I have been studying alot of ancient history, specifically ancient astronomy.I am now certain that all world events can be predicted from studying the skies.Anybody here using telescopes to photograph comets? I am looking for roughly what I need, and examples of what you guys are getting with your gear?I really need to be able to see and photograph comets and meteors in space.
>>4317828comets aren't real bro. just traffic reflecting off the firmament.
>>4317843That is why there appear to be so many comets whizzing about the skies over all the world's major cities
I photographed comet 12P/ Pons-Brooks on March 22nd from Norway. Captured right after sunset from a medium sized city (bortle 7 on the light pollution scale). This is around 70mins of exposure time in total. If you don't know anything about astrophotography I'm going to warn you that it is a very expensive hobby and it takes a lot of time to learn how to use the equipment and process the images properly. The gear I used for this photo:Sky-watcher Esprit 80, Sky-watcher HEQ5 Pro, ZWO ASI1600MM Pro (monochromatic camera), ZWO Electronic filterwheel, Astronomik LRGB filters, Sky-watcher Evoguide 50ED + ZWO ASI120MM Mini for star guiding for the mount. Also have a lot of specific cables, USB hub and a PegasusAstro power-hub for power distribution. My whole setup is around 6-7k USD (in Norway).I used a program called Pixinsight (280USD) for the stacking and image processing + some pluggins that were around (150USD). Again pretty expensive, but very fun and rewarding hobby at the same time.
Screw those puny rocks, post your photos of massive galaxies
>>4322884I'm not happy with the white balance in my image.
>>4322884does this shitty photo of the globular cluster in Hercules count?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:
I just remembered that I bought a light pollution filter after my unsuccessful astro attempt but I never tried to use it. Maybe I'll give that a shot but this is kind of a gear fag hobby
>>4322884Sir, Yes sir![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2021:12:02 22:14:27
Keep photographing comets, that's cool. Don't become a glazy eyed schizo that thinks icy stones millions of miles away in space have any bearing on human politics or history.
Is this the astro thread? I have a question, I'm kinda new so forgive me if it's dumb. So far I only ever did milky way photography, with the classic rules of high enough ISO but not too much, max aperture or close to it, and 15 or 20sec of exposure depending of the focal length until it starts making trails. Okay, it gives good enough results, not great not terrible.Then I stumbled onto "stacking" photos. If I get this right, I take a whole lot more of photos, and then stack them in software like Sequator or any equivalent. Meaning I can get less noise as I can use less high ISO. And I assume, I'm also get more light through stacking. Is that right?My question is about numbers and equivalencies. Let's say we're using a full frame setup : 20mm f1.8 lens. Let's settle for 20sec of exposure at ISO 3200. And let's say I take a picture.With stacking, how many pictures would I need to take to get the same picture taken above if I change the parameters to ISO 1600? Two pictures? Same question if I use ISO3200 but f2.8. 2 pictures as well? (as, unless I'm wrong, 2.8 gathers 2x less light than f1.8)? And then the combination of, I dunno, f3.5 at ISO 100. I assume I'll have to take 15 pictures or something. Basically I'm trying to find the "conversion rate", if there's any. If so, stacking means I wouldn't have to buy an expensive wide angle fast lens, but could settle for wide but lest fast,, which is good for hiking. At the cost of staying there in the cold of the night more time that I would with a faster lens.
>>4325191>With stacking, how many pictures would I need to takeMore is always better, but it has diminishing returns. For DSO stacking anything over 40 images is almost never worth it imo.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4325191Like the other anon said: more is better. However keep in mind that the more frames you stack the more imperfections in the light path will be, so unwanted color gradients, dust particles on the lens, distortion and vignetting become very noticeable once you stack them.So to get rid of these it's important to take calibration frames, flats in particular. Good vs bad flats can make a night and day difference.If you want get into astro i suggest you take a look at this video, it goes fairly in depth and i found it very helpful starting out.https://youtu.be/zRp3Qu_0K6o?si=bIbiIoHQspNmruLe
>>4317828>I have been studying alot of ancient history, specifically ancient astronomy.>I am now certain that all world events can be predicted from studying the skies.Astrology.>Anybody here using telescopes to photograph comets?Yep. This was Hale-Bopp. Photo of the slide I took (digital wasn't around).Minolta SR-101, 135mm Rokkor, f/5?, ASA 800 Fujifilm, 10 minutes.
>>4325618>>4326661Thanks lads. I'll try to apply this knowledge.
>>4317828Comet
>>4327204
>There are common misconceptions regarding light gathering in photography. I'll first try and clarify light gathering by lenses as it impacts the choice of lenses for night photography.>Photographers are trained that more light gathering means a faster f-ratio. After all, exposure is directly related to the f-ratio. But f-ratio tells light density in the focal plane, not total light received from the subject. Light gathering from the subject is actually proportional to lens aperture area times exposure time. What this means is that for greater impact with night sky photography, buy the largest aperture lens you can afford. This means the fastest f/ratio in a given focal length. Note, this does not contradict my statement about f/ratio above. For example, a 15 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 15/2.8 = 5.4 mm, an aperture which is smaller than the dark-adapted human eye. A 35 mm f/2.8 lens has an aperture diameter of 35/2.8 = 12.5 mm and collects over 5 times, (12.5/5.4)2 = 5.3, as much light from the subject even though the f-ratios are the same. A 35 mm f/1.4 has an aperture diameter of 35/1.4 = 25.0 mm and collects (25/5.4)2 = 21 times more light than a 15 mm f/2.8 lens. That would be a huge impact in light gathering in night photography when light levels are so low. https://clarkvision.com/articles/characteristics-of-best-cameras-and-lenses-for-nightscape-astro-photography/What the fuck, I mean it's obvious when you think about it purely on an optical and physical standpoint, but somehow it feels like everything I thought I knew was a lie, or rather, an oversimplification. I didn't think the light gathering difference would be so massive even when comparing at the same f stop number for different focal lenghts. It makes me rethink the need for ultra wide angle lenses for simple MW photography. Maybe a 24mm f1.8 or f1.4 is actually a better choice than, I dunno, a 16mm f2, at the cost of doing a stitching if I need to get a better composition.
>>4317828Lol you just realized? What was your first clue?Mine was the three Zoroastrian priests sent to welcome Jesus when some priest saw signs in the stars that a great one was descending
>>4328138>I didn't think the light gathering difference would be so massive even when comparing at the same f stop number for different focal lenghtsIt's a simple principle and the same idea behind equivalence. 16mm on m43 collects 1/4th the light as 32mm on FF (two stop difference). You can stitch 4 photos on a 32mm lens on m43 to get the same amount of light gathered on FF but honestly stitching is a pain and the stars are streaking and you've got to align that etc. Ignore Roger Clark and just get the fastest lens you can for the field of view you want. In fact, using aperture size is not all that useful for this application even though it is for general astro.
>>4328138Why does this not happen for me in normal photography? or is it a slight background light thing for deep space imaging, ie: longer lens sees more distant light
>>4328138Keep in mind the MW stretches across the whole sky. So you could use up to a 180° lens and the differences would be in how thick the band appears on the image.
>>4328170It does but Clark's thinking doesn't apply to normal photography. Think of using a 50mm for an upper body shot at f/4 and 1/200s. A 100mm lens at f/4 and 1/200s has the same intensity of light but in half the area. With the same exposure time, it's roughly the same number of photons being captured (assuming similar reflectivity for a subject). If you were to take two photos with the 100mm and stitch them together, you get twice the amount of light collected. This is basically impossible for subjects which are moving and stitching introduces a lot of complications (aligning focal node, extra distortion corrections, extra vignetting corrections) etc that make it a bad idea for normal photography. For astro, larger apertures collect more light for a given lens design but even then, stacking, sensor cooling, and tracking mounts with the right or wider field of view are preferable to stitching. Deep sky astro photographers will often image a faint nebula over several days and if they need it sooner, they buy bigger scopes. For simple MW shots, stitching is dumb. Dunno if even stacking would be worth it but definitely more than stitching.
>>4325191>Is this the astro thread?It could be
>>4325618It looks better if you do a massive stack of thousands of frames from video, that way you can toss up the bad ones and keep only the cream. This process works on the square root of the number of exposures that you stack
>>4328138My best Astro lens is my 200 mm F 1.8 canon. You should see what the veil nebula looks like with a few Stacks or even the Orion with like 5 minutes of exposure
>>4332270>>You should see>Doesn't post image
The eternal question, getting a lightweight travel-hiking friendly small tracker like the recent Move Shot Move Nomad, or invest in pricey and weighty new lenses?>in b4 "both"It'll be one or the other, money is finite.One one hand, a tracker offers lots of possibilities, though to be honest it's overkill as I don't intend to do any deep sky shit. Still, I wouldn't mind getting closer to the galactic core (like I dunno, at 50mm as they're cheap, or 85mm?), and maybe some big ass objects like Orion or Andromeda. Both will still need long fast lenses in the 135mm though.Or buying faster lenses, both wide (stacking can get the job done though) and long. But even there it's overkill AND more costly. I honestly don't have any use for fastass lenses that need to be closed down a bit to be usable anyways. If I'm doing landscape, I close down anyway. And if I'm doing night cityscape shots, I'm on a tripod at long exposures. For muh borkah I don't need more than a regular 85mm f1.8, and it's already too much borkah for me anyways. Going faster on all my lenses would be a waste of money for my general photography.There's no good solution, but like 250 bucks into the MSM Nomad could be the cheapest option, contrarily to what I thought at first.
>>4332336Hm. You couls buy Orion's 80mm refractor on their EQ-1B mount for $150 and add the motor for the mount for another $55 So for $250 (tax? Shipping?) you could have another tripod as ell as a small telescope and the clock drive.https://www.telescope.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=117620&src=row1col2-button
>>4332336>>4332384P.S. - Motor's on the same page, right column, farther down.
Taking my first shot at Andromeda tonight, just getting started with photography, astro or otherwise.Wish me luck!
>>4333789Good luck!What lens?
>try the NFP rule which is the new hotness, as the 500 one is quite obviously depreciated with modern cameras>input my FF camera and 21mm lens settings, and set the rule for very slight acceptable trailing instead of purely strict>f1.4 gives me 9.09s>try with f2 because at f1.4 I'll have too much coma>f2.0 gives me 10.03s>what>try f16 for shit and giggles>gives me 32,49sOkay what the fuck, and did anybody on the planet check this formula out? Because I can tell you this doesn't make any sense. Even if I could see a star at f16, I won't get acceptable trails with 32 seconds. A dumb 200 or 300 rule or something makes more sense than this.
>>4317828>I am now certain that all world events can be predicted from studying the skies.So how come those world events happened?
>>4322884You got it, boss[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 25.9 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Image Width5737Image Height3749Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiImage Created2024:07:10 01:54:30Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3635Image Height2613
>>4322884holy shit, nice
