Moon shot

[tkoutdoor]

How can I improve my moon shots? Here's an example. I'm not referring to composition. :-) Taken with a 100-400L & 1.4x TC on a 5D. Manually focused by eye.

[le_R]

take several shoot in RAW and stack them with Iris (http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/iris/iris.htm) for example. The process is quite complex, but the result is very encouraging.

With the stacked frame you can for exemple show us the color of the moon. (stacking is a technic used to increase signal dynamic).

You could also drizzle your frames to get a larger frame (x2). then do a binning x2 on the result frame. this operation increase details and dynamic.

Finally use a wavelet filter to increase detail at different scales.

Other solution is to use a webcam with ir-Cut filter. You can find schematics to adapt webcam to objectives. Webcam is the killer solution to take moon shot. with a 6000 frames film, registax select the 2000 better frames for example, stack them, apply a wavelet filter. the result is much better than any photos that you could do.

Or if you want to take only one shoot, the only solution to have the finest details is to increase the size of you lens. a 200mm scope is a good start.

But i love you shoot, the result is very good for a manually focused by eye shoot.

[tim]

It's easier to just download one from Nasa ;)

[davidcrebelxt]

It's easier to just download one from Nasa ;)

But not as much fun as saying... I took that!

A scope is a good suggestion... they make adapters that will hold an SLR or point and shoot up to the lens (aligning it to the small circle of the viewfinder is the tricky part.) For SLR there are also adapters for PrimeFocus astrophotograhpy, where the scope IS your lens.

This shot I took a few years ago with a little point and shoot held to the viewfinder of a 6" Dobsonian Scope using one of those adapters. One trick was taking lots of pictures... I set my PS camera for infinity focus, then used the scope's focus to do minor adjustments until I got it right.... also consider going grayscale for a more stark look.

[tkoutdoor]

Here's a quote of mine from another post. I'm actually trying to do the kinds of things you're talking about, but I haven't had much feedback yet to my questions. Maybe you or someone else will have input about tscopes etc. that I was asking about over there. At least you can see what direction I'm trying to head.

Of course as you've mentioned constant re-adjustment of the tripod is necessary. I'd like to do an equatorial mount so I don't have to adjust so often and so I can get my ISO down to 100 for maximum noise control and clarity. This should also in theory make it much less frustrating to use a longer focal length since it can stay in proximity of the moon, so I expect that what I would put on it would become larger than what I have now. I hear something about stacking exposures to work out the noise is a method used in AP so maybe the ISO 100 isn't that relevant.

Currently I have a 100-400 and both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Typically my 2x does not give very satisfying results so the 1.4 may be the most I can do with my current setup. I have a 5D and a 20D that I would use and if my job (Construction Management) survives this down cycle I'll most likely be buying the 50D.

Astrophotography is not a driving interest for me yet, but it's enough of an interest that I'm willing to take small steps forward with my equipment. I'd like to have a budget of $500 or less for a telescope that can give me better images than what I can currently get with my L glass and extenders. That's not counting the GEM, and I assume I will need adapters that don't come with the telescope. I don't care to get fanatical about a GEM when it comes to price, but I also want to get well beyond a DIY angled platform with screws that one adjusts every 60 seconds or so. A computer guidance system would be nice, but it's not something I'd want to do right off "if" it can be added separately later. I don't mind selling my equipment and starting over with better stuff when I get that far along as long as I'm buying at a good price point to begin with and most of the depreciation is gone. Or if it's just not that expensive to start with.

Once I get into this I'm sure I'll be game to do some serious attempts at astrophotography as my interest is likely to develop progressively over the years. I don't mind buying used things if one can know they will work well or are easily serviced, but if there are a few stellar performers (unforeseen pun!) in the market that are new I'd be happy with that too. I know that sometimes the old faithful models could be the best value and that sometimes they are overlooked by someone who only sees the latest greatest as acceptable. I just want to make good budget choices and avoid the new salesman hype. Sort of like buying the 5D Mk1 as a starting point instead of a 5D MkII. A good budget choice in a quality arena that still produces excellent IQ.

I would consider starting with a telescope without a GEM instead of a GEM for use with my 100-400 etc. if it was less expensive than the GEM. I'd just fuss with the bare telescope for the things I can easily identify in the sky until I'm ready to put out more money. I presume that the moon might be all I could get with the 100-400 so the telescope might be the more logical place to start. I'm not absolutely committed to one or the other if one makes more sense as a solid economical first step. Ohh, one other thing. I do have an interest in having a setup I can backpack with (even if I get another setup later) so if there is something out there than can do that that's light enough and small enough for that I'd be interested in that to start with so long as IQ isn't overly compromised.

Thanks for the info so far and I appreciate the feedback.
Tim

So far in doing my own research I think I'm most interested in the Celestron 80ED scope as it fits most of my criteria, however I wonder about the Onyx 80EDF, because it looks like it has flourite added to the optics. It is in several ways not as user friendly (it appears to me) as the Celestron 80ED as the Celestron scope appears to me to be a pretty well rounded product. It's able to take a GEM mount and computer later on. It can be used for terrestrial work, it's pretty light, the coatings have done it justice in controlling CA's etc. I expect the Onyx 80ED would have the CA's well under control and be even sharper due to the flourite, but beyond that I think the practical advantages go to the Celestron 80ED. The Celestron is significantly less money too, enough so that I question the value of the Onyx in my case. I'd probably have more interest in building a real scope than a DOB. I've seen places with DIY info and sources for parts, but it's all interesting to me. Neither scope is especially good at my wish to have a backpacking scope though. The weight of the Celestron is negotiable, but the size seems pretty poor for backpacking. I'm most interested in getting planet closeups at the moment, moreso than seeing starfields etc. Have any input on all this?

Something totally related to the processing that I hate too and wish I could do something about is the pixelation at the edges of the moon. Not much success there and I see it in your photo too. Maybe it's going to be the issue with bitmap processing software. On the other hand, maybe the printer could average it out and it wouldn't be so much of an issue as I imagine. As to the processing... I used and adjustable grayscale conversion which I tweaked to bring out more detail and then I added a slight hue to show it as you see it. I like yours better, but I didn't like what I was seeing when I was doing it on my own. I can try to emulate that though. I took 25 to 30 pictures and I took 2 sets of 3 AEB series exposed +1, 0, -1 and trying averaging in HDR and Photomerge (CS3) from both the RAW's and the tifs. Nothing was producing a better result than what I could do by choosing a single RAW photo processed in LR so I bagged the blended exposures with PS. Maybe a stacking program could do a better job.

[davidcrebelxt]

Looks to me like you're pretty knowledgeable about the subject... not sure how much further advice I can give you.

If you're into deep sky subjects requiring longer exposures, just be sure to look into the proper kinds of motorized tracking (and know what you're getting into as far as difficulty level.

Back when I had time to do this (READ: BC - before child) I found this site to be quite helpful: http://www.weasner.com/etx/astrophotography/toc.html

[Nighthound]

Here's a quote of mine from another post. I'm actually trying to do the kinds of things you're talking about, but I haven't had much feedback yet to my questions. Maybe you or someone else will have input about tscopes etc. that I was asking about over there. At least you can see what direction I'm trying to head.



So far in doing my own research I think I'm most interested in the Celestron 80ED scope as it fits most of my criteria, however I wonder about the Onyx 80EDF, because it looks like it has flourite added to the optics. It is in several ways not as user friendly (it appears to me) as the Celestron 80ED as the Celestron scope appears to me to be a pretty well rounded product. It's able to take a GEM mount and computer later on. It can be used for terrestrial work, it's pretty light, the coatings have done it justice in controlling CA's etc. I expect the Onyx 80ED would have the CA's well under control and be even sharper due to the flourite, but beyond that I think the practical advantages go to the Celestron 80ED. The Celestron is significantly less money too, enough so that I question the value of the Onyx in my case. I'd probably have more interest in building a real scope than a DOB. I've seen places with DIY info and sources for parts, but it's all interesting to me. Neither scope is especially good at my wish to have a backpacking scope though. The weight of the Celestron is negotiable, but the size seems pretty poor for backpacking. I'm most interested in getting planet closeups at the moment, moreso than seeing starfields etc. Have any input on all this?

Something totally related to the processing that I hate too and wish I could do something about is the pixelation at the edges of the moon. Not much success there and I see it in your photo too. Maybe it's going to be the issue with bitmap processing software. On the other hand, maybe the printer could average it out and it wouldn't be so much of an issue as I imagine. As to the processing... I used and adjustable grayscale conversion which I tweaked to bring out more detail and then I added a slight hue to show it as you see it. I like yours better, but I didn't like what I was seeing when I was doing it on my own. I can try to emulate that though. I took 25 to 30 pictures and I took 2 sets of 3 AEB series exposed +1, 0, -1 and trying averaging in HDR and Photomerge (CS3) from both the RAW's and the tifs. Nothing was producing a better result than what I could do by choosing a single RAW photo processed in LR so I bagged the blended exposures with PS. Maybe a stacking program could do a better job.

Tim, my apologies for not getting back to you. I've had some health issues and a demanding work schedule as well. Last night I was able to post a Moon shot but then it was off to bed, wore out.

Your shot is very good as is. Possibly some curves adjustment in the mid tones might soften the contrast a bit. I've seen the Moon processed in many, many ways over the years. Some prefer the high contrast while others aim for something closer to what they see naked eye. There's no right or wrong, it's really just a matter of preference. As far as the rim pixelation, There are two factors most likely to cause this, one is atmospheric distortion and two is image resolution and how the file it is saved before posting. Seeing conditions are are critical to clarity, regardless of what is being imaged and there's not much we can do about it other than try to shoot when the odds for a settled atmosphere are best. Early morning (2-5 am) is when I've had the best results, radiational cooling has usually subsided by then and is a big player in seeing conditions. There are other factors as well but as I said, it's about the odds. Many nights I've passed on shooting due to horrific seeing conditions. Your local Sky Clock will help with deciding when a night is prime for shooting. Another aspect of clarity and resolution is image scale, i.e. focal length. Nothing helps image quality like getting a closer look via magnification with quality optics.

Your scope requirements are a bit of a contradiction. A portable, short tube refractor is ideal for travel but isn't ideal for planetary imaging. To get the focal length you would want for planetary you'd have to go with a longer tube design or switch to a reflector like an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain or mid size Schmidt-Mak to gain focal length. Unfortunately those would defeat portability but are fairly compact in size due to their design of folding the the light path using mirrors. Most however are not at all lightweight. If a short tube refractor is in the plan you could certainly invest in a TeleVue Powermate or high quality barlow to assist with image scale.

Stellarvue makes a very nice 80 ED as well and William Optics has a solid reputation for quality and optics as well. One other option might be Astro-Tech's line of scopes, well made and a good value. The nice thing about the Onyx and the scope's I've mentioned is the focuser. When imaging you'll appreciate the fine focus feature and if the focuser rotates that's an even a bigger plus. It makes composition much easier and helps avoid focus shift by manually rotating the camera.

Unfortunately there is no one scope for this hobby, which is why most have several scopes. Each has it's strengths and weaknesses. I use my 8" reflector for small to mid sized objects(and the Moon) and my Sky 90 and FS-60 for the larger objects and for multiple object shooting. I realize deep sky is not your goal right now but I'm just trying to show how I've geared up for versatility. Add a German Equatorial mount and various hardware, cameras and power items and it's easy to see why this is considered to be an expensive hobby.

Are you planning on using a web cam and shooting multiple frames to stack when shooting planetary? The best I've seen(outside of NASA) were taken in this way.

One last thought, telescopes are just like other optics, the higher the quality the better the resale. You'll find many very nice used quality telescopes as you would quality lenses. Most people, at least those that I know take very good care of their telescope gear.

Again, I apologize for keeping you hanging, I do my best to answer questions and help whenever I can. I'll get back here later today to see if you have any other questions. Gotta get to work.