If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
Good day, and thanks in advance for all help. Can someone either confirm or refute an asumption that a digital camera (7MP and 8MP) can capture starlight in a widefield shot using the camera's "bulb" shutter setting and RAW image format? Assume the camera is tripod mounted, and the camera's timer is used to avoid vibration of pressing the shutter release. Utilizing this method, I was able to get some decent shots of a moon/Venus conjunction using an old 3MP camera. While stars (and even their colors) were visible on the LCD viewscreen during attempted widefield starfield shots, stars would not appear in a maximum 4-second exposure JPG image. So, I'd like to know if higher mega-pixel resolution along with longer exposures and uncompressed imaging would achieve the desired ends. Thanks again! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
NightGuy wrote:
Good day, and thanks in advance for all help. Can someone either confirm or refute an asumption that a digital camera (7MP and 8MP) can capture starlight in a widefield shot using the camera's "bulb" shutter setting and RAW image format? Assume the camera is tripod mounted, and the camera's timer is used to avoid vibration of pressing the shutter release. Utilizing this method, I was able to get some decent shots of a moon/Venus conjunction using an old 3MP camera. While stars (and even their colors) were visible on the LCD viewscreen during attempted widefield starfield shots, stars would not appear in a maximum 4-second exposure JPG image. So, I'd like to know if higher mega-pixel resolution along with longer exposures and uncompressed imaging would achieve the desired ends. The truth of the matter is that if you go longer than about 4 seconds, you'll end up with star trails. Whether this is what you're looking for or not is something you don't specify. You can, for instance, stack a number of 4-second exposures to get a whole star trail exposure, with some obvious caveats (multiplied noise floor, gaps in star trails representing the moments between exposures). Bulb mode makes this easier to accomplish, since you have an arbitrarily long exposure. Shooting RAW gives you wider lattitude and the opportunity for a sharper image. Image resolution doesn't have that much to do with it, though of course the more pixels the better. :-) Some hints: http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD2.HTM If you want the stars without their trails, you'll have to come up with a rig that compensates for the movement of the earth relative to the stars. -- http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2..._argument.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
The raw format saves the data in the high bit depth (usually 12 bits)
that comes out of the analog - digital converter as linear data. This is extremely important for astronomical images. Best Regards Marcin Gorgolewski www.gorgolewski.com P.S. Don't forget to lock the mirror up before the exposure to reduce camera movement. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 02:19:48 +0200, "Marcin"
wrote: The raw format saves the data in the high bit depth (usually 12 bits) that comes out of the analog - digital converter as linear data. This is extremely important for astronomical images. P.S. Don't forget to lock the mirror up before the exposure to reduce camera movement. I never have that problem. I use a P&S camera that's not so limited and fussy. You don't need RAW, you don't even need Bulb mode. Just get a decent camera. Mine happen to be P&S cameras that do all this. One doesn't even have RAW capability and it takes some of the best star photos. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:19:34 GMT, Jim C. wrote:
Here's one of my test samples of what can be done with a decent P&S camera. The tall grasses being lit by a street-lamp about a block away. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2355/...23cb3a48_o.jpg In case you are not constellation savvy, I forgot to mention that that's Orion in the right-of-center to upper-right of this photo. Taking up the right 3rd of the image. Difficult to pick him out of all the other stars that aren't normally visible to the human eye on most nights from most locations. You can pick Orion out of the busy background of dimmer stars by looking for his 3-star belt (almost perfectly horizontal on the right), his star+nebula+star sword hanging from his belt (hanging in a 7-o'clock direction from the 3-star belt), and the brightest star of Sirius in Canis Major (in the left of center above the grasses). Due north is in about a 1-o'clock direction. Most people can easily see the obvious shape of Orion because light pollution or the limits of their eyes automatically drown out all the dimmer stars, except for those that make up Orion. Not so in this photo. He gets lost in so many dimmer star being recorded. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
Paul Mitchum wrote:
Some hints: http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD2.HTM If you want the stars without their trails, you'll have to come up with a rig that compensates for the movement of the earth relative to the stars. Could one take multiple short frames, and do an aligned stack to compensate (over modererate time spans) ? BugBear |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:24:52 +0100, bugbear
wrote: Paul Mitchum wrote: Some hints: http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TRIPOD/TRIPOD2.HTM If you want the stars without their trails, you'll have to come up with a rig that compensates for the movement of the earth relative to the stars. Could one take multiple short frames, and do an aligned stack to compensate (over modererate time spans) ? BugBear This is a normal function of frame-stacking used in all astrophotography. Here's the overview info from Registax (freeware) page. http://www.astronomie.be/registax/html/v4_site.html Note the 2 different alignment options: Batch-mode Operation RegiStax now can be operated also in a batchmode on AVI-files using a (currently limited) set of operators that allow you to align/optimize/stack and save the result. The command-list allows you to set: -filename to be processed -default directory -alignmentpoint X,Y (for single alignment) -alignmentpointfile (for multiple alignment) -first/last frame to process (block processing) -number of frames to be stacked -create reference (number of frames) -waveletsettings (filename) -autosave results (format) -autoexit after processing Added Input formats: Two sequential (multiple frames in a single file ) formats have been added both aiming at the output of Lumenera stylecamera’s: -16 bit (per channel) AVI format based on K3CCDtools format (Peter Katreniak) -16 bit (per channel) SER format based on LucamRecorder (Heiko Wilkens) Alignmentpage - 3 alignmentmethods (single, multi-point and none) - view full image (during alignment and during positioning of alignmentpoints) - user defined alignmentbox (draw an alignmentbox -single alignment around a feature) - option to “ignore” warnings (and frames) that are misaligned - allows you to define which messages (during alignment/optimisation) to show - predefined fits/tif image-stretching (usefull when datasets for instance do not span the full 16bits of a file makeing the preview look very dark) - automated detection of actual used “bitdepth” of imageformats (only for 8bits) to the nearest 2^n level |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:55:09 -0500, Jim Townsend wrote:
NightGuy wrote: Good day, and thanks in advance for all help. Can someone either confirm or refute an asumption that a digital camera (7MP and 8MP) can capture starlight in a widefield shot using the camera's "bulb" shutter setting and RAW image format? Yes it's possible. The link below is a shot I made of the Andromeda galaxy using a Canon 10D and a 50mm lens. (12 seconds, f/1.8, ISO 1600) The galaxy is that horizontal smudge at the bottom right hand third There's not that much detail :-) http://www.mts.net/~jwt/images/andromeda.jpg Interesting photo but I'm surprised at how much noise is in it. Quite a lot in fact. I was under the impression that the sensors in those camera could do noiseless high-ISO photography, especially for so short of an exposure. The Milky-Way doesn't pass through that part of the sky. The outer edges of the Milky Way are toward the top left of your photo but not passing through where the galaxy lies. According to the orientation of the galaxy the stars of the Milky-Way should be getting stronger to the top left of the image where yours appears darker and dimmer to the bottom where your star-field gets lighter. Mostly all of those dimmer stars are is just sensor noise, probably due to some sky-glow enhanced by vignetting. In cases like this it's good to do a histogram adjustment to clip out the base noise that you know not to be stars. Using noise-reduction software is useless because it invariably filters out valid stars. A good set of star catalogs installed into Cartes du Ciel, like the USNO SA2 catalog for magnitudes down to 19 or 22 can help for extreme photography. But something like the Sky2000 catalog with stars down to magnitude 9, or Tycho 2 to magnitude 12 at the most, should suffice for all single-frame digital camera photography. The center of M31, the Andromeda Galaxy, is magnitude 3.4 for comparison. I did manage to find a magnitude 9.6 star in your photo near the galaxy that I'm almost sure isn't noise, but beyond that all that gray mottling is noise. Try to get the background of the central part of the image as dark as the vignetting in the upper two corners by clipping with a histogram tool and it should be just about right. It might help to correct it with a gradient vignette-mask first to dim the center or lighten the corners so when it's all clipped it's done evenly. If anyone used that for trying to find something dim with their telescope they'd be wondering where all the real stars went to. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Starfields from "bulb" and RAW?
shane_steiner wrote:
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 08:55:09 -0500, Jim Townsend wrote: NightGuy wrote: Good day, and thanks in advance for all help. Can someone either confirm or refute an asumption that a digital camera (7MP and 8MP) can capture starlight in a widefield shot using the camera's "bulb" shutter setting and RAW image format? Yes it's possible. The link below is a shot I made of the Andromeda galaxy using a Canon 10D and a 50mm lens. (12 seconds, f/1.8, ISO 1600) The galaxy is that horizontal smudge at the bottom right hand third There's not that much detail :-) http://www.mts.net/~jwt/images/andromeda.jpg Interesting photo but I'm surprised at how much noise is in it. Quite a lot in fact. I was under the impression that the sensors in those camera could do noiseless high-ISO photography, especially for so short of an exposure. It is only a 12-second exposure! Probably boosted a lot from the original. Plus the 10D is a lot noisier than modern cameras (Yes I own one and have determined its quantum efficiency). A 10D on a magnitude 9.6 star in a 12-second exposure with a 50mm f/1.8 lens collects a total of about 600 photons (most likely spread over several pixels) if the star is directly overhead (less if not). An example of an M31 image with 28.75 minutes exposure and an f/5.6 lens at ISO 800: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...-v1.6-700.html For the OP: It may be that your camera in long exposures does noise reduction that deletes the stars confusing stars with noise. Even Nikon DSLRs in raw mode do this! If your camera does this, you probably need another camera unless you can turn off the noise reduction. If you are interested in night and low light photography, here is an article that shows waht can be done: http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo...ht.photography For low light work, you need a camera with large pixels. See: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary Roger |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
We sell and supply Brand New Unlocked Nokia phones"""" | Marc[_2_] | Digital Photography | 1 | June 22nd 07 09:48 AM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | February 1st 07 02:25 PM |
How to insert the "modified time" attribute in "date taken" attrib in batch mode | ashjas | Digital Photography | 4 | November 8th 06 09:00 PM |