11–20 of 36 posts
Interesting this field is changed significantly last 20 years. One thing is light pollution need to buy a big telescope if you can't transport it to the dark place. You have to drive 100+ from a big city. Second is advanced image processing with deep learning. There is no need for accurate sky tracker anymore, you just shot many images and software combines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better than a smartphone, mounting a DSLR at the prime focus on a telescope makes it really fun at star parties. I went to a star party for some kids with my scope. There were a bunch of other guys there with scopes- all of them reflectors with hard-to-see-through eyepieces looking at faint blobs in the sky. The kids seemed bored. So I set up my refractor, installed my dslr (turning on Live View) and pointed it…
Except a DSLR can't make an image that they take on their own device and walk away with it to immediately post to socials. that's the thing that draws them in. A DSLR image needs to be processed to bring out the true qualities of the image. Also, a DSLR's tiny little pixels while a literal shit ton of them means that objects like planets resolve very small in the image. That's why most plantery images are still popul…
Nothing stops you from taking a photo of the dslr screen with a phone camera, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except a DSLR can't make an image that they take on their own device and walk away with it to immediately post to socials. that's the thing that draws them in. A DSLR image needs to be processed to bring out the true qualities of the image. Also, a DSLR's tiny little pixels while a literal shit ton of them means that objects like planets resolve very small in the image. That's why most plantery images are still popul…
That's the point of digital zoom (which is built into live view). Nothing stops you from taking a photo of the dslr screen with a phone camera, either.
So other than planets, live view will just show the same thing you can see through the eyepiece (black and white). If you're zooming in on the digital zoom, maybe you need a larger selection of eyepieces? a nice 9° or similar?
I have a scope that was bought specifically for DSO imaging, so when I point it at the moon, the full disc is maybe 25%-30% of my frame in prime photography with my DSLR. Which is still cool as most scopes are so zoomed into the surface you have to scan around to see the full disc, which is also cool in its own right. with a 30° eye piece, the full disc is simply stunning. that same eyepiece looking at jupiter/saturn has them very very small but still easily identifiable. switching to a 15° gets to the point i need ND so the moon doesn't blind you, but brings the planets into a much less disappointing view.
but at the end of the day if someone looks at whatever you show them and is engaged, then by all means continue. definitely not suggesting "you're doing it wrong" at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point of digital zoom (which is built into live view). Nothing stops you from taking a photo of the dslr screen with a phone camera, either.
Except live view is just that, live just like your eye on the scope. To really get the benefits of a DSLR, you want long exposures like 20sec or longer to really pull in those photons. Then you probably want some auto-guiding to get longer to avoid trails, blah blah. So other than planets, live view will just show the same thing you can see through the eyepiece (black and white). If you're zooming in on the digital z…
I'm not using an eyepiece. I have the DSLR at prime focus. The reason digital zoom works (to give more details) is because the LiveView screen doesn't have the screen resolution to show all the data.
Trust me, I spend a lot of time doing this (I build automated telescopes, solarscopes, microscopes for fun). The DSLR sensors beat all the webcam sensors (I'm still trying to find an affordable sensor board with good specs, for example, the Sony StarVis, that I can integrate so I don't need to mount a damn DSLR any longer- they're too big and heavy and need too much power).
I think there's two camps- one that really like eyepieces for the amazing results you can get with bright objects, and one that likes to look at digital images in real time, or later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point of digital zoom (which is built into live view). Nothing stops you from taking a photo of the dslr screen with a phone camera, either.
Except live view is just that, live just like your eye on the scope. To really get the benefits of a DSLR, you want long exposures like 20sec or longer to really pull in those photons. Then you probably want some auto-guiding to get longer to avoid trails, blah blah. So other than planets, live view will just show the same thing you can see through the eyepiece (black and white). If you're zooming in on the digital z…
A lot of modern smartphones support long (~30s) exposures, with compensation for motion during the exposure. Under the right conditions, they can take some very nice night sky photos -- and I suspect they'd do very well on the end of a telescope, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except live view is just that, live just like your eye on the scope. To really get the benefits of a DSLR, you want long exposures like 20sec or longer to really pull in those photons. Then you probably want some auto-guiding to get longer to avoid trails, blah blah. So other than planets, live view will just show the same thing you can see through the eyepiece (black and white). If you're zooming in on the digital z…
> To really get the benefits of a DSLR, you want long exposures like 20sec or longer to really pull in those photons. A lot of modern smartphones support long (~30s) exposures, with compensation for motion during the exposure. Under the right conditions, they can take some very nice night sky photos -- and I suspect they'd do very well on the end of a telescope, too.
Interesting this field is changed significantly last 20 years. One thing is light pollution need to buy a big telescope if you can't transport it to the dark place. You have to drive 100+ from a big city. Second is advanced image processing with deep learning. There is no need for accurate sky tracker anymore, you just shot many images and software combines.
This is extremely helpful for professional astronomers, but having started astrophotography back in the day with a 35mm Rollei that allowed for arbitrary exposure, the moon, and a very numb index finger, I feel that the one image you produce with care and accuracy trumps the collage on some emotional dimension for me.
The collage is obviously the better image, but the amateur's photograph somehow captures both stars and stargazer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To really get the benefits of a DSLR, you want long exposures like 20sec or longer to really pull in those photons. A lot of modern smartphones support long (~30s) exposures, with compensation for motion during the exposure. Under the right conditions, they can take some very nice night sky photos -- and I suspect they'd do very well on the end of a telescope, too.
in 30s, the stars have moved. Do the phones somehow derotate?
Interesting this field is changed significantly last 20 years. One thing is light pollution need to buy a big telescope if you can't transport it to the dark place. You have to drive 100+ from a big city. Second is advanced image processing with deep learning. There is no need for accurate sky tracker anymore, you just shot many images and software combines.
I don't have any problems in a suburban area of the Bay Area with a small refractor. I can see bright nebulas, etc. The only reason for the big scope in a dark area is if you're trying to look at deep sky objects. You still need a sky tracker to get enough exposures and generally, you want the item centered because that's where the optics are best.