And you missed the obvious point.You're confusing the captions. This part relates to the wide angle shots not the planets. The planets were taken through narrow angle camera using the visible violet, blue and green filters over probably many minutes of exposure.
Thanks for the minor but useless point as far as context of the discussion.The
result of this great brightness is an image with multiple
reflections from the optics in the camera.Wide-angle images
surrounding the sun also show many artifacts attributable to
scattered light in the optics. These were taken through the clear
filter with one second exposures.
With a clear filter the great brightness of the sun creates the artifacts in the wide angle optics.
The critical mind would not have missed it.
But it still points out that GaryN's extreme position that the sun is not bright, and is, well, extremely wrong.
Avert your eyes if seeing it in the raw is offensive;Blatantly incorrect.
Earth has a full disc magnitude of about -4 at 1 AU. At 40AU the magnitude of a crescent Earth (as in the Voyager photo) would be circa +5.5. This makes it barely visible to the naked eye and dimmer than about 2,000 stars visible to the naked eye from Earth. At 10x brighter this should bring another 20,000 stars brighter than +5.5. But were not talking about the naked eye, were talking about overeposed images counted in minutes. If you wanted to pick up an Earth magnitude object in the visible range, you cant fail to pick up the brighter stars. Those images should be full of brighter stars.
See below for what you would get after 30 seconds (through the "restricting" atmosphere). Compare that to Voyager's multi-minute visible shots.
Maybe Vidicon can pick those bad boys up. Looks pretty bright for stars. I guess JJohson has a point about all that processing.EXPOSURE_DURATION = 5.7600 <SECONDS>