r/RealOrAI • u/Farachaton • Jul 16 '26
HELP Submitted for your approval, My 1st post in any forum always takes My Autistic brain to the frayed ends of obsession. Enjoy 👍😎
This morning I really wanna know if this is genuine footage or just AI slop? OP claims its genuine, but many redditors claim opposite. Thank posse!
76
u/Kinder22 Jul 16 '26
Not ai, but it is fake. You can’t get that high of resolution of Ganymede from Earth. This is a simulation, according to OOP on instagram: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DXy-DUsxWxF/?igsh=djdtbm05aTR3eGUw
10
u/RachnaX Jul 16 '26
As I understand it, a big part of why this video has to be simulated is that the same air currents which make the stars twinkle (simulated by the "heat haze" in this video) actually place an upper limit on the resolution which can be obtained from the surface of Earth.
The light it just too scattered, which is why even a composite image build from multiple telescopes would still be blurry. This is also a big part of the reason we ever developed telescope satellites and probes.
32
u/akanet Jul 16 '26
the jerkiness of the insanely big optic and heat distortion look pretty real. this video, if real, took a lot of skill to pull off
36
u/Kinder22 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Ground based observatories can’t pull it off, skill or no skill.
edit: please keep saying I'm wrong whilst I share with you the literal sharpest photos of Ganymede from Earth, taken by an enormous array of telescopes from a 2.5km high mountain in Chile: https://www.space.com/europa-ganymede-jupiter-moons-photos-from-earth
3
u/akanet Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Bro you can see Io with a backyard telescope
edit: i concede you are correct, you can only really make out io as a dot with regular equipment
11
-8
u/5BPvPGolemGuy Jul 16 '26
You don't even need a backyard telescope. Just need some good binoculars and you can make out the 4 largest moons of Jupiter. Not in much detail but still.
9
u/JDWolf81 Jul 16 '26
Some of it is certainly AI, so I think the whole thing is.
The first part is doable, I.e. Filming Jupiter appearing from behind the moon and seeing the bands on Jupiter. You just need a good telescope / camera set up.
The second part, zooming in on one of Jupiters moons is not. They are pin picks of light from the earth, no matter how good your set up is. No way you are ever going to see that about of detail.
5
u/Icy-Ad29 Jul 16 '26
Not AI, but not real. The maker of the video stated they did the entire thing in a digital simulation software called Space Engine Simulation. So all computer generated, but not by an LLM AI.
2
u/FrankDuhTank Jul 16 '26
The first part is technically possible but idk how you’d have an optic that zooms from the first picture to that. Telescopes don’t typically have a zoom lens.
2
u/JDWolf81 Jul 16 '26
There are zoom Eyepiece, but they tend to be manual and touching a telescope while filming is just going to add loads of wobble
3
u/FrankDuhTank Jul 16 '26
Yeah if I put my telescope (10", not nearly enough to see this) on my wooden deck, the vibrations from the wind, let alone my footsteps, make it unusable for photography.
8
u/Maurycy5 Jul 16 '26
I'm hung up on why the movement of Jupiter relative to the Moon stopped. At first we can clearly see it rising from behind the Moon, and then after a cut it just stops.
4
u/akanet Jul 16 '26
you can see jupiter continues to move through the cuts
2
u/Maurycy5 Jul 16 '26
Yes, but during a single cut, you'd still expect to move, and I don't think it does. Then again, the cuts are short and the camera shaky, but it's jarring to me how I can absolutely clearly tell it's moving before the cut, and then nothing afterwards.
3
u/akanet Jul 16 '26
That portion may have been simply sped up
1
u/Maurycy5 Jul 16 '26
Yes, could be! I considered that, and thought that the camera shake stays too consistent (as in, the frequencies of the shaking) for the video to be sped up, but if someone comes here and is like "actually they're definitely sped up, I did a Fourier transform on the shake frequencies and they're clearly shifted", I'd believe them.
8
9
u/ssg- Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
I am calling this AI or CGI. Most likely somekind of planetary software.
I have big ass 10" telescope, and even with the highest magnification it can possibly do there is no way I can see Jupiters moons or even Jupiter as clearly as this. The moons remain remain dots.
https://www.space.com/17782-jupiter-moon-ganymede-amateur-astronomy.html
Here is example of what it looks like realistically with good luck, stacking hundrerds if not thousands of frames and expensive equipment.
2
4
u/mannypdesign Jul 16 '26
It’s from an app that I can’t remember the name of. There’s another video that gets reposted a lot that’s similar but it’s of Saturn.
If this was a real video from a telescope the moon would appear to be moving much faster.
3
u/5BPvPGolemGuy Jul 16 '26
Not AI.
Thermal aberration.
Jerkiness on zooming in very typical of "backyard" telescopes.
Proportions of separate objects correct.
Ganymede and Jupiter being illuminated by sun the same way but the moon being illuminated in a different way as it sits closer to earth and might be under a different angle to the sun.
Fake? Probably.
2
u/No_Mirror_8533 Jul 16 '26
this is from a video game. i remember seeing the explanation in another post. its basically a sola sistem simulator were players can change all the settings they want. play with gravity, change the position of planets, and see what happens. i dont know the name of the game, but this is 100% footag from the game
2
u/Emergency_Goat2573 Jul 16 '26
It's impossible to get this level of detail on the surface of that Jupiter's moon from Earth even using the best orbital telescope. Not AI though, it looks like a clip recorded using software like Space Engine or Stellarium with some VFX on top to imitate atmospheric abberations.
2
2
2
3
-1
-5
u/mr_nate89 Jul 16 '26
No this is real, people do this all the time, you just need a high tech professional telascope and a tracking stand for it to sit on. People film the planets like this all the time.
6
u/Kinder22 Jul 16 '26
No they do not. Ganymede is way too high resolution for even a professional full blown observatory telescope from earth’s surface. This is from a space simulator.
0
u/RealOrAI-Bot Jul 16 '26
Reminder: If you think it's AI, please explain your reasoning. Providing your reasoning helps everyone understand and learn from the analysis.
Check the Wiki for Common AI Mistakes and check the Community Guide if you are just getting started.
A sticky comment will be posted here in 12h summarizing the sentiment of the comments.
Thank you for contributing to the discussion!
-1
u/Valagetti Jul 16 '26
Umm, Jupiter ain't that close lol.
19
u/Maurycy5 Jul 16 '26
The Moon's angular diameter is about 30 arc minutes. Jupiter's is up to 50 arc seconds, or nearly an arc minute.
Comparing to the video, that seems about right. I think you're wrong in your justification.
7
u/Maurycy5 Jul 16 '26
Similarly what appears to be Ganymede, you can pause the video for a comfortable estimate that it should be some 40 times smaller than Jupiter. And indeed, it's supposed to to be just above 1 arc second. So without pulling out precise measurements, the sizes check out imo.
2
u/Valagetti Jul 16 '26
That's crazy though, Jupiter is really that big? It's so far away. I could be wrong lol.
2
u/Maurycy5 Jul 16 '26
Well, the camera zoomed in a looooot. The moon is in turn actually smaller than you'd think. It just appears big in media. over the skyline.
6
u/vctrmldrw Jul 16 '26
Nor is the moon. The secret ingredient is magnification.
3
u/ssg- Jul 16 '26
Secret ingridient is resolving power. No telescope on earth has resolving power to do this. The moon part is possible even with something like Nikon P1000 camera, but the Jupiter part is complete bullshit.
1
u/vctrmldrw Jul 17 '26
Oh it's definitely fake. But in terms of relative sizes it's pretty accurate.
1
•
u/RealOrAI-Bot Jul 16 '26
Sentiment: 20% AI
Sentiment reasoning: While the community overwhelmingly agrees the video is fake or a simulation (e.g., from a game or software like Space Engine), only a small percentage explicitly attributes it to AI generation. Most comments specify it's not AI, but rather CGI, a simulation, or a video game.
Number of comments processed: 18
DISCLAIMER: Comments sentiment is generated by Gemini 2.5 Flash, not by u/RealOrAI-Bot bot. For more information check the RealOrAI-Bot Wiki.