Yikes sounds like fun.
What did you think of that clip from last night?
Did you notice you can see the camera lens reflected in the glass?
But no city lights, no stars.
.
I think it was the clip you refer to that I watched.
There was a LOT of time showing a black screen, which is really boring viewing!
The author of the page I linked above, explaining the reasons you see what you do in his video says that his still shots came from the ISS using a different camera than the one the ISS live feed uses. He answers a question from the Comments section with the model number of the camera, a Nikon, but not a P900. I forget what its model is. I can look for that again if it will help.
.
The difference is in the two exposure settings used, the ISS live feed camera's and this other Nikon camera's.
The ISS live feed camera is not adjustable by the crew, and is set for video of daytime space station views, therefore no stars are possible there. It would require changing the exposure for night time which isn't possible, they say.
.
The other camera, the Nikon (not a P900) takes exposures about 30 times longer using a 15mm wide angle lens.
Each still shot is therefore a time exposure so it has time to pick up very dim light like stars, which you can see in the sky there.
Please note that the stars do not show trails.
This is because each frame is fast enough to get the dim light of the stars but without being slow enough to show them moving.
The frames are effectively very close together though, and when combined into a movie format the stars appear to move.
This is the same way that animation works which makes drawings of animals and such to move with very natural movement.
To appreciate the sophistication of his process you have to read about it.
But all the data is extracted from the real photos, and no CGI or fake images are involved, he says.
He only adjusts the color saturation and contrast so as to bring out details that would be lost otherwise.
It's a lot of work for a hobbiest!
And it's something NASA could do but apparently they are not as creative as the author, who has devised this process.
.
It also picks up city lights on earth as well as cloud formations illuminated by the city lights and by lightening.
The lightening flashes can be seen because they occur quickly but are bright enough to register in the longer exposures.
Each lightening flash is much faster than the time the shutter is open.
But they are recorded anyway, and some of them carry over into subsequent frames so they appear to stay lit up.
The overall effect makes for a very interesting pattern of lightening flashes in the clouds.
Even so, it is not exactly what you would see if you were physically watching it yourself.
The images are combined such that the earth appears to be moving much faster under the ISS than the live feed shows.
.
The process he used involves a 3-step procedure which he describes in some detail, if you're interested.
He posted this video 7 years ago, in 2011, and he has continued to return over these years to answer the endless questions.
He is consistently very patient with disbelieving viewers, and has kept on linking to his analysis page.
It seems that most incredulous viewers can't bother to read his analysis, though.
.
There is a lot of technical information that most viewers have no patience for, but that doesn't make him get rude.
He repeatedly asks deniers to supply their own data to support the numerous claims they make, but for 7 years, none have done so.
.
He ought to compile these responses over the years, but this is just a hobby for him, as he does not work for NASA.
When you go to the Comments section under his video, you can scroll to the bottom of the page and the site reloads older posts.
You can do this repeatedly, bringing up thousands of posts.
I made about 50 refreshing views and there appears to be no end in sight if you keep going.
They don't seem to let you skip to the end of the Comments page, maybe they do, but I haven't figured that out yet.
I went back to a ittle over 1 year's coverage, finding many replies from the author.
Most of his replies are seen when you click on the replies arrow under "view all 3 replies" or however many they are.
.
.
All Alone in the Night -- by David Peterson
Sample reply:
Sabrina Hernandez[color=var(--ytd-comment-metadata-text-color)][color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]
How come this looks nothing like the Pegasus video footage done by Team Xtreme. Also do you know why there would not be footage of the side that is facing towards the sun? Do you know where I can find it[/color]
[color=var(--yt-button-text-color)]
1[color=var(--yt-button-text-color)]
[color=var(--yt-button-color, inherit)]REPLY[/color][/color][/color]
[/font][/size][/color]
David Peterson[color=var(--ytd-comment-metadata-text-color)]3 months ago[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]
Hey there. There are a couple of reasons the Pegasus footage would look different. Firstly, that was filmed in daylight, as you noted. You can see some daylight sequences in my other ISS video: [/color]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]
.
There are still some other differences. Primarily, the Pegasus gets to about 32 km in altitude, which is not bad. But the ISS is at about 400 km, which is over 12 times higher. If you consider how it looks to us when looking at the ground from the 1st floor compared to the 12th for of a building, it gives some idea of the difference in perspective.[/color]
[color=var(--ytd-comment-text-color)]
.
Lastly, the colours are much more intense here, partly because I boosted the brightness and saturation a little, but also because these are time lapse photographs. Each frame was exposed for a full second instead of a fraction of a second. That let's the camera capture more light.
.
Hope that helped. There is more info at the FAQ too: https://randomphotons.com/alone[/color]
[/font][/size][/color]