#$% wind- messed up my Jupiter pix

[Cap'n Jack]

There's enough wind to blow the camera around- but I can see Jupiter and several moons on the LCD (magnify for focus).

This is the best shot all evening. Jupiter is blown out, but I could take two shots at differing exposures and overlay them so Jupiter and the moons look right.

This is using a kit 55-250 mm lens. Maybe it will get calm some night...but this is Nebraska...

 

[Swampfox201]

That's a cool picture! It's been while but I used to take astronomy pictures. Somewhere around here I have a nice picture of Hale-Bopp.

 

[flyersfan31]

I just downloaded an app for the iPhone yesterday, where you point the iPhone at the sky and it'll identify what you're pointing at. Absolutely amazing.

1st thing I saw -- Jupiter. I was amazed. I just thought it was some bright star. GoSkyWatch, I think it was $4.99. Well worth the price. Amazing use of technology.

 

[Ghery]

I just downloaded an app for the iPhone yesterday, where you point the iPhone at the sky and it'll identify what you're pointing at. Absolutely amazing.

1st thing I saw -- Jupiter. I was amazed. I just thought it was some bright star. GoSkyWatch, I think it was $4.99. Well worth the price. Amazing use of technology.

I have a similar app for my Droid. Free from Google.

 

[chucky]

I just downloaded an app for the iPhone yesterday, where you point the iPhone at the sky and it'll identify what you're pointing at. Absolutely amazing.

1st thing I saw -- Jupiter. I was amazed. I just thought it was some bright star. GoSkyWatch, I think it was $4.99. Well worth the price. Amazing use of technology.

Spend a little time with it, and I promise you'll know more about where things are in the night sky than most professional astronomers.

 

[Jack Spectre]

I took this with my digital cam and my 6" scope last week. Jupiter is pretty close and the view through the scope was awesome...

 

[flyersfan31]

I have a similar app for my Droid. Free from Google.

Oh you. Can't we all be brothers?

 

[JeffDG]

I took this with my digital cam and my 6" scope last week. Jupiter is pretty close and the view through the scope was awesome...

SLR at prime focus or lens-eyepiece?

 

[Matthew]

I'll have to did out my scope now. We've had such clear conditions lately, it's a shame to miss anything. Just got a new camera, so I need to try it out.

I got this picture about 6 months ago, also with a 6" scope.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I'll have to did out my scope now. We've had such clear conditions lately, it's a shame to miss anything. Just got a new camera, so I need to try it out.

I got this picture about 6 months ago, also with a 6" scope.

Obviously fake - no stars in the background. Just like the moon landings.

(I'm kidding. Really.)

 

[CJones]

There's enough wind to blow the camera around- but I can see Jupiter and several moons on the LCD (magnify for focus).

This is the best shot all evening. Jupiter is blown out, but I could take two shots at differing exposures and overlay them so Jupiter and the moons look right.

This is using a kit 55-250 mm lens. Maybe it will get calm some night...but this is Nebraska...

I have the same lense for my dSLR. I'm still trying to learn its ins-and-outs. What ballpark should I start in for exposure/shutter to get pics like that?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around show shutter/large f-stop vs fast shutter/small f-stop.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

I just downloaded an app for the iPhone yesterday, where you point the iPhone at the sky and it'll identify what you're pointing at. Absolutely amazing.

1st thing I saw -- Jupiter. I was amazed. I just thought it was some bright star. GoSkyWatch, I think it was $4.99. Well worth the price. Amazing use of technology.

You can see stars over there in Jersey?

 

[Matthew]

You can see stars over there in Jersey?

Just that really close one.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I have the same lense for my dSLR. I'm still trying to learn its ins-and-outs. What ballpark should I start in for exposure/shutter to get pics like that?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around show shutter/large f-stop vs fast shutter/small f-stop.

I opened the apature all the way (F5.6- it is a only a kit lens) and did exposures from 1 to 5 seconds. I was surprised how little exposure time I needed. The camara set its ISO to 400. I can try 1600 and I should be able to cut down the exposure time, and thus the motion. Other tricks to reduce motion is to have the mirror lockup enabled- it requires pressing the shutter twice; once to flip the mirror up, and another to open the shutter. This reduces camera movement from the mirror during the exposure. I also use a remote shutter although using a timer works well too.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I took this with my digital cam and my 6" scope last week. Jupiter is pretty close and the view through the scope was awesome...

Nice shot. I won't get anything as nice as yours; I'm surprised I get get anything with just a relatively inexpensive zoom telephoto lens.

 

[rottydaddy]

1st thing I saw -- Jupiter. I was amazed. I just thought it was some bright star.

I guess you won't need this info now if you have that phone handy, but there's a rule of thumb for naked-eye viewing of the heavens: planets don't appear to "twinkle".
Even on the clearest, calmest nights, all stars appear to flicker a little, but the light from the planets visible to the naked eye is very steady.

 

[Matthew]

Almost 9:30 here, time to drag the scope outside and see if I can get anything on the camera.

 

[Matthew]

Didn't work too well, I just aimed through the eyepiece of the scope. I moved the camera a bit taking the shots, but mainly couldn't get the exposure set properly. I'm just using a basic point-and-shoot.

Also attached is what it SHOULD look like.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Didn't work too well, I just aimed through the eyepiece of the scope. I moved the camera a bit taking the shots, but mainly couldn't get the exposure set properly. I'm just using a basic point-and-shoot.

Also attached is what it SHOULD look like.

That's actually not too bad, except for the flare in the middle one.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I guess you won't need this info now if you have that phone handy, but there's a rule of thumb for naked-eye viewing of the heavens: planets don't appear to "twinkle".
Even on the clearest, calmest nights, all stars appear to flicker a little, but the light from the planets visible to the naked eye is very steady.

I've heard the same thing. Why is that?

The light goes through the same roiled atmosphere with temperature variations causing refractive index changes; one would think they would both twinkle.

 

[chucky]

I've heard the same thing. Why is that?

The light goes through the same roiled atmosphere with temperature variations causing refractive index changes; one would think they would both twinkle.

Well, first of all, planets do appear to twinkle, at least to my eye under some conditions. But they do seem to twinkle less. I've always given the explanation that planets are resolved (barely) by the naked eye, whereas stars are not. Thus, atmospheric distortion actually changes the observed brightness of the star (that's the twinkle), but not the planets. I just did a quick google check to see what the angular resolution of the human eye is, and it's about an arcminute, according to wikipedia. The visible planets vary in size from a few arcseconds to 10s of arcseconds - close to resolved but not quite. Even the closest star (Alpha Cen) has an angular radius of 10-20 a few microarcseconds, though, so that's very very far from resolved.

 

[Matthew]

That's actually not too bad, except for the flare in the middle one.

Ehh - they're all overexposed, I couldn't get any of the surface details of Jupiter (the bands).

Well, first of all, planets do appear to twinkle, at least to my eye under some conditions. But they do seem to twinkle less. I've always given the explanation that planets are resolved (barely) by the naked eye, whereas stars are not. Thus, atmospheric distortion actually changes the observed brightness of the star (that's the twinkle), but not the planets. I just did a quick google check to see what the angular resolution of the human eye is, and it's about an arcminute, according to wikipedia. The visible planets vary in size from a few arcseconds to 10s of arcseconds - close to resolved but not quite. Even the closest star (Alpha Cen) has an angular radius of 10-20 a few microarcseconds, though, so that's very very far from resolved.

Plus - if it's not on or near the ecliptic, it's not a planet, and that narrows it down.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

By Jove- I think I got it...

...or as good as I'm likely to get...

0.5 second exposure, ISO 1600.

I tried decreasing the shutter speed, but I don't have enough resolution to see any details. This was the best shot of the evening.

 

[Frank Browne]

I'll have to did out my scope now. We've had such clear conditions lately, it's a shame to miss anything. Just got a new camera, so I need to try it out.

I got this picture about 6 months ago, also with a 6" scope.

Very nice shot! Lot's of detail along the terminator.

Below is a shot I took of the full moon that happened to coincide with it's perigee on the night of December 11, 2008. Photo taken with a Sony Cybershot digital camera by hand holding it to the eyepiece of my 10" dob mounted reflector. I did have to tweak the contrast a bit in Photoshop though.

Oh, BTW, your image contains a great deal of interesting detail that's hidden on the sunlit side. I can repost a tweaked version if you like.

 

[JeffDG]

Here's one I took back in the good old days of film:

M-13, the Great Hercules Globular Cluster

 

[Matthew]

I can repost a tweaked version if you like.

That would be cool - I still have a copy of the full-resolution (not the shrunk down image in the post).

I just stuck a camera to the eyepiece of my 6" dobs one night to see what would happen.

Your picture is very good with the contrast. I have a shot of the full moon, but it's pretty flat. Yeah, anytime you can look along the terminator you can really see a lot of detail.

I'll try to get Jupiter again tonight, if I remember. I'll put the camera on a tripod and use the full zoom (equivalent to around 300-350mm) and see what happens. I can't figure out how to set the exposure manually on that camera - I think it's automatic only - so I don't know what I'll end up getting.

 

[Frank Browne]

Here ya go Matthew....

Here is a photo I took of Comet Hyakutaki several years ago. This photo was taken with a standard Minolta 35mm with a basic 50mm lens. It's very nearly a full frame crop, so that should give some idea of how spectacularly long the tail was. The camera was mounted on a tangent arm platform I built myself to photograph Comet Halley in 1984-85. It's a 4 minute exposure on Kodak Gold 1000 film. Comet Hyakutaki was the most spectacular comet I have ever seen!

 

[CJones]

Those are some awesome pics!

What kind of special gadgets do you need to be able to take those kinds of pics? I saw where someone said they just hold the camera up to the eyepiece of a telescope, then someone else talks about whizbangs and doodads that reflect the moonlight off the swampgas or something.

I would love to be able to use my Canon XSi to get some decent astro-type pics.

 

[Frank Browne]

Matthew, I just tweaked the image you posted, but if you'd like me to adjust your full size file just PM me and I'll send you my email address so you can email it to me.

 

[Frank Browne]

Those are some awesome pics!

What kind of special gadgets do you need to be able to take those kinds of pics? I saw where someone said they just hold the camera up to the eyepiece of a telescope, then someone else talks about whizbangs and doodads that reflect the moonlight off the swampgas or something.

I would love to be able to use my Canon XSi to get some decent astro-type pics.

Well, let's see. I use pretty basic stuff. First, my telescope is a very nice 10" reflector, but it is in a Dobsonian mount. That means It is awesome for observing, but terrible for photography because it does not "tract" the motion of the stars. My comet photo was taken from a tangent arm plateform...sometimes called a "barn door" tracker. Here is a wiki link for a description. A simple barn door tracker is very easy to build, but you can get much better performance by building one with a stepping motor. Do a google search for "barn door tracker" and you'll get more plans and directions than you'll want!

For the full moon shot, all I did was set my camera on auto, and held it as steady as I could to the eye piece ( 25mm Plossl ). But when I downloaded the image just minutes after taking it, it was quite over exposed. A little adjusting with Photoshop and it popped!

 

[JeffDG]

Those are some awesome pics!

What kind of special gadgets do you need to be able to take those kinds of pics? I saw where someone said they just hold the camera up to the eyepiece of a telescope, then someone else talks about whizbangs and doodads that reflect the moonlight off the swampgas or something.

I would love to be able to use my Canon XSi to get some decent astro-type pics.

The pic I posed was taken through a Celestron C-14 on a permanent pier with a 2 minute exposure at prime focus (meaning I used the telescope as a really big zoom lens, there was no eyepiece and the camera had no other lens on it. The C-14 at PF is f11, so that gives you a focal length of 3910mm)

 

[Frank Browne]

The pic I posed was taken through a Celestron C-14 on a permanent pier with a 2 minute exposure at prime focus (meaning I used the telescope as a really big zoom lens, there was no eyepiece and the camera had no other lens on it. The C-14 at PF is f11, so that gives you a focal length of 3910mm)

Nice! I'm jealous!

 

[JeffDG]

Nice! I'm jealous!

Belongs to a club with a nice dome...unfortunately, I live almost 1,800 miles away from there now.

 

[Frank Browne]

Belongs to a club with a nice dome...unfortunately, I live almost 1,800 miles away from there now.

Ahh. I've wanted a nice big schmidt-cassegrain for as long as I can remember!

 

[Matthew]

I have a 6" dobs. As was said, not good for photos but good for general/fun viewing. One night I just grabbed my daughter's camera, and pointed it right into the eyepiece and snapped a picture of the moon. The moon, under magnification, really fills the camera viewfinder, and is actually pretty bright. The camera can then do a pretty good job of its auto-exposure settings that way (just set it to focus on infinity).

Taking a photo of Jupiter the same way means I have a large black area of space, with a bright disk in the middle. The auto exposure tries to compensate by overexposing and that gives me that bright spot that has all the details washed out.

I've considered making a barn-door tracker with a stepper motor (I can make that out of spare parts at work). That way you can get a longer exposure, more photons, and more detail. The tracker keeps the camera pointed at the same place in space and compensates for the earth's rotation during the exposure.

 

[Matthew]

Well, tried again, this time with the moon.

I tried different settings, but this is the best I could get. I'm using a Nikon Coolpix, but I just can't get the exposures the way I want them. Too much automatic stuff, not enough manual. The first moon picture I posted was taken on a Casio (I think), and worked OK without any messing with the camera.

Like before, I just stuck the camera to my scope eyepiece.

I took this picture about 20 minutes ago.

edit: I played with the exposure correction a bit and just took another picture a few minutes ago (the best of about the 20 I tried). There are just too many auto settings on this camera, and not enough manual.

 

[Jack Spectre]

SLR at prime focus or lens-eyepiece?

Point and shoot at the eyepiece.

My brother has a decent DSLR rig - I'd like to put a clock drive on the telescope mount and get some nice long exposures...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well, tried again, this time with the moon.

I tried different settings, but this is the best I could get. I'm using a Nikon Coolpix, but I just can't get the exposures the way I want them. Too much automatic stuff, not enough manual. The first moon picture I posted was taken on a Casio (I think), and worked OK without any messing with the camera.

Like before, I just stuck the camera to my scope eyepiece.

I took this picture about 20 minutes ago.

edit: I played with the exposure correction a bit and just took another picture a few minutes ago (the best of about the 20 I tried). There are just too many auto settings on this camera, and not enough manual.

They still look very nice.

 

[Matthew]

They still look very nice.

Thanks. Oh, yeah. There is some color there, with the low angle and all. I like the way the colors came through. I'm pretty happy with them, but I know the potential was there for better.


edit - I guess I should have flipped them to compensate for the mirror in the scope. The bright side was on the right. It was a great night for being outside, too.

 

[JeffDG]

Point and shoot at the eyepiece.

My brother has a decent DSLR rig - I'd like to put a clock drive on the telescope mount and get some nice long exposures...

You can do something akin to long exposures with image stacking.

The trick is image registration...ie. making sure everything adds up. Then it's a matter of adding the images together to get a better S/N ratio...a good piece of software for this: http://www.aurigaimaging.com/

Here's a great example of how it works:http://www.aurigaimaging.com/samples/IC1396_details.html