Super Blue Blood Moon: Did Anyone See It?

[lekh2003]

I just wanted to see anybody's opinion on the super blue blood moon yesterday night (at least for me).

I couldn't catch a glimpse of it in Sydney since it had been very hot for a few days and clouds had taken over the sky. I could however see an unusually bright red tint in one area of the sky. I was disappointed staying up quite late for it on a school night, but let's hope I can see it next time (2037, I think).

Did anybody see it? Anywhere in the world besides Oceania?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

From Kolkata, we had a view of the blood moon, not the super one. The size didn't increase too much.

 

[lekh2003]

From Kolkata, we had a view of the blood moon, not the super one. The size didn't increase too much.

At least you could see it. We were supposed to get a full hour of totality only to see clouds.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

At least you could see it. We were supposed to get a full hour of totality only to see clouds.

That's sad. Here also, it was a bit cloudy at first, then it cleared up to give a crystal-clear view. I'll upload the photos here once I copy them from my camera.

 

[Fig Neutron]

I had a pretty good view of the super moon, but there was only a partial eclipse where I live. There weren't too many clouds, but the moon didn't look that much bigger than normal. It seemed bigger the night before (but that was when the moon was lower on the horizon and slightly distorted by the atmosphere)

 

[Wrichik Basu]

I had a pretty good view of the super moon, but there was only a partial eclipse where I live. There weren't too many clouds, but the moon didn't look that much bigger than normal. It seemed bigger the night before (but that was when the moon was lower on the horizon and slightly distorted by the atmosphere)

The moon appears larger only when near the horizon, and the size decreases as it goes up in the sky.

Sadly, in Kolkata, we cannot see the horizon - it's only buildings and buildings everywhere. So, the size of the moon was almost the same as any other day.

@lekh2003 Just before the total eclipse started:

 

[Fig Neutron]

Wow, that's a great picture.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

UT has some great photos
https://www.universetoday.com/138431/amazing-pictures-january-2018-lunar-eclipse/

 

[Stephenk53]

From northeastern massachussets, USA We could see it. I do not have a photo though

 

[OmCheeto]

UT has some great photos
https://www.universetoday.com/138431/amazing-pictures-january-2018-lunar-eclipse/

Ha! I called them out yesterday on one of those photos. The eclipse was NOT visible from England, and yet they included one from the Bristol area.
I researched it further, and the photographer, Tim Graham, tagged his image "Supermoon, January 31st 2018", so I let him off the hook. Being on the horizon, it only looked eclipsed, as it was quite red. [ref]

Nice photo though.

ps. I would probably not have noticed the discrepancy had it not been for a minor argument in the other PF eclipse thread, which prompted me to find out what "Europe" was, and finding out what the total eclipse would have looked like in Moscow, had it not been cloudy.

 

[hyunxu]

I just wanted to see anybody's opinion on the super blue blood moon yesterday night (at least for me).

I couldn't catch a glimpse of it in Sydney since it had been very hot for a few days and clouds had taken over the sky. I could however see an unusually bright red tint in one area of the sky. I was disappointed staying up quite late for it on a school night, but let's hope I can see it next time (2037, I think).

Did anybody see it? Anywhere in the world besides Oceania?

Yep.I saw. The moon was pretty cool.But I noticed a change in the positions of moon. I mean when I saw blood moon ,it was in one position and when I saw full moon ,it was in another position from my place.When it is blood moon ,it looked almost looked like planet Mars.

 

[Buffu]

I saw the whole eclipse except a bit of beginning but I didn't any blood or red colour. It was all white for me.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

I saw the whole eclipse except a bit of beginning but I didn't any blood or red colour. It was all white for me.

It appeared red just before the total eclipse started. When it was ending, it was completely white.

 

[PhanthomJay]

The super moon appeared larger than a typical average moon size because it's orbit was closer to Earth than average. That is one reason for its large appearance to the trained observer. The other reason, as I noted the night before, when I viewed it setting on the west horizon, was due to the optical illusion created when you view it just rising or setting on the horizon. It has nothing to due with the atmosphere. It's an optical illusion, and it's closeness to Earth combined with that horizon effect made it appear HUGE, although I recall having seen it bigger many years ago.

 

[davenn]

From Kolkata, we had a view of the blood moon, not the super one.

you had a view of both ! ... maybe you don't understand what a supermoon is ??

The moon appears larger only when near the horizon, and the size decreases as it goes up in the sky.

that's NOT why it is called a supermoon

Sadly, in Kolkata, we cannot see the horizon - it's only buildings and buildings everywhere. So, the size of the moon was almost the same as any other day.

no it wasnt

for a supermoon, its location relative to the horizon is, well, irrelevant ...
It is called a supermoon BECAUSE it is closer to Earth than normal

Dave

 

[davenn]

I saw the whole eclipse except a bit of beginning but I didn't any blood or red colour. It was all white for me.

so, unfortunately, you didn't see the eclipse
you must have been outside the eclipse area

 

[davenn]

......

@lekh2003 Just before the total eclipse started:

View attachment 219495

That's well into the eclipse ( not before it started)

nice pic

 

[Wrichik Basu]

you had a view of both ! ... maybe you don't understand what a supermoon is ??

that's NOT why it is called a supermoon

no it wasnt

for a supermoon, its location relative to the horizon is, well, irrelevant ...
It is called a supermoon BECAUSE it is closer to Earth than normal

Dave

The picture that I posted was taken with 120x zoom. Compared to the pics in this page (posted in #8), the moon that we saw was quite small.

What we saw was a super moon in the strict sense of the term, but the size didn't increase much.

 

[lekh2003]

The picture that I posted was taken with 120x zoom. Compared to the pics in this page (posted in #8), the moon that we saw was quite small.

What we saw was a super moon in the strict sense of the term, but the size didn't increase much.

120x zoom?! What kind of camera were you using, and how many megapixels was the original image?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

120x zoom?! What kind of camera were you using, and how many megapixels was the original image?

It's a Panasonic digital camera. The camera provides 60x zoom, rest was digital zoom in intelligent auto mode.

 

[lekh2003]

It's a Panasonic digital camera. The camera provides 60x zoom, rest was digital zoom in intelligent auto mode.

Can you show us the original image?

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Can you show us the original image?

I deleted it after cropping and removing the black sky that is the one I have. Other pictures without the digital zoom are small buy on the camera, and I have to copy them to the computer.

But you know, digital zoom from a simple digital camera (not DSLR) is not very great in most cases. I've miserable failed before. I took this pic on a tripod, and that's why it looks better.

 

[lekh2003]

I deleted it after cropping and removing the black sky that is the one I have. Other pictures without the digital zoom are small buy on the camera, and I have to copy them to the computer.

Oh, that's ok.

 

[davenn]

The picture that I posted was taken with 120x zoom. Compared to the pics in this page (posted in #8), the moon that we saw was quite small.

What we saw was a super moon in the strict sense of the term, but the size didn't increase much.

your photo is irrelevant, it given no measurable indication

The camera provides 60x zoom, rest was digital zoom in intelligent auto mode.

digital zooms are a waste of time ... a sales gimmick ... they just extrapolate from the real zoom and can never give the quality image that a real zoom can

the moon with a real 60mm or even 120mm lens will have a small image recorded
you need at least 700 - 1000mm focal length to get a decent sized image recorded
1000mm on my Pentax crop sensor DSLR almost fills the frame
1000mm on my canon Full Frame DSLR gives a smaller image, about 3/4 frame

 

[Wrichik Basu]

digital zooms are a waste of time ... a sales gimmick ... they just extrapolate from the real zoom and can never give the quality image that a real zoom can

the moon with a real 60mm or even 120mm lens will have a small image recorded
you need at least 700 - 1000mm focal length to get a decent sized image recorded
1000mm on my Pentax crop sensor DSLR almost fills the frame
1000mm on my canon DSLR gives a smaller image, about 3/4 frame

I don't know so much about cameras, to be honest.

 

[lekh2003]

1000mm on my Pentax crop sensor DSLR almost fills the frame
1000mm on my canon DSLR gives a smaller image, about 3/4 frame

You're going to need a lot of dough to get those kinds of cameras. We mere mortals have to make do with the marketing gimmicks

 

[davenn]

You're going to need a lot of dough to get those kinds of cameras. We mere mortals have to make do with the marketing gimmicks

Don't worry, I'm just a mere mortal as well. I have worked hard to be able to afford them

but please, never rely on the gimmicks

I don't know so much about cameras, to be honest.

that's OK, as long as you are willing to learn, I am willing to teach/pass on what I know ( which isn't everything )

Dave

 

[lekh2003]

but please, never rely on the gimmicks

I'm a tech enthusiast and I often dabble in cameras. I hate gimmicks. When I go to electronics stores and hear salespeople giving crazy gimmicks, I absolutely lose it (on the inside).

You will not believe the kind of stupidity I have seen. There is a cable company which makes "Diamond quality" HDMI cables for 300 dollars and they say they have 100x faster speeds which is not possible since HDMI has its own limit, they can diamond stud it for all I care and still have regular speeds. Then there are a plethora of phones which have a dual camera, but one is a placebo. Gimmicks. Gimmicks everywhere.

But I'm going off topic, I'm passionately against people who trick customers.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

I'm a tech enthusiast and I often dabble in cameras. I hate gimmicks. When I go to electronics stores and hear salespeople giving crazy gimmicks, I absolutely lose it (on the inside).

You will not believe the kind of stupidity I have seen. There is a cable company which makes "Diamond quality" HDMI cables for 300 dollars and they say they have 100x faster speeds which is not possible since HDMI has its own limit, they can diamond stud it for all I care and still have regular speeds. Then there are a plethora of phones which have a dual camera, but one is a placebo. Gimmicks. Gimmicks everywhere.

But I'm going off topic, I'm passionately against people who trick customers.

Well, I would ask for advice from you and @davenn before I buy any electronics in future

 

[davenn]

Well, I would ask for advice from you and @davenn before I buy any electronics in future

OK I had to search for some comparison images amongst my photos

these 2 images are just resized for the forum ... no cropping so that you see the actual size of the image captured by the camera

the first image of a lunar eclipse, several years ago
This is with a Pentax, K5 DSLR (crop sensor) and a 500mm lens with a 2 x teleconverter = 1000 mm (equiv to 1500mm on a full frame camera)

A little smaller than I suggested above ... my old memory is getting fuzzy but you can see it fills a significant portion of the frame

This next image is from my Canon 6D Full Frame camera with a 400mm lens and a 2 x converter = 800mm ... you can
see that the captured image is significantly smaller ( yes the loss of 200mm accounts for a little of that result, but not all)

OK a quick explanation of this full frame sensor and crop sensor stuff
it refers to the physical size of the sensor and there are a lot of variations in the size of a crop sensor between manufacturers

A full frame sensor means the sensor capture area is the same size as the old 35mm film frame capture area
A crop sensor (CS) is smaller than a full frame one and as I said, there are variations.

Canon APS-C sensor crop factor = 1.6
Nikon DX, Pentax and Sony APS-C sensor crop factor = 1.5

a visual comparison and you can see several other variations in there ...

a crop sensor gives the impression of more magnification but in reality, it is just a smaller FOV, Field of View as you can see above

So as I did further up in this post, I was able to give an apparent magnification from the crop sensor compared to the full frame sensor
This is why I said that 1000mm of lens on a crop sensor ( my Pentax) is equal to my full frame Canon with a 1500mm lens on it. Then
we would get the same field of view FOV.

hope that is helpful :)Dave

 

[Buffu]

It appeared red just before the total eclipse started. When it was ending, it was completely white.

Yes that's what happened to me. I missed the beginning, it was cool but not as good as last year's solar eclipse.

 

[Baluncore]

Way down here in Tasmania, the moon was high in a clear sky.
The eclipse looked great and the red colour was classic.

But it was not a Blue Moon here. The full moon was at 27 minutes into the 1 Feb 2018, (UTC+11:00), so not in the same calendar month as the previous full moon. The concept of a “Blue Moon” is a scientifically irrelevant artefact of our calendar and time zones, it is nothing special about the Moon. There is no Islamic Blue Moon since the Hijri months are locked to begin on the predicted first observation of each new moon. The full Moon will always be in the “ides”, mid-month.

Does an eclipse last longer during a Super Moon, or is the Moon traveling faster when closer and so cancels the effect?

 

[Fig Neutron]

Great pictures everyone. The only camera I was willing to get up that early in the morning (or late at night for some) and find was my phone.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Have a look at this video:

 

[PeterO]

I just wanted to see anybody's opinion on the super blue blood moon yesterday night (at least for me).

I couldn't catch a glimpse of it in Sydney since it had been very hot for a few days and clouds had taken over the sky. I could however see an unusually bright red tint in one area of the sky. I was disappointed staying up quite late for it on a school night, but let's hope I can see it next time (2037, I think).

Did anybody see it? Anywhere in the world besides Oceania?

The view from Melbourne was unobstructed, and a friend from Denver Colorado reported watching the mid-eclipse, blood moon at the same time. From here it was approx. 12:30 am on Feb 1st, In Denver it was 5:30am January 31st but we were coincidentally looking at the Blood Moon at exactly the same time. For me, it was close to its highest position in the sky, for him it was in the Western sky, close to moon-set.

 

[Prof Sabi]

From Kolkata I also witnessed it :) BTW our chemistry sir was kind enough to give us a ten minute break to see it.. It was a bit hazy though and not so big as said on the web

 

[Jonathon Groubert]

This is a scientific forum. I would ask that people not introduce pseudo-science into it.

"What is this guy on about?" Well, the terms "super", "blue", and "blood" have ZERO scientific meaning when applied to the moon.

I have been an amateur astronomer all my life. These are all ASTROLOGICAL terms, not astronomical. The former is a pseudo-science, and is not worthy of our interest. The latter is a well-established science that does not use such terms.

"Super" means that the full moon occurs when the moon is at the closest part of its orbit to the earth. If you haven't noticed, the past three full moons have been "super". Wow, isn't that just super? More to the point, the difference in size between a stupidmoon, oops, "supermoon" and a regular full moon is 7%. Your eyes are incapable of detecting that difference. Why? Because the regular-sized moon isn't right next to it to compare it to.

"Blue" means that the it is the second full moon in a calendar month. This is utterly meaningless to astronomers.

"Blood" means that there is a lunar eclipse occurring. It's more scientifically correct to simply say that than to start using the word blood.

Finally, unlike solar eclipses, where totality is only viewable in a narrow band, a total lunar eclipse is viewable from about half the Earth at a time. In fact, from anyone given point - meaning, wherever you live - you can see a total lunar eclipse every 18 months. That 18 months doesn't take into consideration that the lunar eclipse might be clouded out, or that it might be at an inconvenient time to view. So it would be safe to say that you can see one every 4-5 years or so.

 

[davenn]

This is a scientific forum. I would ask that people not introduce pseudo-science into it.

Considering this was your first post to PF, I would suggest that you lighten up a bit
instead of attacking people !

 

[Jonathon Groubert]

Sorry, not sorry, dave; I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Pseudo-science BS has NO PLACE on a scientific forum like this. NONE. As an astronomer, I have had it up to here with this constant barrage of pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is dumbing down our country. I refuse to hold back in calling it out wherever I can.

 

[Baluncore]

This is a scientific forum. I would ask that people not introduce pseudo-science into it.

Welcome to PF.

Popular terms are not pseudo-science. They enable inclusive discussion of science without alienation by scientific jargon.

More to the point, the difference in size between a stupidmoon, oops, "supermoon" and a regular full moon is 7%.

If you were scientific you would have specified if that difference was in diameter or area. If your 7% specified diameter, then the area in steradians would be 14% greater. Applying the inverse square law explains why a full moon at perigee give people on Earth significantly more moonlight than usual. That is probably important for hunters, thieves, military operations and romantic poets.

The mean distance of Moon's orbit is about 385.0 Mm. Average perigee 362.6 Mm. Change in range gives a diametral change of 6.18%, not your quoted 7%. Maximum perigee 356.4 Mm gives a maximum change of 8.0%. You have been unscientific and “cherry picked” or exaggerated your quoted percentage.

"Blue" means that the it is the second full moon in a calendar month. This is utterly meaningless to astronomers.

It is not meaningless when it serves to highlight the differences between the many different calendars used on Earth. Prediction of astronomical observations require several intelligent calendar conversions.
Without the term “blue moon” the structure of the moonths in the different calendars would be hard to introduce and explain.

What is the scientific explanation of the popular term "harvest moon" ?

"Blood" means that there is a lunar eclipse occurring. It's more scientifically correct to simply say that than to start using the word blood.

Blood refers to the colour of the light reflected from the Moon. The fact that the light has been refracted by the Earth's atmosphere, with a greater scattering loss at the blue end of the spectrum, is quite an interesting observation, and leads to discussion of rainbows.

Science explains why the shadow of the Earth on the Moon is redish and not jet black, and why we can see the dark part of a half moon with light reflected from the Earth.

Is the dark part of a half moon slightly bluer because reflection and scattering from Earth do not involve refraction ?
How much light do we need before we begin to discern colour ?

Popular terms are NOT pseudo-science.

 

[berkeman]

Sorry, not sorry, dave; I calls 'em likes I sees 'em.

Pseudo-science BS has NO PLACE on a scientific forum like this. NONE. As an astronomer, I have had it up to here with this constant barrage of pseudo-scientific nonsense. It is dumbing down our country. I refuse to hold back in calling it out wherever I can.

Thread closed for 25ns for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

After very strange newbie troll ban, thread is re-opened.

 

[tonymark]

Have a look at this video:

amazing video! pleasure and strange feelings at the same time)

 

[sophiecentaur]

It's a Panasonic digital camera.

Panasonic make a range of digital cameras. What does "60X"mode mean - really? 60 times what? 60 times the size of an object when shot at the widest zoom. But what would that have been? The best you can probably do is print the full frame with the moon in the middle and some object of known size on the ground if you want to indicate the size. Then print the same picture for a non-super Moon.
To be honest, though, sometimes the apparent size of a setting Moon can be unbelievably huge. You have to do the extended finger test to re-calibrate your perception of angle subtended.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

Panasonic make a range of digital cameras. What does "60X"mode mean - really? 60 times what? 60 times the size of an object when shot at the widest zoom. But what would that have been? The best you can probably do is print the full frame with the moon in the middle and some object of known size on the ground if you want to indicate the size. Then print the same picture for a non-super Moon.
To be honest, though, sometimes the apparent size of a setting Moon can be unbelievably huge. You have to do the extended finger test to re-calibrate your perception of angle subtended.

Read this: https://www.panasonic.com/middleeas...gital-cameras-point-shoot/dmc-fz70.specs.html

 

[sophiecentaur]

Read this: https://www.panasonic.com/middleeas...gital-cameras-point-shoot/dmc-fz70.specs.html

Thanks. As I thought, that's the range of zooming. As far as the Moon images go, it's fairly arbitrary as 60X is not going to be Angular Magnification compared with a standard human eye. Actual size of an astronomical image can only be described in terms of angle subtended.
So take pictures at different times of the year and, with the same zoom setting and with no cropping, compare the sizes of the images. Take two images on the same night with one high in the sky and one near the horizon to prove to yourself that the apparent size difference is a illusion.
We are actually pretty useless at judging absolute sizes in the absence of a reference (even when choosing a pair of new jeans.