/p/ - Photography » Thread #299379

[30 / 0 / ?]

OiD Mon 24 Nov 2008 05:53:00 No.299379 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>299826

Sooooo I tried to do some stacking... and got a semi-shitty result.

Found out that the kit lens will SLOOOOWLY change its focal length with gravity. So only the center of the image is worth anything because the first shots are 18mm and the last ones are 28mm. Awesum ''\(º_º)/''

Had no idea I was under the power lines either. Heck, I was in a mountain! Better luck next time.

11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows111Image Width4592Image Height3056Number of Bits Per Component32, 32, 32Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:11:24 01:51:48Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height7991

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 05:55:00 No.299382 Report

Quoted By: >>299387 >>299408

don't know why people keep on doing long exposures with digital cameras, shit's going to kill your sensor a whole lot faster than regular use

this isn't like film where you don't give a fuck. these ccd/cmos sensors were never intended to be "on" all the time

OiD

OiD Mon 24 Nov 2008 06:03:00 No.299387 Report

Quoted By:

>>299382
It's about 40 exposures of 20" stacked together. The hot spots look worse because the focal length screwing everything all the alignments in the software

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 06:06:00 No.299390 Report

Quoted By:

Is this REALLY a bad thing for your sensor?

I mean, isn't the sensor on the whole time in Live View?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 06:44:00 No.299408 Report

Quoted By: >>299411 >>299826

>>299382
lolparanoia. Also, image sensors don't work like that. Each exposure is a charge and discharge cycle, they are not "on" all the time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 06:50:00 No.299411 Report

Quoted By:

>>299408Each exposure is a charge and discharge cycle, they are not "on" all the time.

But what about Live View? The sensor has to provide an image the whole time Live View is on. Unless you mean it charges and discharges 60 times a second or whatever Hz the LCD screen is, which makes it sound even worse...

Anonymous

stupidity

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 07:06:00 No.299420 Report

Quoted By: >>299826

I have an old d70s and i've done long exposure photog with it for about 3 years now. it's still fine.

if you really think long exposures can 'burn' out your sensor, sell off your camera and step in front of mass transportation vehicle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 07:09:00 No.299423 Report

Quoted By: >>299826

... can you burn your eyes out staring into darkness? no. same concept.

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Mon 24 Nov 2008 09:11:00 No.299502 Report

Quoted By: >>299523 >>299642

First attempts usually end up sucking, Find something to prevent the lens from changing focal length and try again.

What were your shots? like ISO, camera, how many lights, darks, flats, bias's etc.

I find roughly 30-40 light frames can get rid of pretty much all of the noise that shows up on the D300 at ISO 1600. Darks and Bias's help even more, and you can re-use them for other attempts the same night. Flats are re-useable for any shoot, as it only depends on the lens and aperture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 09:51:00 No.299523 Report

Quoted By: >>299826

>>299502
Will repeated long exposures shorten the life of your sensor? Possibly.

Will they have any impact on the useful life of the camera, though? Not likely at all. Other parts of the camera are likely to go out long before the sensor (i.e. shutter), and by the time the long exposure work would have any noticeable effect, the camera would be a long-obsolete piece of junk.

OiD

OiD Mon 24 Nov 2008 13:11:00 No.299642 Report

Quoted By: >>299649

>>299502
Blue-tack shall be my friend!

ISO 1600 with α350.
45 lights, 21 flats, 19 dark's and 20 bias.

I-ll try again tonight. Thinking of using my 28mm f2.8 stopped down to f4. Passing by clouds and cars didn-t have much effect on the final image :s I was expecting some blurred trail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 13:19:00 No.299646 Report

Quoted By: >>299649 >>299826

What is this stacking technique talked about?
Enlighten me! (i've never done night shots)

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Mon 24 Nov 2008 13:22:00 No.299649 Report

Quoted By: >>299665

>>299642
wow thats a hell of a well rounded shot. I usually only have like 2 or 3 Dark's Flats, or Bias's

Though With the nasty Amp glow you are getting, I would avoid using ISO 1600, maybe use your 28mm f2.8 @ f2.8

>>299646
http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/index.html

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 13:41:00 No.299665 Report

Quoted By: >>299821

>>299649

Sounds like hard work :S

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Mon 24 Nov 2008 23:31:00 No.299821 Report

Quoted By: >>299828 >>299875

>>299665
its not bad if you have a camera that you can program to take shots at set intervals.
And then you can shoot star trails with another camera while you wait.

But ya its not easy, takes some patience and a few failures. If you have a tracking mount you don't have to spend as much time doing this, because you can afford longer exposures (and a lower ISO) however, they are ridiculously expensive and only the most dedicated astrophotographer would have one.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 24 Nov 2008 23:48:00 No.299826 Report

Quoted By:

>>299379
You were in a mountain, huh. That's rough...

also, this
>>299408
>>299420
>>299423
>>299523

and i too would like to know exactly how to stack in PS>>299646

fence !!POey2hdozCZ

fence !!POey2hdozCZ Mon 24 Nov 2008 23:57:00 No.299828 Report

Quoted By: >>299838

>>299821

they're not expensive at all, really. pretty much all amateur schmidt cassegrains come with them these days, including a remote control that'll point you at nearly object in the sky. some even have gps units now, so you just to turn the telescope on and it'll orient itself to the right R.A. and Declination.

here, 260 bucks on amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Meade-Achromatic-Refractor-Telescope-ETX-80AT-TC/dp/B000IFZOXU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1
2?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1227552956&sr=8-12

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Tue 25 Nov 2008 00:18:00 No.299838 Report

Quoted By: >>299855

>>299828
Those types of EQ mounts are unusable for DSLR's, Those are only good for putting P&S's up to the eyepeice.

Any decent website will recommend at least an EQ4+
(CG-5 = EQ4, EQ5, EQ6)
or any other greater mount

Most telescope / mount combinations come with a EQ1- EQ3, and arguably the EQ3 is useable for astrophotography, but its only recommended to do wide field shots with it.

http://www.telescope.com/control/product/~category_id=/~product_id=09829;jsessionid=97FD0D7CA30E18AF
9090688EC3E99A84.ivprod1
This one has good reviews for shots under 200mm (cloudynights.com has good information)

fence !!POey2hdozCZ

fence !!POey2hdozCZ Tue 25 Nov 2008 00:48:00 No.299855 Report

Quoted By:

>>299838

yeah, i just did more research and realized that it's an alt-azimuth mount anyways. disregard that, i suck dix.

:(

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1511018/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/
o/all/fpart/1

you can always make your own!!

OiD

OiD Tue 25 Nov 2008 01:44:00 No.299875 Report

Quoted By:

>>299821
Discovered I can just put the camera into burst mode and lock the remote trigger. Wish I had found out earlier...

Can-t try again today, cloudy :(

OiD

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

OiD Wed 26 Nov 2008 03:19:00 No.300730 Report

Quoted By: >>300738 >>300835

Yay.
ISO 800 20" exposures
28mm @ f2.8
71 Lights
24 Bias
34 Darks
20 Flats

It came out better than last time :)

11Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 Windows111Image Width5088Image Height3438Number of Bits Per Component32, 32, 32Compression SchemeUncompressedPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:11:25 23:12:10Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height8001

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Wed 26 Nov 2008 03:38:00 No.300738 Report

Quoted By: >>300751

>>300730
Ya much better, though still seems noisy, did it need a lot of gaining up?

OiD

OiD Wed 26 Nov 2008 04:15:00 No.300751 Report

Quoted By: >>300767

>>300738
not shure, I just played with the color levels to get some more realistic colors for the sky.

20" is a bit to long, I'm getting small star trails, maybe I'll try again some day :3

I wonder if I could get something a bit more interesting with 600mm... tracking would be a problem...

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Wed 26 Nov 2008 04:42:00 No.300767 Report

Quoted By:

>>300751
lol ya tracking would be a huge problem.
I tried with my 105mm f2.8, at ISO 1600, 4 second exposures, and it was just too dark to get anything useable.

The 50mm f1.8's and likewise seem to be the best compromise since you can stop down a bit, yet still get bright shots.

Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM

Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM Wed 26 Nov 2008 04:53:00 No.300775 Report

Quoted By: >>300864

Well, I'm inspired. I'ma gonna borrow an 85/1.2 and try this out. Thanks for reminding me about this.

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr..

rubber shoes in motion !FwDS1IFr.. Wed 26 Nov 2008 06:23:00 No.300835 Report

Quoted By: >>300864

>>300730

i find that the longest i can go without making trails is about 8-12 seconds depending on where i'm oriented..

2nd try looks a lot better though.. congrats.

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Wed 26 Nov 2008 07:13:00 No.300864 Report

Quoted By:

>>300775
Ya the 85 f1.2 would work great, even better on a 5D.
you will be shooting pretty close to wide open though (prob f1.8 ish)

>>300835
Depends on how close to the north star (or the southern equivalency) you are shooting, focal length, and megapixels of your camera aswell. So its many other factors too.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 00:59:00 No.301296 Report

Quoted By:

oh cool

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 01:21:00 No.301306 Report

Quoted By: >>301315

stacking is the new HDR

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL

Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL Thu 27 Nov 2008 01:52:00 No.301315 Report

Quoted By:

>>301306
Lol, not at all
removing noise in excess can't destroy an image like an HDR can.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches