<story><title>1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016)</title><url>https://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/08/19/1800s-astronomical-drawings</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>dredmorbius</author><text>What captivates me about the drawings is the range in detail and accuracy.  Keep in mind that naked-eye observations are difficult, limited to the colour sensitivities of the human eye, and often are working at or near the limits of perception --- the fanciful details on Mars are extrapolation of a very small blurry rusty dot.&lt;p&gt;The detail of the sunspot images is exquisite.&lt;p&gt;The other aspect is that until the advent of photography, &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; image preservation was mediated by the human eye, mind, and artistic ability, and often the 2nd or further-removed hand accounts and relating of original events or objects.  (See Albrecht Durer&amp;#x27;s rinocerous for one of my favourite examples of this.)  The century or so from the mid-19th through mid-20th century where direct analogue impressions of images, sound, and movement were possible gave us a period of robustly reliable records (within the limits of equipment, and still subject to manipulation).  The age of computer-modified and -generated imagery once again leaves us with high-fidelity images which may have remote, little, or no bearing on any actual reality.  This includes, for what it&amp;#x27;s worth, many of the NASA images provided, which are more data interpretations than realistic representations of astronomical objects.</text></comment>
<story><title>1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016)</title><url>https://www.nypl.org/blog/2016/08/19/1800s-astronomical-drawings</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>sedan_baklazhan</author><text>It is surprising (at least) to see &amp;quot;Book of killed poets&amp;quot; in Russian (which is in fact some Soviet era photo paper) as NASA&amp;#x27;s Saturn image.</text></comment>