<p>No.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262990/mediaviewer/rm4126849281/" rel="noreferrer">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262990/mediaviewer/rm4126849281/</a>
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ZVHet.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ZVHet.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>The Sky at Night, 1957.</p>
<p>Space documentaries have existed for longer than &quot;CGI&quot;</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-26T03:59:01.250Z
`++1` for  retro
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-25T17:47:39.967Z
2021-12-25T17:47:39.967Z
James K
<p>Consider the following video by BBC about the Pillars of Creation:</p>
<p><div class="youtube-embed"><div>
                <iframe width="640px" height="395px" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rAqB3AT2bQA?start=0"></iframe>
            </div></div></p>
<p>According to a quick google search, the POC are 7000 light years away.</p>
<p>If we just had a picture of the POC from Hubble, and we zoom into that picture, that seems the most realistic to me.</p>
<p>However, in the video, it is as if the camera is actually going past clouds of gas, numerous stars, and even zooming into the POC. There is no break in the video. Every single frame is getting us closer to the POC.</p>
<p>How exactly is this done?</p>
<p>Hubble does not use film, but it's as if a very powerful film camera from Earth was able to manually zoom into the POC.</p>
<p>Unless its all CGI.</p>
<p>I understand this this one is CGI, as evident from the video title, but many space documentaries follow a similar approach to what I mentioned above</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-24T22:42:17.717Z
It says it's an "Amazing 3D Visualization" right on the title card.
notovny
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-24T22:43:21.270Z
For this video yes, but what about other videos that do the same thing? Would they also all be CGI
K Split X
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-24T22:43:37.397Z
@notovny good catch! But the question is "Are all space documentaries CGI?" and this is just a helpful example for background.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-24T22:46:18.403Z
@KSplitX here's a good example of scientific and admitted CGI based on a series of Hubble images: [V838 Monocerotis "light-echo" images morphed into nice video, but why so few original images?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14660/7982) I'd say that the further we go away from very reputable sources and towards popular Astronomy outlets or heavily advertisement-laded monetized YouTube channels by individuals, the more we have to be careful and wonder what is CGI and what is real.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-12-24T22:52:18.110Z
Here's the famous [Pillars of Creation 1995 HST image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg) and we can see that a larger image will need some background fill-in that can be constructed from other lower-resolution images and some careful scientific illustration skills. As long as the final content is well-labeled, this is, in my opinion, good, healthy public-outreach hygiene. But it's easy to go overboard or forget to clearly explain what's real and what isn't so we must always keep a close eye on the source and the "fine print" that comes along with the work in question
uhoh
<photography><hubble-telescope>
Are all space documentaries CGI?
K Split X
# Are all space documentaries CGI?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-12-24)

Consider the following video by BBC about the Pillars of Creation:

According to a quick google search, the POC are 7000 light years away.

If we just had a picture of the POC from Hubble, and we zoom into that picture, that seems the most realistic to me.

However, in the video, it is as if the camera is actually going past clouds of gas, numerous stars, and even zooming into the POC. There is no break in the video. Every single frame is getting us closer to the POC.

How exactly is this done?

Hubble does not use film, but it's as if a very powerful film camera from Earth was able to manually zoom into the POC.

Unless its all CGI.

I understand this this one is CGI, as evident from the video title, but many space documentaries follow a similar approach to what I mentioned above

**Tags:** photography, hubble-telescope

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It says it's an "Amazing 3D Visualization" right on the title card.  
> **username_0**: For this video yes, but what about other videos that do the same thing? Would they also all be CGI  
> **username_2**: @username_1 good catch! But the question is "Are all space documentaries CGI?" and this is just a helpful example for background.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 here's a good example of scientific and admitted CGI based on a series of Hubble images: [V838 Monocerotis "light-echo" images morphed into nice video, but why so few original images?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14660/7982) I'd say that the further we go away from very reputable sources and towards popular Astronomy outlets or heavily advertisement-laded monetized YouTube channels by individuals, the more we have to be careful and wonder what is CGI and what is real.  
> **username_2**: Here's the famous [Pillars of Creation 1995 HST image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eagle_nebula_pillars.jpg) and we can see that a larger image will need some background fill-in that can be constructed from other lower-resolution images and some careful scientific illustration skills. As long as the final content is well-labeled, this is, in my opinion, good, healthy public-outreach hygiene. But it's easy to go overboard or forget to clearly explain what's real and what isn't so we must always keep a close eye on the source and the "fine print" that comes along with the work in question  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-12-25. Score: 5

No.

<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0262990/mediaviewer/rm4126849281/>
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/ZVHet.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/ZVHet.jpg)

The Sky at Night, 1957.

Space documentaries have existed for longer than "CGI"

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: `++1` for  retro  

---

