Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [PanoToolsNG] Stars and coma aberration

Expand Messages
  • Sacha Griffin
    That s a lovely shot Peter. Thank you for sharing. Best Regards, Sacha Griffin Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia http://www.seeit360.com
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 13, 2013

      That’s a lovely shot Peter. Thank you for sharing.

       

      Best Regards,

       

      Sacha Griffin

      Southern Digital Solutions LLC  - Atlanta, Georgia

      http://www.seeit360.com

      http://twitter.com/SeeIt360

      http://www.facebook.com/SeeIt360

      IM: sachagriffin007@...

      Office: 404-551-4275

       

       

      From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of panovrx
      Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 7:37 PM
      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Stars and coma aberration

       

       

      http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/overcoming-coma-aberration-part-2.html

      Nightscapes with stars are a popular genre on Flickr etc and there is a lot of discussion on the best lenses to use. The Samyang rectilinear wide angles are very popular for this and lenses that you think might be good, like the 24mm f1.4 Canon are actually not good at all. I can confirm that this Canon lens is not very good for stars having rented one for a star panorama. (Coma is the problem). A great lens for other low light subjects though.

      Eventually I just used my Canon 8-15mm. (f4 at 30 seconds at 12mm). Misting is a big problem on cold nights.

      http://www.mediavr.com/stars/stars.htm

      One peculiarity about star photos is that with modern cameras you can easily record lots of stars but the brightest stars, the ones that we recognize as the constellations, get lost in the myriads of stars. Ideally there would be a filter that thins out the faintest stars without dimming the nebulosities.

      PeterM

    • Erik Krause
      ... Slight defocus can help to see the constellations clearer. This way bright stars appear larger while faint ones get invisible. A sharp image can be done in
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 16, 2013
        Am 14.09.2013 01:36, schrieb panovrx:
        > One peculiarity about star photos is that with modern cameras you can
        > easily record lots of stars but the brightest stars, the ones that we
        > recognize as the constellations, get lost in the myriads of stars.
        > Ideally there would be a filter that thins out the faintest stars
        > without dimming the nebulosities.

        Slight defocus can help to see the constellations clearer. This way
        bright stars appear larger while faint ones get invisible. A sharp image
        can be done in a second step to get the faint stars and the terrestrial
        subjects.

        --
        Erik Krause
        http://www.erik-krause.de
      • Carl von Einem
        ... This might work in a similar way with a masking technique in Photoshop (or GIMP). Take your already shot (focused) image of the sky, on a copied layer
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 17, 2013
          > Posted by: "Erik Krause" on Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:39 am ((PDT))
          >
          > Am 14.09.2013 01:36, schrieb panovrx:
          >> One peculiarity about star photos is that with modern cameras you can
          >> easily record lots of stars but the brightest stars, the ones that we
          >> recognize as the constellations, get lost in the myriads of stars.
          >> Ideally there would be a filter that thins out the faintest stars
          >> without dimming the nebulosities.
          >
          > Slight defocus can help to see the constellations clearer. This way
          > bright stars appear larger while faint ones get invisible. A sharp image
          > can be done in a second step to get the faint stars and the terrestrial
          > subjects.

          This might work in a similar way with a masking technique in Photoshop
          (or GIMP). Take your already shot (focused) image of the sky, on a
          copied layer apply a Gaussian blur (start with a small value like 0.5)
          and after that compress the levels (Cmd+L in Photoshop) for that layer.
          Set layer to brighten only.

          Carl
        • Erik Krause
          ... This might have some effect, but not the same like defocus when shooting. The reason is that bright stars get overexposed soon. Since they are a single
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 17, 2013
            Am 17.09.2013 13:06, schrieb Carl von Einem:
            >> >Slight defocus can help to see the constellations clearer. This way
            >> >bright stars appear larger while faint ones get invisible. A sharp image
            >> >can be done in a second step to get the faint stars and the terrestrial
            >> >subjects.
            > This might work in a similar way with a masking technique in Photoshop
            > (or GIMP). Take your already shot (focused) image of the sky, on a
            > copied layer apply a Gaussian blur (start with a small value like 0.5)
            > and after that compress the levels (Cmd+L in Photoshop) for that layer.
            > Set layer to brighten only.

            This might have some effect, but not the same like defocus when
            shooting. The reason is that bright stars get overexposed soon. Since
            they are a single point when focused correctly they get and stay white.
            If defocused the light is distributed across several pixels which aren't
            overexposed that fast. This way you might even discover, that stars are
            actually colored (like I did years ago when shooting the night sky over
            altiplano in Peru - one of the regions with least light pollution in the
            world BTW).

            --
            Erik Krause
            http://www.erik-krause.de
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.