HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
achael
eht-imaging
Python2019–2026
achael / eht-imaging

eht-imaging

Imaging, analysis, and simulation software for radio interferometry

Science & Engineering
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
15Distinct people
19Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
5.3KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Imaging, analysis, and simulation software for radio interferometry

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 4:00:59 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year19 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2019-04-10 23:59:20 UTC to 2026-07-27 20:10:55 UTC.

0510152019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 16 mentions; 3 submissions, 13 comments20192020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC16313
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

2 sources
20k·Jul 27, 2026
So in your opinion, the primary thing that makes this a physically accurate simulation is that you've calculated the bending of light rays, and the structure, colouration and brightness of the accretion disk doesn't matter at all? >As for colormapping: I follow the by-far-dominant approach in scientific literature, where color mapping choice is completely unrelated to physical accuracy of the plotted observations or simulations. Having a preference for different color schemes is a matter of taste; suggesting a linear intensity->pixel mapping is a reasonable feature request, but far from a bug or inaccuracy. It is not true at all that this is the dominant approach in the literature, the event horizon telescope does not use this approach in their papers. I linked a comment from them elsewhere about this in a github PR Specifically: https://
Read the rest
github.com/achael/eht-imaging/issues/85 >Unfortunately, vanilla afmhot does remain the current default in the eht-imaging library for historical reasons, but this could change soon. *Rest assured we thought of this issue and the paper images are indeed perceptually uniform!* I would welcome an attempt for you to create a scale, that maps the output pixel brightness to the underlying physical luminance, which I think would show why the mapping is such a problem here from an accuracy perspective, but you're absolutely not correct that you're following the literature here. People are much more careful about presenting accurate data, and your approach would result in a correction being put out
In Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room
20k·Jul 27, 2026
>I don't see "simplified" as being opposite to "accurate". Are black hole accretion disks generally red in real astrophysical cases? They're most accurately represented as being blue. Red is fine for visualisations because it looks cool (which is fine!), but blue is the physically accurate colour. Visualisations claiming to be accurate like this presenting red black holes is becoming an increasingly large science communication problem The way that the colour and brightness are mapped together is also not correlated correctly, and some of the equations just aren't right. The doppler isn't correct at all here, partly because its simulated incorrectly (with the camera problems), and partly because the mapping done at the end doesn't correlate to any reasonable brightness Stuff like this: Its not accurate at all. It isn't simplified, its just
Read the rest
wrong - which is totally fine for a visualisation, if that's the intent. But: >scales like logarithmic are very common in scientific images. Sure. What scale are you using for the doppler brightness here? Because as far as I can tell, its a piecewise mapping of the form ~pow(x, 2.2), after being run through a non smooth function `afmhot` - a function which doesn't have a linear brightness response. So the brightness in this image doesn't really correspond to anything related to doppler or brightness, and the colour also doesn't correspond to anything involving colour (or the doppler). The entire image's look is basically accidental Here's a specific comment from the event horizon telescope talking about exactly this problem with specifically the afmhot transform being used, because its important for visualisation: https://github.com/achael/eht-imaging/issues/85 Which shows some of the problems here
In Show HN: Physically accurate black hole you can put in your room

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.