| ▲ | jfengel 16 hours ago |
| "Stitching together 343 distinct photos," I don't doubt that this is a real problem for astronomers and photographers, but I feel like if you had to work that hard, it doesn't really make your case. |
|
| ▲ | darylteo 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| In his defense, he was shooting a star trail. @10s per exposure, 6 per minute, becomes 360 per hour. I believe 30s might be more appropriate for star trails which makes satellite trails oh so much more obvious. But that means a 2-3 hour session of 2 exposures per minute. I also used to take hundreds of photos in meteor season - and having to diff between meteors and satellites was quite time consuming. |
|
| ▲ | threeseed 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| These photos are taken in pitch-black darkness. You need to take a lot of exposures in order to get the data necessary to even see anything. |
| |
| ▲ | testing22321 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a single 10sec exposure in the Aussie outback on old consumer gear ( Sony a7iii ) https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz You don’t need multiples, and you don’t need an overly long exposure. | | |
| ▲ | genewitch 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | It sounds like you know what you're talking about until one realizes the earth is spinning. Wide field photos can be shot up to thirty seconds depending on the back and lens. Anything more zoomy than 50mm uncropped you're getting streaks in < dozen seconds. There's a rule of thumb but I don't remember it. Best course of action is to take a video and let a stacking program deal with it, especially if you use a real telescope. Also the Sony a7r have like "150,000 ISO " and iirc cost like $3500 with a kit lens. That's a bit above consumer, but I may have mixed up models. | | |
| ▲ | testing22321 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My camera is not an a7r. I paid $1200 for it used. The exposure was 10 seconds, so by your own explanation, the spinning of the earth is not a problem ( as you can clearly see in the photo I linked ) | | |
| ▲ | teamonkey 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | An astronomy photo can commonly require hours or even tens of hours of exposure time. |
| |
| ▲ | joshvm 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Tens of seconds is about right. It's something like 500/f(mm) in seconds, but you get a feel for what will blur and what won't. Here's an example I shot with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 @ 20s: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-mU6iIp0re/?igsh=cm16bWx1cGp3OG... |
|
| |
| ▲ | rafram 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, you need to take a long exposure. Multiple exposures may improve the quality but isn’t necessary at all. | | |
| ▲ | teamonkey 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If the camera is stationary you must stack multiple short exposures to avoid star trails. You can only take long exposures with an equatorial mount. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not if your “long” exposure is just 10s long, which is enough to get those annoying starlink trails. | | |
| ▲ | teamonkey 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure, 10s is certainly long enough to capture Starlink trails, though 10s exposure is not especially long for an astro photo and you would typically want to take longer exposures or stack multiple shorter ones. For example, my Seestar S50 takes many 10-second photos to form one exposure. I would normally expect to take 1500 10-second exposures or more for a good picture, perhaps over mutiple nights (although this is very different to a wide-field image like this). A Starlink trail would be very visible in any individual frame, often brighter than stars, and I would expect to capture many individual frames containing starlink trails. |
|
|
|
|
