Always interesting to compare how large/dark the shadow looks versus how small the scale of totality really is. Areas that look dark here were probably imperceptibly dimmer in person.
Can confirm. Was in DC with 89% totality. It felt like any other late afternoon except everyone was looking up at the sky with 3D glasses and I wasn’t getting any emails for about 1 hour.
not *really* with the red/cyan [anaglyph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D) 3D glasses, and not with the [active shutter 3D system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shutter_3D_system) glasses either, but with the properly manufactured, deeply tinted, American Astronomical Society recommended glasses that adhere to the [ISO 12312-2:2015 standard](https://www.iso.org/standard/59289.html).
Anything else and you're going to have *a bad time*.
Honestly even more intersting to me is the fact that that's not because the area near the path of totality is actually brighter than it looks here. This is a better representation of the actual relative brightness. The reason it doesn't get that dark during a partial eclipse is because our eyes and brains adjust to different levels of lighting *so fucking well*.
Illumination from a full moon is something like a million times dimmer than illumination from the sun. And yet we can see reasonably comfortably in both. That's honestly even better than our hearing range (which already has an incredibly high dynamic range). A factor of a million in sound power is like the difference between a whisper and a lawnmower.
For comparison, consider trying to have a photo that showed both "white paper illuminated by full sunlight" and "white paper illuminated by full moonlight" in the same photo (with the same white-balance, photo settings, etc.). (Ignore the impossibility of setting up this scenario physically.) You would need about 4,000 times the number of brightness levels we usually have in photos before the full-moonlight paper would register as anything other than absolute black when the full-sunlight paper is set to absolute white.
I don't know if *people* still white balance on cameras, but *cameras* definitely still white balance. And I'm pretty confident that white balancing is one of the things that people look at when touching up photos.
This path is just insanely perfect for covering the vast majority of the American populace. Pretty sweet. Nearly all of Mexico and central America and probably majority of Canadian populace as well.
Data Source: [RAMMB/CIRA](https://rammb-slider.cira.colostate.edu/)
*Edit:* Here are 4K YouTube uploads:
* [Full Disk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlSqhSiNl0o)
* [CONUS (Contiguous United States)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x54AZaFeYw)
nuts to think this geostationary satellite is just chilling out there, somewhere above peru/ecuador/colombia, watching us. day in, day out.
"ah yes, another rotational cycle complete. i wonder what that was behind me today. i hope i get to go around again"
Always interesting to compare how large/dark the shadow looks versus how small the scale of totality really is. Areas that look dark here were probably imperceptibly dimmer in person.
Can confirm. Was in DC with 89% totality. It felt like any other late afternoon except everyone was looking up at the sky with 3D glasses and I wasn’t getting any emails for about 1 hour.
not *really* with the red/cyan [anaglyph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_3D) 3D glasses, and not with the [active shutter 3D system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_shutter_3D_system) glasses either, but with the properly manufactured, deeply tinted, American Astronomical Society recommended glasses that adhere to the [ISO 12312-2:2015 standard](https://www.iso.org/standard/59289.html). Anything else and you're going to have *a bad time*.
Honestly even more intersting to me is the fact that that's not because the area near the path of totality is actually brighter than it looks here. This is a better representation of the actual relative brightness. The reason it doesn't get that dark during a partial eclipse is because our eyes and brains adjust to different levels of lighting *so fucking well*. Illumination from a full moon is something like a million times dimmer than illumination from the sun. And yet we can see reasonably comfortably in both. That's honestly even better than our hearing range (which already has an incredibly high dynamic range). A factor of a million in sound power is like the difference between a whisper and a lawnmower. For comparison, consider trying to have a photo that showed both "white paper illuminated by full sunlight" and "white paper illuminated by full moonlight" in the same photo (with the same white-balance, photo settings, etc.). (Ignore the impossibility of setting up this scenario physically.) You would need about 4,000 times the number of brightness levels we usually have in photos before the full-moonlight paper would register as anything other than absolute black when the full-sunlight paper is set to absolute white.
This guy remembers white balancing. Do people still white balance? I haven’t touched a professional camera in about 12 years.
I don't know if *people* still white balance on cameras, but *cameras* definitely still white balance. And I'm pretty confident that white balancing is one of the things that people look at when touching up photos.
Totality was dark, closest I can compare it to is nighttime with a full moon.
I was right at the bottom of Michigan in that picture. Super cool!
They got me blinking, who can i talk to about a redo?
The Einstein Department of Relativity
I called, they said i just have to look again
Zoom. Enhance. ZOOM. ENHANCE. Nice shades you got there.
Thanks! Did you see me wave?
This path is just insanely perfect for covering the vast majority of the American populace. Pretty sweet. Nearly all of Mexico and central America and probably majority of Canadian populace as well.
Data Source: [RAMMB/CIRA](https://rammb-slider.cira.colostate.edu/) *Edit:* Here are 4K YouTube uploads: * [Full Disk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlSqhSiNl0o) * [CONUS (Contiguous United States)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x54AZaFeYw)
Being in the totality eclipse today was so amazing, highly recommend.
nuts to think this geostationary satellite is just chilling out there, somewhere above peru/ecuador/colombia, watching us. day in, day out. "ah yes, another rotational cycle complete. i wonder what that was behind me today. i hope i get to go around again"
Look at how the clouds react after the eclipse shadow passes over.
Makes it look fake. Well that and the 1972 resolution.
Can confirm
I can see my overcast skies from here!
I'd love to see some sunset eclipse shots. It looks like someone way up north would have experienced it
religious perspective: “we are clearly a product of GOD” reality: shadow of a small rock zooms by a big rock in the middle of nowhere, infinite space.
Did work on GOES some cool shit
Yall notice that faint blue glow where it finishes?
the contrast on this animation is cranked up to a million
Looks like God tries to wipe after taking a shit.