sury wrote:Wow. Fantastic. Love the time lapse sequence. May I ask how you achieved it?
The shot is (obviously) a composite, and one of the most difficult/involved post processing project I've ever undertaken. I set up two cameras (on tripods) to shoot at 10 min intervals. I had 1 with a wide lens (approx 17 mm @ 35mm equivalent) set up to track the position of the moon, and a second with a 70-200mm @ 200mm to capture a detailed image of the moon. I decided to do it that way to get the maximum detail and balanced exposure of the moon and the foreground at the same time. Given the significant change in luminance of the moon during the eclipse, and the significant difference between the luminance moon and the rest of the scene, I felt the two camera solution was the best solution. I could keep my base layer exposure relatively constant (f/8, ISO 400, 2-4 seconds exposures) while adjusting the exposure for the moon (Those were shot at a variety of ISO's F/stops and Exposure times. I think they ranged from around F/8 ISO 200, 1/125 for the full moon shots to F/5.6 ISO 800, 2+ seconds for the shots at totality. Given the Rule of 600
, I didn't want to go above 3 seconds for the shots of the moon (or above iso 800)) as the luminance of the moon changed. I also wanted to keep the f/stop in the middle ranges for maximum sharpness. This had more to do with the optical qualities of the lens, than hyperfocal distance (plug 186,000 miles into your handy dandy Hyperfocal distance calculator.
So with the wide shot as my base layer, I then imported the next time sequence wide shot, aligned the layers, and reduced the opacity to where I could see the position of the moon. I then opened the corresponding detailed moon pic, selected the moon, pasted it to the base image as a new layer, reduced the scale to the base image and (manually) aligned it's position with the correct time sequence moon on the base image. I then deleted the wide time sequence layer and repeated the process.