11–20 of 26 posts
Isn't trackerless astrophotography one of the main use cases for software that can do stacking like Siril [0] and similar tools [1] out there? 0. https://siril.org/ 1. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAstrophotography/comments/1b7fz3...
Nowadays, most people who say astrophotography don't mean Deep Sky photography, hunting planets, nebula and galaxies. It's mostly the sky over a wide-angle landscape. "Astrophotography" happens at Totally viable untracked. The classic 14mm prime has gone from f2.8 to f1.8 to f1.4, and sensors have become really good at high sensitivity for a 15 second exposure. Quite often, that's enough. The hairy part is when it's…
I love the wide angle astro stuff, but I'm more into timelapse. But I do love "trying" shooting DSO as well, but tracking is obviously required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can , but dark noise is a problem with this technique as your SNR per bucket ends up being low. The purpose of long exposures with tracking is to maximise your SNR. Also, it helps significantly to be in Antarctica, where the relative movement is much slower than it is at lower latitudes — and to have multiple telescopes - and low noise CCDs, in a cold, dry environment. Sadly, most of us don’t have those luxuries.
what about computational methods? i have always wondered how stacking many short exposures without tracking compares to deconvolution of a single long exposure. it seems that there is software able to do this by taking into account both motion blur and the PSF of the imaging system: https://siril.readthedocs.io/en/stable/processing/deconvolut...
What about using a reflector telescope like a Dobsonian? Would it be able to capture more light lowering the requirement for exposure time?
What about using a reflector telescope like a Dobsonian? Would it be able to capture more light lowering the requirement for exposure time?
The conventional wisdom is "Dobbies are not designed for photography" but that assumes tracking is necessary for photography. I'd expect that for untracked photography a Dobbie would work fine provided you could lock it down in alt/az and the whole assembly was robust enough not to vibrate for a few seconds. That might be a tall order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what about computational methods? i have always wondered how stacking many short exposures without tracking compares to deconvolution of a single long exposure. it seems that there is software able to do this by taking into account both motion blur and the PSF of the imaging system: https://siril.readthedocs.io/en/stable/processing/deconvolut...
The problem is that the noise can swamp the signal. Another example of this would be doing astrophotography during the day. The sun doesn't block anything, it just makes the sky glow with "noise". Theoretically it has exactly as much signal from space as it does at night, but because the sun adds so much noise it's completely lost.
Do you mean that it would be conceptually possible to image planets or even deep-sky objects during the day with incredibly efficient denoising software? (I am a noob in astronomy)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conventional wisdom is "Dobbies are not designed for photography" but that assumes tracking is necessary for photography. I'd expect that for untracked photography a Dobbie would work fine provided you could lock it down in alt/az and the whole assembly was robust enough not to vibrate for a few seconds. That might be a tall order.
I guess it would need some experimenting. I was thinking of getting something like Apertura AD8 for visual observation, but I was wondering if photography with it is feasible.
Nowadays, most people who say astrophotography don't mean Deep Sky photography, hunting planets, nebula and galaxies. It's mostly the sky over a wide-angle landscape. "Astrophotography" happens at Totally viable untracked. The classic 14mm prime has gone from f2.8 to f1.8 to f1.4, and sensors have become really good at high sensitivity for a 15 second exposure. Quite often, that's enough. The hairy part is when it's…
I find deep sky astrophotography compelling because there's still a huge difference between _my_ image of a galaxy and the many "better" ones already available. The difference is that I went through the experience of taking it so it feels more like it's really there. It's the closest I can get to actually experiencing seeing the galaxy with my naked eyes. The ideal would be visual astronomy of DSOs but that'll never be possible.
Nowadays, most people who say astrophotography don't mean Deep Sky photography, hunting planets, nebula and galaxies. It's mostly the sky over a wide-angle landscape. "Astrophotography" happens at Totally viable untracked. The classic 14mm prime has gone from f2.8 to f1.8 to f1.4, and sensors have become really good at high sensitivity for a 15 second exposure. Quite often, that's enough. The hairy part is when it's…
> Old school Deep Sky is losing its appeal due to a) pictures being available online, meaning that you've already seen the better version of the same photo I find deep sky astrophotography compelling because there's still a huge difference between _my_ image of a galaxy and the many "better" ones already available. The difference is that I went through the experience of taking it so it feels more like it's really the…