On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 11:01:49 +0100, Max Demian
Incidentally, I find the excessive, unremarked, use of animations and
"artists impressions" in astronomical programmes annoying. The last Sky
at Night programme consisted almost exclusively of these: sometimes it's
obvious as the image shows the spacecraft itself or the quality is too
good. Some pictures that show the surface of a planet or moon it's not
obvious if it's real, enhanced or just made up.
Couldn't agree more. Patrick Moore's black and white cardboard
captions on wobbly music stands with pins and pulltabs for the limited
animations that they occasionally managed to do had the advantage that
they made it very clear that we were not looking at the real thing. It
required some imagination from the viewer, and an understanding that
there was a good reason why we just didn't have high quality real
images of everything.
I think they should show more actual images, even if they have false
Indeed. That as I understand it was the entire point of sending a
spacecraft off to spend half a lifetime travelling nine hundred
million miles with a bunch of cameras. Why bother with all that if
you're just going to make something up?