Full Moon Handheld

He's So Funny! wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:15:42 -0700, Dr Hfuhruhurr
wrote:

[snip]


But you missed the funniest part about this of all!

He's so threatened by the superior images being posted all over the internet by
P&S camera owners that he even had to bother to try this kindergartner's level
of attempt to discredit P&S cameras.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it! Keep posting your proof of your being threatened by P&S cameras!! If
you didn't think they were a rival you wouldn't even bother.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awww... what's the matter little moron, is the realization of how much money you
wasted on those piece of **** DSLRs finally sinking into that only brain-cell
you've ever had?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The funniest part, to me, is just how upset you get regarding this
topic. You sound just like my 8 year old. That's what makes me
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - at your expense.

--

Len

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote in
message ...
I finally had a night with a steady atmosphere, so I
tried imaging the full moon handheld at 1000 mm (real focal length):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...3f-8s-800.html

This was done standing up with no supports and not leaning against
anything.
The full resolution image can be seen from the above page.

Absolutely amazing, Roger.
--
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:07 GMT, He's So Funny! wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess now we know who is responsible for last week's spike in the spot
price for '!'s.


Good call. But I'd short them now; they are very passé.

--
john mcwilliams

? "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" ??????
??? ?????? ...
I finally had a night with a steady atmosphere, so I
tried imaging the full moon handheld at 1000 mm (real focal length):


http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...moon.rnclark.h
andheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html

This was done standing up with no supports and not leaning against
anything.
The full resolution image can be seen from the above page.

Roger
That's an excellent photo, roger.You see, you have the talent, and you
deserve the proper equipment (dSLR) and have the technique, too.I have a
P&S, and it was not very cheap, too, it cost 180 euros.While it can take
very good photos, it's not a dSLR.It's more convenient for me than my film
SLR, because I usually carry my camcorder, too, and it's impossible to
operate the camcorder and the (d)SLR.While my Nikon was taking excellent
slides eg, it was very inconvenient for me to manual focus, maual adjust
shutter and aperture.I had before that a soviet Zenit SLR, full manual
too(M42 mount)that had excellent glass, too.Then I bought a Zenit with
aperture priority.After I was constantly failing with the film SLR (getting
older, not too much time anymore)film was already becomin obsolete and being
already a freelance electrician, I settled for a P&S.While I bought the FM-2
body cheaply, today's dSLR bodies cost much more than I would give for a
camera, and I'm taking so little photos, because I have much less time than
when I was a student, and went hiking and to germany and trips and so on.I
also have my camcorder, and the P&S with the camcorder combined cost me
almost as much as an entry -level dSLR with a kit lens, which I wouldn't
like, I'd rather have a good glass like a 50 mm 1.4.I live downtown in
Iraklion, so the closest shot to Bret's would be a feral cat, which is not
interesting.I have never used a modern (d)SLR with AF and the like, so no
idea how it feels, so to the present I will stick to my P&S.But people like
Bret and Roger, who are much more talented than I am, have dSLR and either
have good hosting (like Bret) or proprietary websites, like Roger, take
extraordinary shots of everyday objects,living beings like a cat, or the
moon.I can't do that, but I can take moderate pictures of the like, and
moderate videos of eg concerts.

Just my 2 cents....




--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:07 GMT, He's So Funny! wrote:
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess now we know who is responsible for last week's spike in the spot
price for '!'s.

Yup.

But we will all be better off if we simply ignore him.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:09:07 GMT, He's So Funny!
wrote:
: On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:14:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
: wrote:
:
: He's So Funny! wrote:
: []
: A HAND-HELD SHOT OF THE MOON TAKEN WITH A $250 CANON S3 IS P&S CAMERA
: TAKEN THROUGH THE SMOKE OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRES!
:
: http://www.pbase.com/donc28/image/87903942/original.jpg
:
: Not from an un-aided 6MP S3 IS. The diameter of the moon is too great
: (too many pixels).
:
: David
:
:
: Well of course not silly! Here's a clue from the original poster:
:
: S3 & Sony TC
:
: Don't you think it's fair putting a $98 1.7x teleconverter on a $250 camera
: ($348) to get nearly the same quality of image as an $8,000 DSLR +$5,300
: L-glass, + $200 2.0x teleconverter ($13,500)?
:
: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: Holy ****, when you add up those numbers this just gets more and more funny with
: every attempt that Roger makes trying to prove his camera was worth the cost.
:
: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
:
: Really now, for 39 times the price (do the math, you could buy THIRTY NINE
: CAMERAS for the amount of money that Roger threw away on his), don't you think
: he should be getting 39 times the resolution? AT LEAST???
: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: Oh man! This just get's so ****in' funny! I'm going to have to start ignoring
: Roger's feeble attempts at trying to prove to himself that his camera wasn't a
: waste of money or I'll never be able to stop laughing!!!
:
: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: Even more rich, someone has to justify this S3 IS photo by thinking the EXIF
: data was forged. LOL!!!!!! That just goes to prove Roger's DSLR is just one
: ****INGLY HUGE waste of money!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:
: COME ON PEOPLE! LET'S SEE MORE PROOF OF WHY YOU THINK ROGER IS A MORON! Thinking
: the S3's EXIF data was forged was a good one! Got more like that?
:
: LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This man is undeniably insane. If the docs ever manage to get his meds in
balance, he'll be mortified to read what he's been posting here. Common sense
says that he has nothing useful to say to us, and common decency tells us not
to egg him on anymore. We've been absurdly patient but should shun him
henceforth.

Bob

Don't read this if you are not interested in astronomical phenonmena.
I don't want to waste your time.

If one looks carefully near the bottom of the picture,the southern
edge, one sees that the craters there and only there have shadows in
them. How can that be? Ususally the shadowed craters run along a line
that goes north-south. The moon's orbital plane is tilted with respect
to the earth's orbital plane. This means that the direction the sun's
rays shine toward the moon and the direction from which we view the
moon are not exactly the same at full moon unless there is a
perfectly-centered eclipse of the moon and we are in the exact right
place. In this image there is a significant difference between the
direction the sun's rays are hitting the moon and how we view it, but
in a north-south direction, so the shadowed craters are near the south
pole. We get to see "under" the south pole compared to how the sun
"sees" the moon. It's not exactly a north-south tilt, but pretty
close. That's not often recorded so nicely in pictures. The moon
missed getting eclipsed pretty far this month.

Very nice picture.


Joe


Joe,
Good observation. The sun-earth-moon angle was 176 degrees,
The image was obtained only 1.2 hours from full moon.
So the shadows are from the sun being only about 4 degrees
off of direct illumination. (This 4 degrees is called the
phase angle.)

The shadows at the south pole do not result from the fact that the phase
was not exactly full. The phase angle isn't the critical thing here.
Thee fact that the moon is well off the ecliptic is the important thing
that allows us to see around to the "dark side of the moon" under the
south pole. Even if the picture were taken at exactly full moon (phase
angle 180 degrees), with this geometry you would have still seen the
shadows at the south pole. The fundamental point I was making was that
those south-pole shadows were not the result of the phase of the moon in
the normal sense. Indeed, the moon being at perigee help at a tiny bit,
and if the picture had been taken from the south pole of the earth, it
would have revealed a tiny bit more of the "dark side." Would you mind
if I showed this picture to my astronomy classes? Explaining the shadows
would be a good exam question, but maybe too hard for an elementary
class of non-scientists who think arithmetic is higher math.

Joe

On Oct 28, 2:23 am, Joe Miller wrote:
Don't read this if you are not interested in astronomical phenonmena.
I don't want to waste your time.

If one looks carefully near the bottom of the picture,the southern
edge, one sees that the craters there and only there have shadows in
them. How can that be? Ususally the shadowed craters run along a line
that goes north-south. The moon's orbital plane is tilted with respect
to the earth's orbital plane. This means that the direction the sun's
rays shine toward the moon and the direction from which we view the
moon are not exactly the same at full moon unless there is a
perfectly-centered eclipse of the moon and we are in the exact right
place. In this image there is a significant difference between the
direction the sun's rays are hitting the moon and how we view it, but
in a north-south direction, so the shadowed craters are near the south
pole. We get to see "under" the south pole compared to how the sun
"sees" the moon. It's not exactly a north-south tilt, but pretty
close. That's not often recorded so nicely in pictures. The moon
missed getting eclipsed pretty far this month.

Very nice picture.

Joe

Joe,
Good observation. The sun-earth-moon angle was 176 degrees,
The image was obtained only 1.2 hours from full moon.
So the shadows are from the sun being only about 4 degrees
off of direct illumination. (This 4 degrees is called the
phase angle.)

The shadows at the south pole do not result from the fact that the phase
was not exactly full. The phase angle isn't the critical thing here.
Thee fact that the moon is well off the ecliptic is the important thing
that allows us to see around to the "dark side of the moon" under the
south pole. Even if the picture were taken at exactly full moon (phase
angle 180 degrees), with this geometry you would have still seen the
shadows at the south pole. The fundamental point I was making was that
those south-pole shadows were not the result of the phase of the moon in
the normal sense. Indeed, the moon being at perigee help at a tiny bit,
and if the picture had been taken from the south pole of the earth, it
would have revealed a tiny bit more of the "dark side." Would you mind
if I showed this picture to my astronomy classes? Explaining the shadows
would be a good exam question, but maybe too hard for an elementary
class of non-scientists who think arithmetic is higher math.


But wouldn't it actually be a good question because it doesn't need
anything except a) a rough mental image of the relative positions of
the earth, the sun and the moon and b) some pictorial thinking (well,
also knowledge that light travels in straight lines!)? I mean, what's
the best way to test if they actually listened to what was being
taught than asking them to do some (perhaps directed) thinking about
it and conclude something interesting?

Those that can't do it, well, let natural selection take its course!

Joe Miller wrote:

The shadows at the south pole do not result from the fact that the phase
was not exactly full.

Yes it does. See below.

The phase angle isn't the critical thing here.

Actually it is. Phase angle is the fundamental parameter
describing how much of the surface is illuminated.

Thee fact that the moon is well off the ecliptic is the important thing
that allows us to see around to the "dark side of the moon" under the
south pole.

No it has nothing to do with the ecliptic. Phase angle tells the
entire story. For any object anywhere, the phase angle
tells how far off from the direct view you see, and that tells
you how much shadows are seen. See below.

Even if the picture were taken at exactly full moon (phase
angle 180 degrees), with this geometry you would have still seen the
shadows at the south pole.

Completely incorrect. Full moon is when the phase angle is zero degrees.
180 degrees phase angle is new moon. At zero degrees phase, the
sun directly behind you, shadows disappear. Another effect comes into
play also: coherent backscattering. See this paper and
references therein for quantitative examples:
Nelson....Clark... et al.:
CASSINI OBSERVATIONS OF THE OPPOSITION EFFECT OF SATURN’S RINGS-1
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/1461.pdf
This link has a nice image of the opposition effect. The
VIMS image has a field of view of 1.83 degrees, so the phase
angle varies across the image. The light from Saturn's
rings comes predominantly from small "moonlets" ranging
in size from a meter to cars and a few larger bodies. The opposition
effect is due to shadow hiding and coherent backscatter on
the frost on those objects, much like the grains in lunar
soil (just different composition).

So at a perfect full moon, let's say viewed from a spacecraft so you are
away from the earth so no eclipse, the sun to moon to observer angle
goes to zero, and every object that casts a shadow casts the shadow
directly behind it so you can't see the shadow. In order to see a
shadow, the phase angle must be greater than zero. A second effect
happens in the microstructure in the soil: grains hide shadows but
the reflected light in the surface results in constructive interference
increasing the apparent intensity observed from the surface. This effect
helps make the full moon brighter.

The fundamental point I was making was that
those south-pole shadows were not the result of the phase of the moon in
the normal sense. Indeed, the moon being at perigee help at a tiny bit,
and if the picture had been taken from the south pole of the earth, it
would have revealed a tiny bit more of the "dark side."

Don't confuse phase of the moon with phase angle.

An Earth south pole view would reveal more of the dark side because the
phase angle would be higher, about 5 to 6 degrees. Think about it:
at first quarter moon, the phase angle is 90 degrees and you see
a half disk. At 180 degrees phase, you see a total solar eclipse and
there is no sunlight crescent, and conversely at 0 degrees phase
you see no shadows.

Would you mind
if I showed this picture to my astronomy classes? Explaining the shadows
would be a good exam question, but maybe too hard for an elementary
class of non-scientists who think arithmetic is higher math.

Yes, but only after you understand and can teach them the
correct answer ;-).

Roger

Annika1980 wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:18 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:
I finally had a night with a steady atmosphere, so I
tried imaging the full moon handheld at 1000 mm (real focal length):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-1/web/moon.rn...


Hey Roger, check out this one I just took a few minutes ago after
reading your post.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87918090/original

Note the black bird flying across near the top of the disc.
Probably a crane migrating South. Moonbirds love the 40D!

Do you have any pics like that with birds or planes silhouetted
against the moon? I've seen birds go by quite often when I'm viewing
the moon thru a long lens or a telescope.
The first time I saw that thru my 6" reflector it scared the crap out
of me.

Bret,
Nice image. No, I don't have any similar images.

Roger