That galaxy at the end of 'Empire Strikes Back'

[stany]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_U5OmWgNVk...H9PPdPrUk/s400/Empire+Strikes+Back+finale.jpg

what one was that? i used to wonder why exactly they put that in there at the end (beyond the fact it looks pretty) i mean you never see any other stuff like that in star wars beyond 'normal' stuff like stars, planets and asteroids. maybe its some kind of hint of where Star Wars was set a long time ago...

 

[arakish]

It does not actually exist. It was made from visual effects. Of course Lucas did base the VFX on several galaxial pictures. Also note that Empire Strikes Back was released in 1980, five years before the launch of Hubble in 1985. And if you think about it, Return of the Jedi (1983) was released two years before the launch of the Hubble.

I was in the Navy when ESB came out, thus I never saw ESB until 1991 when I mustered out. I even thought it was a Hubble picture or Hubble based until I read the book Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back: Behind the Scenes. It was then that I realized the image was done through VFX. Amazing what VFX can do, even back then, 30+ years ago.

rmfr

 

[JaredJames]

If you Google it, there are loads of debates in the official forums about it.

It's certainly not real.

 

[george14215]

thread resurrection. if you were in one galaxy (as the star wars characters are), would a view of a neighboring galaxy even look like that? even from space?

 

[Drakkith]

thread resurrection. if you were in one galaxy (as the star wars characters are), would a view of a neighboring galaxy even look like that? even from space?

Not quite. Even close up, galaxies simply aren't that bright.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I don't believe this was intended to be a neighboring galaxy. I assumed that they had gone far out of their own galaxy, fleeing the empire, looking back.

 

[davenn]

I don't believe this was intended to be a neighboring galaxy. I assumed that they had gone far out of their own galaxy, fleeing the empire, looking back.

yes, agreed ... with that visual size of the galaxy it sort of gives the idea of being some 1000's or a few 10's of 1000's lightyears outside the galaxy being viewed

Either way, I don't think the "Empire" or the Millenium Falcon was capable of inter-galactic travel

Dave

 

[HallsofIvy]

Yes, very primitive society! Well, I'm off to the Magellanic cluster for lunch- be back tonight.

 

[Ibix]

At least according to the expanded universe, the rebels had moved a few thousand lightyears out of the galactic plane. As I recall, the Empire had no idea that they had ships big enough to support such an expedition, so it was an effective disappearing act

 

[snorkack]

Not quite. Even close up, galaxies simply aren't that bright.

There is no scale of known illumination... except, of course, the illumination of the screen. Chances are, you should not be able to see anything whatsoever on TV... because due to the illumination of your living room, the starry night outside should translate to screen indistinguishable from complete blackness. Do you see Milky Way from your window, or only the reflection, from the window glass surfaces, of the illuminated interior of your living room? Any film taking place at night ought to look the same on TV or computer.

Suppose that you do put off all the lights at home, and also have no streetlights outside your window, so that you do see Milky Way out of the window. Would it then be possible to see Milky Way from TV and computer? Or would the screen, when switched on, glow even when completely black?

What is the angular size of the galaxy seen from the window? 20...30 degrees or less?

What would, e. g. Andromeda Nebula look like at 10x magnification, compared to the Star Wars galaxy?

 

[Drakkith]

There is no scale of known illumination... except, of course, the illumination of the screen.

I think we can infer from the brightness of the background galaxy relative to the ship interior that it's pretty bright. No, it's not just pretty bright, it's REALLY bright. I'd guess it's something like 20 full moon's bright at least.

Chances are, you should not be able to see anything whatsoever on TV... because due to the illumination of your living room, the starry night outside should translate to screen indistinguishable from complete blackness. Do you see Milky Way from your window, or only the reflection, from the window glass surfaces, of the illuminated interior of your living room? Any film taking place at night ought to look the same on TV or computer.

Suppose that you do put off all the lights at home, and also have no streetlights outside your window, so that you do see Milky Way out of the window. Would it then be possible to see Milky Way from TV and computer? Or would the screen, when switched on, glow even when completely black?

...what?

What would, e. g. Andromeda Nebula look like at 10x magnification, compared to the Star Wars galaxy?

I don't know the dimensions of the galaxy in the Empire Strikes Back, but at 10x Andromeda is 30 degrees by 10 degrees.

 

[glappkaeft]

Suppose that you do put off all the lights at home, and also have no streetlights outside your window, so that you do see Milky Way out of the window. Would it then be possible to see Milky Way from TV and computer? Or would the screen, when switched on, glow even when completely black?

This makes no sense at all. A monitor or TV can show an image at pretty much any brightness. Neither the screen or the image is limited to the feeble efforts our eyes are capable of.

Just compare https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/317307/M31_ST33_8bit.jpg I took using a 200 mm lens with the dim light patch visible using the naked eye, binoculars or telescopes.

 

[davenn]

...
I took using a 200 mm lens with the dim light patch visible using the naked eye, binoculars or telescopes.

Ohhh very nice !, single image?, stacked ?, what total exposure time ?

Dave

 

[glappkaeft]

It's 25 exposures 5 minutes each, so just over two hours. It could have been much better though, only two of the exposures where good but I managed to save something out of the mess.

See http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/197264-my-best-failed-image-ever-m31/ for the full story if you are interested.

 

[snorkack]

This makes no sense at all. A monitor or TV can show an image at pretty much any brightness. Neither the screen or the image is limited to the feeble efforts our eyes are capable of.

Just compare https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/317307/M31_ST33_8bit.jpg I took using a 200 mm lens with the dim light patch visible using the naked eye, binoculars or telescopes.

But it is completely wrong brightness on the screen!
Can the screen present the correct brightness of the Nebula (and the correct darkness of the night sky around)?

 

[glappkaeft]

But it is completely wrong brightness on the screen!
Can the screen present the correct brightness of the Nebula (and the correct darkness of the night sky around)?

You could always mount welders glass in front of the screen to dim it. However if you show an image of a galaxy using only it's natural brightness it won't be visible in a lit room (between say 50-500 lux).

The Andromeda galaxy for instance shines with a light of about 0.0000001 lux. That is 1/1000th of the light you get from the sky an overcast moonless night away from any light pollution (i.e. 1000 time less light than can't-see-your-hand-in-front-of-you dark). Even if you increase the brightness of the image to factor in a the image scale ("magnification" for images) it will still be much dimmer than any indoor lighting since not even the core is much brighter than 17 magnitudes per square arcsecond.

 

[goldust]

The center part looks too big and too uniform to be real.