Love the use of the apparent size of the moon for scale. Really gives you an awesome sense of what you’re not seeing in the sky in cities with your own eyes.
Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
61–70 of 141 posts
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#62Over that long period of time, isn’t there the effect of star movement at least a tiny bit visible?
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#63Good time to take this to an auction and sell as an NFT :)
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#64Earthlings that liked this link may also enjoy: https://www.astrobin.com/iotd/archive/
(massive archive of amateur astrophotography images + equipment/processing details)
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#65This is amazing! When taking long exposures like this over a significant amount of time, does anyone know how astronomers account for stellar parallax and/or the sun's orbit in the milky way? Are these factors too small to affect long exposure photos? And if they are too small to affect a long exposure photo, at what point does it become an issue?
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the same question! Related question: If someone wanted to print something like this for themselves, how would they go about it? Say, I have an image or photo and I wanted to make a high quality print suitable for framing and hanging on, say, my office wall. Is this an 'Ask HN' question?
I've done high quality large prints from https://www.bayphoto.com/ . They did a great job and have different archival paper to choose from. Got the print from there and used a local framing shop to get it professionally framed.
Second bayphoto for metal prints. I have gotten stunning results.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#67Over that long period of time, isn’t there the effect of star movement at least a tiny bit visible?
[deleted]
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#68Over that long period of time, isn’t there the effect of star movement at least a tiny bit visible?
12 years might be too short of a time frame for objects that are moving about 1/1000 of the speed of light.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of 50 or 100 years. The center should be rotating faster or slower?
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#69This is amazing! When taking long exposures like this over a significant amount of time, does anyone know how astronomers account for stellar parallax and/or the sun's orbit in the milky way? Are these factors too small to affect long exposure photos? And if they are too small to affect a long exposure photo, at what point does it become an issue?
Stellar parallax isn't a big effect. It wasn't even observable until the 1800s. Even the Hubble cannot measure parallax past about 10,000 lightyears, which is about 10% of the size of the Milky Way. For earth bound telescopes at this scale, it's totally negligible.
Re: Milky Way, 12 years, 1250 hours of exposures and 125 x 22 degrees of sky
#70Wow amazing work! The scale of this project reminds me of another photographer's five year project of creating a 2.5 gigapixel photo of Orion: https://orion2020v5b.spaceforeverybody.com/
Looking at these pictures, I've began to ponder how much of an influence the night sky has been in religion and mythology throughout the millennia.
Agreed. I very recently was thinking about how humans up to a few hundred years ago must have seen the most breath taking night skies. Imagine a native American standing in a clearing at night 2000 years ago, with zero light pollution, looking at the night sky and just wondering what it is all about.