utter nonsense to be honest, how in the hell does this kind of stuff happen. This kind of crap usually happens when information is based on lies.

Why is no one taking into a account the light from not only the sun but the light reflected back off the earth

>And don't link me that geosynchronous orbit or satellite that supposedly gives real-time pictures. It's literally 240p pixelated garbage that still looks photoshopped. himawari8.nict.go.jp/
A new picture every 10 minutes in high detail from geosync.
This satellite is completely ignored by flat earthers for obvious reasons.

You're trying to take pictures of the stars though.
Try to take a picture of that light so that you can see the bulb inside it and then see if you can see the stars.

it's basically impossible to reason with flat earthers and various denialists because they are always moving goalposts of what evidence they'll accept. It's essentially not worth the breath to debate with them since it'd take to long to get anywhere.
their world view is
>everything nasa says is a lie
>everything the government says is a lie
>everything any expert that disagrees with me says is a lie
once you're in that mindset it's basically impossible to get back out because no evidence can possibly convince you of anything

It's probably actually the batteries on the second stage.

A little more explanation (than you might want, but, this is the copypasta I wrote, so)...

Have you ever taken a picture with a camera where you could set ASA, shutter speed, and f-stop? Take a reading during the day. Typically something like ASA 200, speed 1/250th, f 5.6. Now use those settings on a dark night and point the camera up at the sky and shoot. Unless you happened to be pointing at maybe Venus or Jupiter you will see nothing but black, and perhaps a hint of something terrestrial illuminated by local light. You would however see the Moon and even some detail on it. It is illuminated by the same Sun. From Earth orbit, you would use the same daylight settings to take a picture of the Earth below. You will not pick up any stars. The dynamic range of sensor chips is always improving, so it may be possible someday.

Big Camera is part of the network of misinformation.

the worst part is, i can't tell if you're serious or not

>If you are making horrible fakes constantly.
You would put the stars in the picture.

Stars are too dim to be seen in the camera while there is something far brighter in the frame. It auto adjusts its sensitivity to whatever is brightest and everything else gets darker as a result. For something as dim as stars, you need to take a long exposure without anything else brighter than them in the frame.

In order to get both stars and something else in the same frame you need to do exposure bracketing. That's taking long and short exposures then using software to join both of them to make an HDR image that shows both the bright and dark stuff at the same time.

With video, the camera doesn't do that and just goes off whatever is brightest. That's why when something even brighter comes on screen it is super bright then the camera adjusts and tons down the light sensitivity. You can see this happening in this webm as the bright Earth comes into view. It is almost pure white until the camera tones down the light. at the same time, the car and Starman all get darker.

If you could see both the moon and stars in a video and the moon looked normal instead of super bright and washed out it would mean it was fake, like what you see in Hollywood movies.

Turn your flash on then put your finger in frame somewhere. Suddenly no more stars.

t. Big Flash

So on a related note, how hard would it be to spot this with a telescope? Not talking about one that has its own building mind you, but one that anyone could own.

Is it close and big enough to spot or would searching the skies for it with a personal telescope be a lost cause?

Now it is pretty much a lost cause because it's already on escape trajectory from Earth. Probably pass the Moon in a couple days.

How about a few hours after launch. Would it have been possible then?

The Earth is on the opposite side, so the horizon obviously gets distorted the opposite way. They did fuck up the booster landing cams though, I'll give you that

Possible. People got photos of the second second stage burn with shitty cameras.
One problem, though, was that it was in a 7000km orbit, not a low earth 300odd km orbit, that would have made it much harder to catch.

Light pollution? Same reason why u can see shit for stars in Chicago but can see the Milky Way in the desert. Fuckin tard

No, just exposure settings, and possibly resolution + scaling.
If it is captured in a high resolution, like 4k, and then scaled down to 1080 or even 720, then stars that are captured might be all but lost.

WTH is "Big Camera?"

>Big Camera

I now desperately want to see images of it flying through space. Someone get the hubble on this!

Simple. Your eyes are far better than most cameras.

That's not true. At all. Any decent camera can pick up stars, its all about the exposure setting

your eyes have a far greater dynamic range than any sensor you can slap onto a dslr or cellphone. its all about dynamic range you can achieve on video. photos do not count, your eyes do not use long time exposure, or exposure bracketing, they can do this stuff on the fly since they have such a wide dynamic range. still limited, but much greater than a camera sensor

Do astronauts see the stars when they're in space or is all black to them as well? I'm curious about this for a while now.

only on the dark side of the earth. since the earth is so brightly illuminated by the sun that your irises are limiting the light like on daytime, so you wont get blinded. as soon you get to the night side your eyes adjust, and you can see the stars

Nice, must be quiet a view.

Musk didnot have time to repaint studio walls. Each time the launch delayed (and it delayed alot) he had to repaint them to resemble current sky.

Use your logic and healthy scepticism, bros

You can pull photos off weather satellites with a dipole antenna and some freeware

youtube.com/watch?v=cjClTnZ4Xh4

>Different vid feeds?...
Yes, one's from the left booster, the other from the right.

Go outside on a night when there is no moon. Notice the stars.

Now wait a bit, and go outside on a night when there is a full moon. Notice how many fewer stars you see.

This happens because having a big, bright light source in the sky your eyes adjust to that so you are not blinded by glare, the bright light is tolerable but you can't see faint ones as well. So you see fewer stars.

Now imagine that the moon was four times as big and very. very much closer -- and you have the Earth, a huge bright object filling much of the sky. Do you suppose you'll see more stars, or fewer?

>I just know that if I take my cold first generation smartphone outside and take a picture of the sky they will come out just fine

Try it.

Take a picture some moonless night.

Now take a picture including a full moon.

Let us know someday down the road how that works out.

>But I have never seen the Earth from hundreds or thousands of miles away outside of the atmosphere.

No, but you can see the moon, a smaller object, further away. From the effect the moon has on how many stars you can see in a night sky, you can at least understand that a camera, set to record images of a car and a planet in sunlight, will not likely pick up stars.

And the car.

>It just looked like a typical desert on earth

>Implying Earth deserts are all the same color.
>Implying lighting conditions do not ever change the apparent color of something.
>Implying pictures will look the same when produced by different cameras, reproduced in different ways for different purpose.

Good Lord, man, ado you actually expect that an image reproduced for display like the one on the lower right will look the same as a photo somebody took of a projection screen in a lighted room?

no one would ever allow them to do such a stupid fucking thing

You might want to see this: youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

Pretty sure they're joking.

Bitch please

Honestly I never go on Veeky Forums but my flat earth friend was trying to say it was fake so I copy and pasted stuff from this thread to prove him wrong.

I don't know if you'll believe me, but I watched the live stream for several hours, and during moments when the sun was not casting light, and most of the video footage was nearly pitch black (Happened every so often), you'd end up getting certain shots where you'd see plenty of starts in the background, and what even looked like shooting starts zip by in the distance real quickly... look up the footage, and see if you can find what I'm talking about.

>Space is space, on the moon or in low Earth orbit
Wrong

Maybe it can't see the stars...

BUT THERE'S NO CITY LIGHTS ON THE DARK SIDE OF EARTH

FAKE!

Oh okay I guess we can ignore everything they said then.

Pretty good, my cell phone camera can barely get an image of the moon thanks to all the fucking light pollution

No. The conditions are not equal.

How come you can't see stars at all on Earth during the day or at night?

Go take a picture of the night sky. Do you see stars?

>How come you can't see stars at all on Earth during the day or at night?

Is that a real question brainlet?

>>everything nasa says is a lie
>>everything the government says is a lie
>>everything any expert that disagrees with me says is a lie
>once you're in that mindset it's basically impossible to get back out because no evidence can possibly convince you of anything

uh, but everything they say IS a lie. Or are you too complacent in your Brave New World? Go pay your taxes and get to work on time got. And remember you are a useless Speck of dust in the middle of nowhere everything is bigger than you and you are insignificant. Catch the nightly News at 11 and learn what your opinions should be.

also once you spend too much time down in deny-all-evidence land you start making posts like this
eventually you'll be quoting the bible out of context

All of that tech garble is just hot air when the retard OP already posted a picture with his shit phone that shows plenty of stars in the frame. And it looks like he took that picture within the atmosphere, I'm assuming he wasn't floating in space. A smartphone taking a picture of stars in the middle of the city through miles of gas can see hundreds of stars, yet elon musks camera literally sitting in space with nothing in between it in the stars cannot even see one. And don't tell me that the earth is so bright it blots it out, because unless you have some actual data on the brightness of earth from that point in space then you are just going off of speculation.

What a groundbreaking points right there. I've literally never thought of that. Here's a hint, once you wake up to all of the lies you are constantly cognizant about trying not to think everything is a lie. Yet people like me who see through the BS always get this response that we think everything is a lie. When the opposite is the case, I am very very careful and do lots of research before I make my mind up on something. I don't think most things are lies, I think that I don't know for sure about most things. Unlike you who apparently has a concrete opinion on everything. That's ignorance right there.

tell ya what; create an experiment to unequivocally prove the earth is flat. You should be smart enough to do this
until then, please put on a trip

Flat earther BTFO pseudo-science lovers: youtube.com/watch?v=SznaMGoMR9Q

Yeah... I'll just leave this here...

youtube.com/watch?v=2McHJP2kjGs

nuff said

You don't even have to wait till you're on the night side of the earth. Just go to the night side of the ship, making sure that there are no illuminated parts of the ship in view, and peer through a window, completely shielding your eyes from the interior lights.

>earth is so bright it blots it out
>speculation

Doesn't it at least seem reasonable to you? I mean try to expose the moon and the stars in the same frame, it doesn't work.