Autostakkert

[sury]

I had taken quite a few moon shots in the past always trying to get that one elusive good one.
I was playing with various astro stacking software (Deep Sky Stacker, Registax, Avistax, PS and
the latest one autostakkert. This image was a 40 image stacked using autostakkert and post processed
the final image. This one involves crop, BW conversion and sharpening in PS. What I was surprised was that
none of the individual images had craters but the SW was able to get them in the final composite.

With best regards,
Sury

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
WithTamron200500_g3_b3_ap236bwshrpx2ps by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]

[Birma]

Very nice Sury . Well worth all that effort I'd say.

[johnstra]

Did you use video to get your 40 images? Nice shot. Craters and mountains become much better defined on the 'terminator' which is the transition from light to dark when the moon is not full. I expect that you know that though, in which case forgive me. I used to do a bit of astronomy but at the time

[Greg Beetham]

Interesting experiment Sury, at first I couldn’t understand why it would be necessary to take so many images of the moon when the standard exposure for the moon is close to a daylight exposure, but I think I get it, it’s for additive resolution, I guess the stacking program did pretty well at that large magnification of what was probably a small size to begin with so I would have to say it’s not a bad attempt at all, what lens?
Wouldn’t you stack exposure as well? I’ve never done it but it occurred to me that if you add that many photos together at standard exposure the exposures might be additive also and the program might have to compensate accordingly. I could be wrong of course but I’m wondering if you took say 10 photos and took each one at 1/10th exposure there might be less artifacts in the final result…maybe.
Of course artifacts are probably inescapable because of atmospherics, each of those 40 photos will record a version of the moon with atmospheric distortions in various degrees, there would most likely be a few that will contain almost no atmospherics but those will be submerged by the rest.
I have spent a lot of time watching the moon through my telescope in the past and occasionally you would get a very clear view when the earth’s atmosphere would be momentarily stable from ground level to the top many kilometers above, but it was always brief and the mirage view spoiling effect would return quickly.
You had to make the most of those clear moments, you could see much increased detail that was not normally visible, the difference was quite apparent if you are trying to see the Hadley Rille for example (a channel on the moon about 1.5Km wide, one of many), and parts of it come into view and go smudgy as the earth’s atmosphere (warm and cold layers) moves around above the telescope.
Sorry to ramble on Sury but it looks like you’re getting interested in astrophotography and I wish you luck with that, I think probably an astrotrac http://www.astrotrac.com/Default.aspx?p=tt320x-ag might be a worthwhile investment, I’ve been intending to get one for a long time, I probably will get one, one day.
Greg

[sury]

Did you use video to get your 40 images? Nice shot. Craters and mountains become much better defined on the 'terminator' which is the transition from light to dark when the moon is not full. I expect that you know that though, in which case forgive me. I used to do a bit of astronomy but at the time

Bob,
Thank you. Those were all still shots in jpeg. I did know about taking shots of moon at other than full moon to get better definition of craters. No apology needed, we are amongst friends here. I think you mean something like this one, only better captured.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
060608BLmoonexp_g3_b3_ap121ps by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]

[sury]

Very nice Sury . Well worth all that effort I'd say.

Thank you Andy. Much appreciated.

Sury

[sury]

Interesting experiment Sury, at first I couldn’t understand why it would be necessary to take so many images of the moon when the standard exposure for the moon is close to a daylight exposure, but I think I get it, it’s for additive resolution, I guess the stacking program did pretty well at that large magnification of what was probably a small size to begin with so I would have to say it’s not a bad attempt at all, what lens?
Wouldn’t you stack exposure as well? I’ve never done it but it occurred to me that if you add that many photos together at standard exposure the exposures might be additive also and the program might have to compensate accordingly. I could be wrong of course but I’m wondering if you took say 10 photos and took each one at 1/10th exposure there might be less artifacts in the final result…maybe.
Of course artifacts are probably inescapable because of atmospherics, each of those 40 photos will record a version of the moon with atmospheric distortions in various degrees, there would most likely be a few that will contain almost no atmospherics but those will be submerged by the rest.
I have spent a lot of time watching the moon through my telescope in the past and occasionally you would get a very clear view when the earth’s atmosphere would be momentarily stable from ground level to the top many kilometers above, but it was always brief and the mirage view spoiling effect would return quickly.
You had to make the most of those clear moments, you could see much increased detail that was not normally visible, the difference was quite apparent if you are trying to see the Hadley Rille for example (a channel on the moon about 1.5Km wide, one of many), and parts of it come into view and go smudgy as the earth’s atmosphere (warm and cold layers) moves around above the telescope.
Sorry to ramble on Sury but it looks like you’re getting interested in astrophotography and I wish you luck with that, I think probably an astrotrac http://www.astrotrac.com/Default.aspx?p=tt320x-ag might be a worthwhile investment, I’ve been intending to get one for a long time, I probably will get one, one day.
Greg

Greg,
Thank you. I have been getting interested in astrophotography of late, and my night sky post was the first attempt at it. The lens on full moon shot was Tamron 200-500. Yes, I have pegged astrotrac/polarie as a possible new toy to acquire, depending on how much progress I make. I just got a remote with shot counter and interval shooting. I am now trying my hand at wide field astrophotography where with wide angle you can minimize star trails. I may get astrotrac (~$800 in US) or Polarie (for half the cost) down the road if trails become a problem.

As for the rest, I would be prevaricating if I said I knew what I was doing. I always went for volume, in hope of getting one or two sharp ones. My typical shoot may have 50 -100 shots at different settings and also exposure bracketing. I never took these shots with the intent to stack, and stacking was farthest in my mind when shooting moon. The closest I came to stacking was for macros. As I started looking at stacking for astral bodies, I stumbled upon this software and thought why not give them multiple shots I took and see what transpires. It looks like, I did something right that someone who knew what he/she doing would do. For me it is more serendipity.

With best regards,
Sury

[bakubo]

Good luck with your travels in astrophotography.

I haven't done it, but I do recall that in 1974 I took a photo at night of a street light outside our house and deliberately set the lens to the closest focus so that the light was just an indistinct, fuzzy white globe against the black sky. I took the photo on B&W film and the print looked very much like photos of Venus taken with high-powered telescopes. For years I would show my photo to people and tell them it was Venus. I got many oohs and aahs from people. Then I would tell them what I had done and would usually get punched.

[Wildieswife]

This is all out of my area of knowledge - but I'm impressed.
I've done moon shots and where the part shadow highlights the craters etc but I've never heard of astro stacking software. As mine are taken with a 300mm lens I have to crop in some - the 24.3 px help a bit more now I'm sure there's a good reason for stacking but unless I look it up (which I probably will) I'm not sure of its purpose at this sort of FL.

Bakubo - Naughty naughty


Pat

[Greg Beetham]

I think I would like to see the photo of Venus, of course any fuzzy blob would do but an actual fake Venus is another thing altogether.
Greg

[bakubo]

I think I would like to see the photo of Venus, of course any fuzzy blob would do but an actual fake Venus is another thing altogether.

I probably still have the negative, but it is back in Austin. Next time I am there I may try to find it and I will scan it. Until then I may try to get a new 2013 photo of Venus. I wonder how it might have changed in the last 39 years?

[sury]

Last weekend I was in San Diego, California and on my way back stopped for gas in the middle of nowhere and the (almost) full moon.
70-400 on A900 with 29 images stacked using Autostakkert. All shots are jpeg and handheld.

Sury


[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigsu ... .jpg[/img]
0222242013UCSDtrip_g3_ap125cropshp2xboost by BigSury, on Flickr[/url]

[Birma]

Very nice Sury

[Rhtubbs]

Sury,
I have tried to get a good shot of the moon. I have not been as successful as you.

That is a great photo!

Thanks!

[sury]

Andy, Ron,
Thank you.
Ron, I used to struggle to get that one shot right in the past and would take 10s of photos with different settings.
Ever since I discovered the stacking, I am having much better luck.

With best regards,
Sury