[arcticbull]

> [Aurora] only appear to us in shades of gray because the light is too faint to be sensed by our color-detecting cone cells."

> Thus, the human eye primarily views the Northern Lights in faint colors and shades of gray and white. DSLR camera sensors don't have that limitation. Couple that fact with the long exposure times and high ISO settings of modern cameras and it becomes clear that the camera sensor has a much higher dynamic range of vision in the dark than people do.

https://www.space.com/23707-only-photos-reveal-aurora-true-c...

This aligns with my experiences.

The brightest ones I saw in Northern Canada I even saw hints of reds - but no real greens - until I looked at it through my phone, and it looked just like the simulated video.

If I looked up and saw them the way they appear in the simulation, in real life, I'd run for a pair of leaded undies.

[Kiro]

That is totally incorrect which anyone who have seen real northern lights can attest to. I'm sorry that you haven't gotten the chance to experience it and now think all northern lights are that lackluster.

[Tronno]

I've seen it bright green with the naked eye. It definitely happens. That article is inaccurate.

[Maxion]

Greens are the more common colors, reds and blues occur in higher energy solar storms.

And yes, they can be as green to the naked eye in that AI video. I've seen aurora shows that fill the entire night sky from horizon to horizon, way more impressive than that AI video with my own eyes.

[kortilla]

This is such an arrogant pile of bullshit. I’ve seen very obvious colors on many different occasions in the northern part of the lower 48, up in southern Canada, and in Alaska.