You don't need the Hubble to make your own stunning images., page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times

Topic started on 30-1-2013 @ 06:41 AM by wmd_2008

We have had some nice threads with examples of what the Hubble can do so I thought members would like to see what people are doing with more humble equipment.

There are many sites on the internet with great images of the night sky this site in the link here TWAN is one of the best.

TWAN is The World At Night, on here you can see many stunning images and timelapse videos that show the wonders of the night sky that can be photographed with no more than a decent camera, tripod and a bit of knowledge on the subject.

To give you an example of whats on this site here is a timelapse with the vimeo link to watch it.

vimeo.com...

For the photographers on here this is how the above video was done.
Nikon D700, 14-24mm lens, ISO 3200, 754 frames x 30sec

There is lot of useful info on here with links to equipment etc maybe it will inspire some on here to learn and try what is shown, enjoy!!!!

edit on 30-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-1-2013 @ 07:49 AM by Hellhound604

reply to post by wmd_2008

... and what is more, then you can't blame NASA for covering things up, photoshopping, lying, changing colours, etc, etc, etc, lol

edit on 30/1/2013 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-2-2013 @ 10:06 AM by wildespace

You can also use robotic telescopes available through various websites, for example www.telescope.org...

Or you can use the existing data from various sky surveys at skyview.gsfc.nasa.gov...
For example, here's a couple of images I created using WISE infrared telescope data from that website:

Interstellar dust near the Orion nebula:

Heart nebula:

reply posted on 3-2-2013 @ 10:53 PM by lnfideI

Excellent.

Star and Flag and thank you.\

I am not understanding the 758 frames in 30 secs thing though

How can a consumer camera take that many frames a second?

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 08:43 AM by wmd_2008

Originally posted by lnfideI
Excellent.

Star and Flag and thank you.

I am not understanding the 758 frames in 30 secs thing though

How can a consumer camera take that many frames a second?

Thanks

No it's 754 frames each of 30 seconds exposure then a movie is made from the stills!!

edit on 4-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 08:30 PM by FireballStorm

Originally posted by wmd_2008
For the photographers on here this is how the above video was done.
Nikon D700, 14-24mm lens, ISO 3200, 754 frames x 30sec

To be fair, although it's not anywhere near the same ballpark as Hubble in terms of cost, that is a fairly costly collection of kit. In particular, the lens is arguably the best wide-angle zoom for astrophotography, and has a price to match. It's a lens I have been lusting after for a while, but unless I can find it cheap somewhere it'll be a while before I can afford it.

Similar results could be achieved with much more modest budget for equipment in my experience, especially if someone is willing to buy used.

I do agree though that it's amazing what can be achieved with fairly modest equipment. Good post

reply posted on 4-2-2013 @ 08:48 PM by winterkill

Man I wish we could see that with our naked eyes.

reply posted on 6-2-2013 @ 07:38 AM by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FireballStorm

Originally posted by wmd_2008
For the photographers on here this is how the above video was done.
Nikon D700, 14-24mm lens, ISO 3200, 754 frames x 30sec

To be fair, although it's not anywhere near the same ballpark as Hubble in terms of cost, that is a fairly costly collection of kit. In particular, the lens is arguably the best wide-angle zoom for astrophotography, and has a price to match. It's a lens I have been lusting after for a while, but unless I can find it cheap somewhere it'll be a while before I can afford it.

Similar results could be achieved with much more modest budget for equipment in my experience, especially if someone is willing to buy used.

I do agree though that it's amazing what can be achieved with fairly modest equipment. Good post