The Official Shoot the Moon Thread

navydoc wrote in post #19108583
Thanks for sharing where you have your pier set up. Unfortunately, here are the only yards I have. Measuring from my property lines to the edge of both my patio's awning and carport awning is 4 ft. It's even been suggested to me that I build a platform on my roof but that won't work either I'm afraid.

I see plenty of space in that rock garden for a pier!

I to get the idea of limited space; that's a reality in many places (especially cities, you have more yard than someone in Manhattan!). Just sharing the information.

Very best,

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19108508
I am sure nobody buys camera gear to shoot the moon, it is just that they have it available, the moon is dependable and an easy target, so why not shoot it and see what happens. I want a 500 or 600L for other things but definitely won't be buying those.

This is a very valid point; few people on POTN likely buy terrestrial camera equipment for astrophotography; but there's lots of astro here on POTN as a byproduct of them getting into photography and astro is just a niche of the greater concept of photography. Like all things though, right tool for the job is what it's all about. Just like you don't take a 35mm on your dSLR to a sports match. But, many do get into the idea of wanting to explore the niche of astrophotography, so sharing what's possible, affordably, especially relative to what people spend on dSLR/mirrorless and some average telephotos, its not about cost, but rather simply knowing more about it. Planting the seed so to speak.

Always look up!

Very best,

I would love to do sun photos too inspired by some of your supplied photos in another thread. So that desire fuels me too. I would love a wall of lunar and solar shots, I think it would be a good focal point in the room. I would print them on acrylics or metals. Fun!

MalVeauX wrote in post #19108591
.
..... its not about cost, but rather simply knowing more about it.
.

.
I would love to take solar photos that are every bit as good as you and Jeff take, with my Sigma 300-800mm f5.6. . Is that possible to do, just by "knowing more about it"? . Or if I want photos that are exactly that good, will it require me to spend money or otherwise acquire more gear?

I have a great interest in solar photography IF I can get results just like you and Jeff get - just as detailed and with just as high image quality. . But if I can't get results that good with my current lens, then I would just as well not bother, and leave solar photography to the experts. . No sense doing something if others can do it better than I can.

I know I have asked a similar question of you before, but I didn't really understand your response. . Anything technical seems to go right over my head, so very simple answers are most helpful.


.

I thought about it using my gear, but think I am better getting other gear.

I read through this article. The big thing is that you will need a solar filter.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …how-to-photograph-the-sun

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19108633
.
I would love to take solar photos that are every bit as good as you and Jeff take, with my Sigma 300-800mm f5.6. . Is that possible to do, just by "knowing more about it"? . Or if I want photos that are exactly that good, will it require me to spend money or otherwise acquire more gear?

I have a great interest in solar photography IF I can get results just like you and Jeff get - just as detailed and with just as high image quality. . But if I can't get results that good with my current lens, then I would just as well not bother, and leave solar photography to the experts. . No sense doing something if others can do it better than I can.

I know I have asked a similar question of you before, but I didn't really understand your response. . Anything technical seems to go right over my head, so very simple answers are most helpful.

.

Hi Tom,

Yes, it's possible with your lens. Your lens has a clear aperture of 142mm, which is capable of high resolution imaging of solar system subjects (its basically a very complex 142mm F5.6 triplet apochromatic flat field refractor with autofocus). You merely need the right filtration (for solar, sub-angstrom hydrogen alpha wavelength filtration; for lunar, any wavelength or full color is fine), a monochrome sensor camera (not a dSLR color sensor, they can work, but they're the opposite of the kind of camera needed for this style of imaging, it's done with video due to the much faster frames per second that can be achieved), and a simple tracking mount (all that is needed is right ascension tracking on an equatorial mount; it rotates at the same slew rate as Earth on its axis relative to the sky around us, freezing objects essentially as they rotate together). So yes, you can totally do it with your camera lens. Just not with your typical camera gear you are used to using and not with single exposure still shots.

That said, there's really no benefit to using your lens compared to using a similar sized basic achromatic doublet refractor (2 basic elements) that is vastly less expensive (your lens is largely designed as a zoom, with lots of elements to deliver a coma free, flat fielded, little to no chromatic abberation, low spherical aberration image) but this isn't a problem when dealing with a single wavelength of light. The images you've seen of mine (high res solar) were made with a $250 refractor lens quite often, a cheap achromatic doublet with a clear 150mm aperture and F8 focal-ratio.

The element you cannot buy or control with equipment however is atmospheric seeing (the wavy aberration you see above a hot road or over a camp fire is a good example of this phenomena), which is the great limit to what resolution can be achieved. This is why we use fast frames per second video to capture lots of images in a small time frame, so that when the atmospheric seeing conditions are momentarily steady and calm, it results in less blur, and a higher contrast, sharp image of your subject through the atmosphere. This is the key difference between the images you speak of and allows the image scales used there. Anyone can buy the right stuff, but the seeing is the limit and so its truly geographically influenced and time influenced.

This is what I mean about just knowing a bit more about it, it's not just a "get the gear" type thing, as its not a dSLR + camera lens, rather it's a camera sensor and all, but the focus is fast video; rather than focal length and how many megapixels are on a sensor, it's about aperture (the diameter that defines potential angular resolution) and sampling (matching wavelength of light to focal ratio to pixel size to differentiate the smallest signal from the airy disc, assuming seeing conditions are not the limiting factor); there's a lot of fun stuff to learn about it, it's not just point and shoot, so it takes a little more investment than just buying stuff. Not implying anything at all, just again referencing the idea that the only real difference is just knowing more about the subject and what current methods are based on available tech.



High resolution lunar surface imaging is the same as high resolution solar surface imaging; the difference is merely the filters and the atmospheric seeing conditions. So starting with high res lunar is a great way to get into it and learn how to do it. Seeing conditions during the night are usually much better, so lunar is easier in that sense and you can get away with larger apertures for higher potential resolution. Solar is a bit more difficult because day time seeing conditions are highly variable, often not steady, and much worse than night time seeing conditions (air turbulence) so it's harder to use the same size aperture during the day, so its more common to use smaller apertures for solar for that reason. But again starting with lunar surface is a great way to get into this if your interest and passion are there.

Very best,

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19108636
I thought about it using my gear, but think I am better getting other gear.

I read through this article. The big thing is that you will need a solar filter.

https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …how-to-photograph-the-sun

The key take away message in this article that is true is the last few sentences focusing on atmospheric conditions, the seeing (air turbulence) and that the top imaging platforms for this niche of photography are placed high in the atmosphere and in a location with geographically known laminar wind flow which generates steady seeing conditions (such as an island, coast on a peninsula, ridge side of a mountain peak next to water, etc). You can put a world class observatory in a location right under the jet stream and literally see nothing but endless blur. Seeing conditions is everything with solar system imaging.

My location has sub-arc-second seeing conditions in the mornings and at night, west coast of Florida, an area known to have extraordinary seeing conditions daily. This is why I'm able to sample the resolution(s) that I do with these subjects, with very humble gear. Seeing conditions are everything.

Very best,

.
Martin,

Thank you very much for the write-up. . A lot of what you said is over my head, but there is a lot that isn't, and I know more about it now than I did 10 minutes ago.

I am starting to understand that, as you say, there is a lot to learn if one wants to produce the kind of imagery that you and Jeff produce. . I would have to "get my head into it", and think about this stuff, and research it, for months, to get a comprehensive grasp on what it would take to get such images. . I remember how much of my life I had to invest in learning about wildlife and birds in order to get good wildlife photos. . Literally a couple of years of research, study, travel, picking the brains of those who knew more than I did ...... and mostly just obsessing over it and thinking about it 24/7 for a couple of years, along with thousands of hours of trial and error.

It seems to me that to get the level of images that you get, it would take a similarly huge effort, in order to learn everything that one needs to know to get those results. . And I think that's kinda cool! . Results mean so much more when a lot of learning and understanding have gone into them.
.

MalVeauX wrote in post #19108644
The element you cannot buy or control with equipment however is atmospheric seeing (the wavy aberration you see above a hot road or over a camp fire is a good example of this phenomena), which is the great limit to what resolution can be achieved. This is why we use fast frames per second video to capture lots of images in a small time frame, so that when the atmospheric seeing conditions are momentarily steady and calm, it results in less blur, and a higher contrast, sharp image of your subject through the atmosphere. This is the key difference between the images you speak of and allows the image scales used there.

.
So ..... this leads me to a question:

If the seeing conditions are almost always not good, and only get good for a split second here and a split second there ......

...... does that mean that you take all of those video frames in order to increase the likelihood of getting a frame during the one brief instant when seeing conditions were acceptable, and then using that one perfectly timed frame as your still photo?

Or does it mean that you are putting a bunch of frames together with software, in order to get a still image that is a composite?


.

It appears that the solar and lunar photography is much like other astrophotography, the more frames you have, the more that can be stacked together to produce a more complete picture. You can either take multiple stills, but if your camera has high resolution video (like the R5 for example), you can just do a video, and software exists to pull out all the frames as stills.

Never are you going to get the best image from a single shot, because the conditions are never exacting enough on a single shot. Those wonderful nebula shots are likely the result of 100s of frames stacked!

Decent article:
https://njspots.com …ng-the-perfect-moon-shot/

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19108839
So ..... this leads me to a question:

If the seeing conditions are almost always not good, and only get good for a split second here and a split second there ......

...... does that mean that you take all of those video frames in order to increase the likelihood of getting a frame during the one brief instant when seeing conditions were acceptable, and then using that one perfectly timed frame as your still photo?

Or does it mean that you are putting a bunch of frames together with software, in order to get a still image that is a composite?

Hi Tom,

Yes, this is precisely what lucky imaging technique is. It's rapid fast frames per second video so that a few frames, to many frames, are saved during brief moments of good atmospheric seeing. Seeing moves in waves (air), and so sometimes part of it is good and part of it is bad. We freeze the seeing movement (blur) by using very short exposure only (10ms, or 1/100th second or less time only). Because we are using such short exposure times especially with long focal-ratios, we have to use a lot of amplification in the form of ISO/gain, which adds noise and reduces signal to noise ratio and dynamic range. We then combine a few of these frames, stacking them together, so that the constant signal is preserved (stacked) and the random noise (not in each frame, different in each frame) is removed. The end result being a higher signal to noise ratio image with static signal (your subject) and less noise, and higher dynamic range due to less noise, which allows a lot more latitude in processing.

For lunar, the surface is not changing, so you can combine many many frames to decrease noise and increase dynamic range.

For solar, the features change rapidly, in minutes even, so you cannot combine as many or capture for a long period of time because the surface moves and changes and so your images will not align because they're already different. This is the incredible nature of dynamic star imaging because its unique each time, since features spawn and decay all the time and change in minutes. It's different hourly and daily.



Very best,

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19108843
It appears that the solar and lunar photography is much like other astrophotography, the more frames you have, the more that can be stacked together to produce a more complete picture. You can either take multiple stills, but if your camera has high resolution video (like the R5 for example), you can just do a video, and software exists to pull out all the frames as stills.

Never are you going to get the best image from a single shot, because the conditions are never exacting enough on a single shot. Those wonderful nebula shots are likely the result of 100s of frames stacked!

Decent article:
https://njspots.com …ng-the-perfect-moon-shot/

Video astrophotography is only suitable for solar system subjects that are bright(er). For deep space, long exposure still shots are used, because they're so feint with very low brightness and so minutes of exposure time are often used. We stack many such images because the constant signal is stacked, and the random noise is rejected, the end result in principle is the same, increasing signal to noise ratio, increasing dynamic range, by removing random noise. Also, scale is different. Deep space is often done at a course image scale, while solar system is done at a very fine image scale. The seeing conditions of the atmosphere are much more apparent with fine image scales (more blur resolved on less pixels of a given size).



Very best,

.
What a great explanation, Martin!

Even I could understand everything ..... and that's saying something.

Appreciate it.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19108859
.
What a great explanation, Martin!

Even I could understand everything ..... and that's saying something.

Appreciate it.


.

Yessir! Glad to help a little.

To dive deeper, here's a post from a bit back in this very lunar thread that goes more into detail about some of these concepts (that apply even to dSLR + lens):

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19087603

Very best,

The fun thing about the sun is that whatever you are taking a picture of is already 8 minutes old!

Good point about the sun's features constantly changing, makes perfect sense.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19108888
The fun thing about the sun is that whatever you are taking a picture of is already 8 minutes old!

Good point about the sun's features constantly changing, makes perfect sense.

Exactly!

And an interesting take on that, is that for lunar, it's all reflected star light, but also has an element of secondary light reflected from Earth (Earth Glow), making a very interesting object receiving light from the star but in two angular sources. That extra light transit between Earth and the moon takes an additional 1.3 seconds in addition to the 8 light minutes to get here from our star.

All of this is imaging star light. The only photons not from a star that we have here is the bio-luminescent stuff. How incredible that life found a way to produce photons like a star in the absence of one? Like some greater need of there to be light!

Even weirder in the coincidence category is that the moon is the exact distance needed from our star to mask it, completely, during a total solar eclipse. Any smaller and it wouldn't mask it at all. They're the same angular size relative to their distances we perceive them at. That's just crazy coincidence. Using this though, I have imaged both the moon and sun at the same time in the same FOV during a transit (a partial eclipse). The moon is of course underexposed by the vastly brighter star behind it, but still.

https://flic.kr/p/WHGH​jP
https://flic.kr/p/XT6T​Db

Very best,