I'm not aware of a digital camera that can take a 10 minute continuous exposure, but maybe there are special astronomy cameras that can?

▲

nayuki 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Pretty much every DSLR/DSLM camera out there has a "bulb" mode that keeps the shutter open as long as you hold down the shutter button. I think my personal record is a 20-minute exposure.

As for actually holding down the button, you can either use an external wired shutter button that has a mechanical lock to hold it down, or you use a wired controller that has an electronic timer, or you use a software feature in the camera to set the bulb timer.

▲

jlarocco 2 days ago | parent [-]

For anybody wondering, the reason not to do a single ultra-long exposures is noise.

There's an equilibrium between exposure duration, aperture, and ISO that gives the best results for the conditions with a minimum amount of sensor noise, and getting close to the equilibrium and stacking the images typically gives better results than one massive exposure.

▲

nayuki 2 days ago | parent [-]

I believe your claim about noise and long exposures is false. To start, I posit that there are three sources of noise:

0) Photon shot noise from the object that you want to photograph. This is an inherent and unchangeable quantum-mechanical fact.

1) Sensor read noise per photo taken. This increases with the number of subexposures.

2) Dark current noise per time and per temperature.

#0 and #2 only depend on the total exposure time, not the number of subexposures. #1 actually gets worse with more subexposures, but what you gain are the ability to reject satellite trails, bad mount tracking, cosmic rays, wind gusts, rolling clouds, and other transient artifacts. Whereas if you took a single hour-long exposure, it's essentially guaranteed to be ruined by something.

The trade-off in how many / how long subexposures to take has been analyzed and discussed to death by astro imagers. To cite a few videos I enjoyed: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=astrophotograph... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_k9B01AeFM , https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaDi49CzWbrYhWEKxWiwB... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5zn_Jz3dE , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1RbyswFUqs

As for ISO, it is very commonly misunderstood. ISO amplifies photon noise and dark current noise, and changing the ISO doesn't make your images better or worse in these aspects. ISO in the form of analog gain can help boost the signal above the analog-to-digital converter noise, and that's what it's useful for. The MinutePhysics video explains excellently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWSvHBG7X0w . More and more sensors these days approach "ISO invariance", where analog amplifier gain has about the same effect as digital gain (i.e. multiplying the measured numbers on a computer).

Exactly what I'm refuting:

> exposure duration

In astronomy, more is better. Get as much total exposure time as you can afford (e.g. time being at a suitable location, time spent monitoring the equipment, time under clear skies).

> aperture

In astronomy, more is better. Buy the biggest aperture you can afford - obviously, subject to constraints such as cost, weight, mountability, focal length. Also, telescopes don't have adjustable aperture blades, unlike general photographic lenses. You could put a disc cut-out in front of the telescope to close down the aperture, but that's just a waste of light.

> minimum amount of sensor noise

You get the least amount of sensor noise by reducing the exposure time and reducing the temperature (dedicated astro cameras have Peltier cooling). Note that although noise increases with time, signal increases with time faster, so the signal-to-noise ratio is proportional to the square root of time. So 100× more exposure time gives you a 10× better SNR.

> stacking the images typically gives better results than one massive exposure

This is the main falsehood that I wanted to address. Taking multiple images actually gives more noise overall, even if it's a tiny bit. But multiple images gives you much more processing flexibility and the ability to selectively reject things.

	▲	tejtm 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Exposure time (in digital imaging) is directly related to sensor well saturation. It does not mater how much water you pour into a full bucket.

▲

zimpenfish 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do iPhones count?

I've taken multi-hour continuous exposures on my iPhone + iPad (both "normal" and "light trail" variants.)

By the looks of [0], you can do at least 90 seconds on the Olympus E-M5 MK II - which is what I have and I'll see if it can do 10 minutes tonight.

[0] https://www.olympuspassion.com/2019/08/26/long-exposures-wit...

▲

AntiUSAbah 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My Canon can do this without modification and its 8 years old. Switch to bulp and have an external mini device which you connect with a microphone cable and it creates the signal for shutter off after x minutes.

For extra long exposre its recommended to use also a stable powersource.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

adolph 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How is a 10 minute continuous exposure functionally different from 10 minutes of video with every frame stacked? In the former, each photodiode acts as a compositor for each pixel instead of whatever algorithm is chosen to combine frames in the latter?

	▲	nayuki 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You pay the read noise every time you read out the sensor and digitize the values. Also, you lose a tiny bit of time between exposures as the sensor resets itself. And you might have a bottleneck in moving the data off the sensor and saving the image. Furthermore, if you perform lossy compression on the video, then your digitally stacked image will differ significantly from analog stacking on the silicon sensor.