by BeAChooser » Tue Jan 07, 2025 4:18 am
I have a comment and a question.
The linked article in the OP states that "'Good Morning America' featured him last January and marvelled at the uncanny ability of digital censors in smartphones that can drink in and display colors the human eye is incapable of seeing". But everything else in the article and most other articles I've seen in the media about auroras lead one to believe that people see the auroras with their naked eyes as portrayed in the photos.
But my experience recently, when auroras extended far down into the US, is quote the opposite. All I and others could see with the naked eye were white looking *clouds* with just the vaguest HINT of color ... sometimes. At one point these *clouds* extended all the way across the sky (that's how big the aurora was) but only when I looked through my iPhone camera or at a photo captured by the camera did the colors show, ... and then just as dramatically as in the article's photos.
At one point I faced due south and there was white haze all the way to the horizon. Through the phone camera, however, that haze was bright red. Facing north, looking through the camera I could see bright red and green streamers that changed noticeably from minute to minute. These streamers in some cases extended to the zenith! It was impressive ... but not to the naked eye. They were just eerie ghosts.
So my question is this ... is this true for aurora seen in the far north. Or are they different in some way that makes them naked eye colorful?
I have a comment and a question.
The linked article in the OP states that "'Good Morning America' featured him last January [b]and marvelled at the uncanny ability of digital censors in smartphones that can drink in and display colors the human eye is incapable of seeing[/b]". But everything else in the article and most other articles I've seen in the media about auroras lead one to believe that people see the auroras with their naked eyes as portrayed in the photos.
But my experience recently, when auroras extended far down into the US, is quote the opposite. All I and others could see with the naked eye were white looking *clouds* with just the vaguest HINT of color ... sometimes. At one point these *clouds* extended all the way across the sky (that's how big the aurora was) but only when I looked through my iPhone camera or at a photo captured by the camera did the colors show, ... and then just as dramatically as in the article's photos.
At one point I faced due south and there was white haze all the way to the horizon. Through the phone camera, however, that haze was bright red. Facing north, looking through the camera I could see bright red and green streamers that changed noticeably from minute to minute. These streamers in some cases extended to the zenith! It was impressive ... but not to the naked eye. They were just eerie ghosts.
So my question is this ... is this true for aurora seen in the far north. Or are they different in some way that makes them naked eye colorful?