I think his depiction of Andromeda is a bit exaggerated (well, he's comparing it to the moon but the picture makes it look a lot bigger because of the horizon)
[thumb]http://a.images.blip.tv/SpaceRip-MilkyWayVersusAndromedaAsSeenFromEarth460-390.jpg[/thumb]
Those distortions at the end were amazing.
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;43903390]Those distortions at the end were amazing.[/QUOTE]
A camera made with a scanner can give you such trippy effects.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NgZCR4TE1zM/TI_W6_kLKxI/AAAAAAAAAF8/qjahljYnwMI/s1600/4.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;43903371]I think his depiction of Andromeda is a bit exaggerated (well, he's comparing it to the moon but the picture makes it look a lot bigger because of the horizon)[/QUOTE]
It's actually not. It's quite massive. Here's a picture Facepunch user LarparNar took of Andromeda with what I think is his 7D camera and a 300mm lens, on a very long shutter speed.
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31/q79/s720x720/966884_666180856737820_2117969845_o.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;43903371]I think his depiction of Andromeda is a bit exaggerated (well, he's comparing it to the moon but the picture makes it look a lot bigger because of the horizon)
[thumb]http://a.images.blip.tv/SpaceRip-MilkyWayVersusAndromedaAsSeenFromEarth460-390.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
No shit.
Focal length makes a giant difference. The comparison to the moon is the only thing that matters since the horizon has very little scale relationship.
[QUOTE=mac338;43903657]It's actually not. It's quite massive. Here's a picture Facepunch user LarparNar took of Andromeda with what I think is his 7D camera and a 300mm lens, on a very long shutter speed.
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31/q79/s720x720/966884_666180856737820_2117969845_o.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Wow...that's an amazing picture. I wish my eyeballs were next-gen 10/10 cameras.
[QUOTE=be;43905438]Wow...that's an amazing picture. I wish my eyeballs were next-gen 10/10 cameras.[/QUOTE]
they probably will be in 50 years
Also time displacement in After Effects is a lot of fun.
I should do a video playing with it.
dat ending doe.
wtf was going on.
[QUOTE=jung3o;43905645]dat ending doe.
wtf was going on.[/QUOTE]
He explained it in the intro of the video.
Now I wish space was brighter so we could see everything from Earth.
[QUOTE=mac338;43903657]It's actually not. It's quite massive. Here's a picture Facepunch user LarparNar took of Andromeda with what I think is his 7D camera and a 300mm lens, on a very long shutter speed.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I used a 105mm lens for this, but it's cropped in quite a bit.
Here's a comparison I made myself with how large the moon looks in the sky:
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2668640/stellar/moone.jpg[/t]
What kind of fstop, ISO, and exposure time did you work with?
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43907672]What kind of fstop, ISO, and exposure time did you work with?[/QUOTE]
F-stop was f/4, ISO was 3200 or 6400 and shutter speed was around 2 sec if I remember correctly, might have been a bit more. Don't remember the specifics and I'm at work right now so I don't have the files here.
I used Deep Sky Stacker to stack something like 200 exposures to boost the exposure and reduce noise as much as possible.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;43907766]F-stop was f/4, ISO was 3200 or 6400 and shutter speed was around 2 sec if I remember correctly, might have been a bit more. Don't remember the specifics and I'm at work right now so I don't have the files here.
I used Deep Sky Stacker to stack something like 200 exposures to boost the exposure and reduce noise as much as possible.[/QUOTE]
When I did my timelapse back in december I was F4, ISO 3200, 60seconds. So it was 2 seconds per shot for 200 shots? How long were you outside setting it up.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43907811]When I did my timelapse back in december I was F4, ISO 3200, 60seconds. So it was 2 seconds per shot for 200 shots? How long were you outside setting it up.[/QUOTE]
I was out a couple of hours, and took more than just that photo.
Actually, come to think of it 2 seconds sounds a bit low, it might have been more like 10, but I'm really not sure.
I'll check the details when I get home.
Michael from Vsauce is like Bill Nye for another generation (but on a smaller scale), I love his videos.
Woah, I know that Guy at the end. I'm jealous.
Well, seeing things sucks now. Goddamn legs lagging behind.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;43910467]Michael from Vsauce is like Bill Nye for another generation (but on a smaller scale), I love his videos.[/QUOTE]
He got somewhat existential in his recent videos :I
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43907811]When I did my timelapse back in december I was F4, ISO 3200, 60seconds. So it was 2 seconds per shot for 200 shots? How long were you outside setting it up.[/QUOTE]
Back from work now so I've had a chance to both watch the video and check the details.
Michael is fantastic, always enjoy his videos and learn something new every time.
Anyway, I took 184 exposures that were used to create the image (and another 40 that are used for calculating camera noise for the stacking software).
The light exposures were at ISO 3200, f/4 and 3.2 seconds. :)
I used to really dislike Michael because he did a video with some inaccurate information, but in the end I felt it was a grudge. He was just trying to make it easier for people to understand. He's now one of my favourite channels. He's an independent Science evangelist like Tyson, Nye, and Sagan are/were. He gets young kids to think about stuff.
[QUOTE=Satane;43912854]Was it the video about TV refresh rates ?[/QUOTE]
It was the one with him at vidcon or something and he was talking about our eyes and framerates.
He misrepresented some fundamental properties of motion and video.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43912948]It was the one with him at vidcon or something and he was talking about our eyes and framerates.
He misrepresented some fundamental properties of motion and video.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying some of the information was... distorted?
[QUOTE=LarparNar;43907766]F-stop was f/4, ISO was 3200 or 6400 and shutter speed was around 2 sec if I remember correctly, might have been a bit more. Don't remember the specifics and I'm at work right now so I don't have the files here.
I used Deep Sky Stacker to stack something like 200 exposures to boost the exposure and reduce noise as much as possible.[/QUOTE]
Did you use a some sort of tracking tripod for this, or would you manage fine without?
I really want to try this.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43913642]Did you use a some sort of tracking tripod for this, or would you manage fine without?
I really want to try this.[/QUOTE]
3.2 seconds isn't much at 105mm. He just aligns them in the program and stacks them.
[QUOTE=paul simon;43913642]Did you use a some sort of tracking tripod for this, or would you manage fine without?
I really want to try this.[/QUOTE]
Didn't use any sort of tracking.
I moved the camera manually every 20-30 shots or so to keep Andromeda mostly in the center, and the software aligns it automatically.
[editline]14th February 2014[/editline]
PM me if you need some help or advice, we should probably let the thread return to the topic / die.
And here I am wondering again, what the hell is the song that starts playing recognizably at [b]9:03[/b]??
[editline]15th February 2014[/editline]
Okay it's probably on audionetwork.com but anyone got a name, anything?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
