Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
Thread started 11 Jan 2011 (Tuesday) 14:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Show us your setup and the final result!

 
steelbluesleepr
Goldmember
1,234 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 67
Joined Dec 2010
Location: St. Louis, MO
     
Feb 20, 2014 11:30 |  #7576

waterrockets wrote in post #16703796 (external link)
Not even close. To resolve the 3m rover on the surface would require at minimum a 75m telescope at this distance. That would only give you a dot though, but would contain no detail to identify it as the rover. So it would take a telescope on the order of 300m-400m diameter to render enough detail to identify it, and that would be from a telescope orbiting the Earth. To overcome the atmospheric distortion that plagues a ground-based telesope, you're probably going to need something like 500m-600m.

Since our current largest optical primary is 10m, we are talking about something with 3600x the surface area of our current state of the art. So we're a looong way from this kind of technology. I imagine it would cost an order of magnitude more than the surface area multiplier, so like 40,000x as much money to build such a telescope, compared to what it cost to build Keck. So, $140 million starting point for Keck would end up at $5.6 trillion or so O_o


so not even something like the Hubble could see it?


-Jayson- my flickr (external link)
In the bag: 5D mark II+Vello grio/10d+grip/Canon 17-40L/Canon 28-135/Canon 50 1.8/Canon 35-80 Macro Conversion/Vivitar 135 2.8 M42/Vivitar 28 2.5 M42/Yongnuo YN460II x3/Yongnuo RF-602 x3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hokiealumnus
Senior Member
Avatar
914 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 188
Joined Jan 2014
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Feb 20, 2014 11:36 |  #7577

Nope. From the Hubble FAQ (external link):

Given the latest advances in Hubble instrumentation, image processing etc., what would the absolute theoretical limit for the smallest object visible on the Moon be?
Firstly we should say that a bright, high-contrast feature such as a star can be seen however small (in angular terms) it appears. In these cases the star would just appear as a dot. So, if there were a very shiny surface on the Moon that caught the Sun, it might be seen from Earth with quite a small telescope.

Here we will try to answer the related question of how close together two features can be and still be discerned as separate – this is called the angular resolution. The Rayleigh criterion gives the maximum (diffraction-limited) resolution, R, and is approximated for a telescope as
R = λ/D, where R is the angular resolution in radians and λ is the wavelength in metres. The telescope diameter, D, is also in metres.

In more convenient units we can write this as:
R (in arcseconds) = 0.21 λ/D, where λ is now the wavelength in micrometres and D is the size of the telescope in metres.

So for Hubble this is:
R = 0.21 x 0.500/2.4 = 0.043 arcseconds (for optical wavelengths, 500 nm) or
R = 0.21 x0.300/2.4 = 0.026 arcseconds (for ultraviolet light, 300 nm).

Note that the resolution gets better at shorter wavelengths, so we will use the second of these numbers from now on.

Hubble’s optics are now essentially perfect, and the telescope is above the Earth’s atmosphere, so this gives an accurate value for the resolution of the image produced by the telescope before it is captured by one of the telescope’s detectors. However, the detectors have pixels that are quite large relative to these values in most cases and this degrades the resolution somewhat. The pixels of Hubble’s latest UV-sensitive instrument, the UVIS channel of the Wide Field Camera 3 are 0.04 arcseconds across. This means that the final effective resolution of telescope and detector can be estimated as:
R = √(telescope optical resolution2 + pixel size2)

so for Hubble with WFC3/UVIS, and in the UV (300 nm) we get
R = √(0.0262 + 0.0402) = 0.048 arcseconds

Then, in an extreme case, such as the Moon, where there is lots of light (a high signal/noise ratio), it’s possible to do image processing (image restoration) and retrieve roughly a factor of two better resolution at the expense of some artefacts. So for Hubble, we conclude that the best resolution we are likely to manage is about 0.024 arcseconds (in the ultraviolet). On the Moon, at its closest distance to the Earth, this would give a linear resolution of:
363 000 000 x R /206 000 = 43 metres

So the minimum separation of two objects on the Moon that could be seen as separate when observed by Hubble in the ultraviolet should be about 40 metres. Unfortunately it is very difficult for Hubble to observe the Moon — because the telescope is rapidly orbiting the Earth the Moon appears to swing backwards and forwards in the sky very rapidly and it is almost impossible for the telescope to compensate — so it is unlikely that this limit could ever be approached.


Canon 70D - First Impressions & Review'ish Thread
Neewer BG-1T Battery Grip for 70D Review
Flickr Gallery (external link) | My Gear
The wanting never ends. The budget ends, oh yes, but not the wanting.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toolman21
Goldmember
Avatar
1,027 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Memphis
     
Feb 20, 2014 11:51 |  #7578

Sounds like chartering a trip there to see it would be a cheaper option. :-)


Toolman21 - Canon 60d & T1i (sold) - Canon 17-55 | Canon 17-85 | Canon 50mm 1.4 | Sigma 10-20 | Canon 55-250
My Flicker (external link) | Like me on Facebook to follow my He-Man 365 nonsense (external link)| www.heman365.com (external link)https://www.facebook.c​om …n-Digital/34796106523515​2 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
waterrockets
Goldmember
Avatar
3,935 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 282
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Austin (near TX)
     
Feb 20, 2014 12:55 |  #7579

toolman21 wrote in post #16704229 (external link)
Sounds like chartering a trip there to see it would be a cheaper option. :-)

In!


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dannybegood
Goldmember
Avatar
1,606 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Cambs,UK
     
Feb 20, 2014 13:43 |  #7580

toolman21 wrote in post #16704229 (external link)
Sounds like chartering a trip there to see it would be a cheaper option. :-)

waterrockets wrote in post #16704400 (external link)
In!

Wasting your time, it never happened!!


Danny,
60D,24-105 f4L,70-200 f4L,100 2.8f MACRO, Nifty Fifty, Σ120-400/20-40EX, 430 ex ii
Flikr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
waterrockets
Goldmember
Avatar
3,935 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 282
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Austin (near TX)
     
Feb 20, 2014 13:52 |  #7581

Dannybegood wrote in post #16704498 (external link)
Wasting your time, it never happened!!

In a previous phase of my career, I was an AI, physics, and weapons programmer for this game :)

(start at :28)
http://youtu.be/fPEMkD​fdbZ8?t=28s (external link)


1D MkIV | 1D MkIII | 550D w/grip & ML| EF 70-200mm f2.8L| EF 24-105mm f4L IS | Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC | 430EXii | EF 50mm f1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JoseCanseco
Senior Member
Avatar
689 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 146
Joined Dec 2012
Location: ON, Canada
     
Feb 20, 2014 14:58 |  #7582

Dannybegood wrote in post #16704498 (external link)
Wasting your time, it never happened!!

Exactly! Based on that Hubble FAQ, it sounds like someone is just trying to hide the fact that nobody's ever been on the moon. "No telescope in the universe can see the landing module pieces, so don't even bother looking. Trust us, it's definitely there, we swear!"

:p


My name is Jeff, not actually Jose Canseco.
Website (external link) Facebook (external link) Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Madweasel
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,223 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Fareham, UK
     
Feb 20, 2014 18:15 |  #7583

JoseCanseco wrote in post #16704638 (external link)
Exactly! Based on that Hubble FAQ, it sounds like someone is just trying to hide the fact that nobody's ever been on the moon. "No telescope in the universe can see the landing module pieces, so don't even bother looking. Trust us, it's definitely there, we swear!"

:p

You're missing the fact that hi-resolution lunar orbiters have now imaged the Apollo landing stages and even the tracks left by the rovers. The final nail in the coffin of the conspiracy theorists? They'll always come up with something!


Mark.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,420 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4117
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Feb 20, 2014 20:57 |  #7584

Madweasel wrote in post #16705051 (external link)
You're missing the fact that hi-resolution lunar orbiters have now imaged the Apollo landing stages and even the tracks left by the rovers. The final nail in the coffin of the conspiracy theorists? They'll always come up with something!

The "Moon Landing Hoax" theories are always fun though. :cool::lol:


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1054
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Feb 20, 2014 21:13 |  #7585
bannedPermanent ban

Was there a Moon landing??


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JakAHearts
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,710 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 1281
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD
     
Feb 20, 2014 21:38 |  #7586

We landed on the moon!!!!


Shane
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,829 posts
Gallery: 266 photos
Likes: 724
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
     
Feb 21, 2014 01:37 |  #7587

JakAHearts wrote in post #16705421 (external link)
We landed on the moon!!!!

Which moon???


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
5D MkIV 5DMkIII, 50D, 24-105/1:4L IS USM + 100-400/4-5.6L IS USM + 50mm 1.4 USM + Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + 580EXII + 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PaulTopol
Member
89 posts
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 21, 2014 03:30 |  #7588

skilsaw wrote in post #16702350 (external link)
This is proof that the moon is not made out of cheese. Or is it? Pictures look like Swiss cheese.

What camera did you use?

And what was your lighting setup??

I tried but my flash has no effect. Perhaps I should try during the day when there is more light?


1DX, 1d mk2, 24-70 2.8, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 100-400, 28-135, 580ex2 and other odd lights including Elinchrom 1200 and 600. Very Lucky!
Everybody deserves "The Benefit of the Doubt" until proven otherwise.
Have a GREAT day!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chrismarriott66
Senior Member
Avatar
797 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2012
Location: York, UK
     
Feb 21, 2014 04:38 |  #7589

PaulTopol wrote in post #16705872 (external link)
What camera did you use?

And what was your lighting setup??

I tried but my flash has no effect. Perhaps I should try during the day when there is more light?

580s won't cut it... you should upgrade to the 600s then it'll be fine... :p


Chris Marriott Photography (external link)| Facebook (external link)
Complete Gear | 1ds iii | 5d iii | 50d | EF 16-35 f2.8 L USM ii | EF 24-70 f2.8 L USM | Σ 70-200 f2.8 ii EX DG HSM | Σ 35mm f1.4 Art | EF 50mm f1.4 USM | EF 85mm f1.8 USM | EF 85mm f1.2 L USM ii | 600EX-RT | 580EX ii | 430EX ii | YN622Cs |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
juscuz
Senior Member
Avatar
826 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 34
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Colorado Springs USA
     
Feb 21, 2014 07:40 |  #7590

I'm guessing light painting......




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,111,224 views & 10,008 likes for this thread
Show us your setup and the final result!
FORUMS General Gear Talk Flash and Studio Lighting 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Espen Hestdahl
940 guests, 242 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.