Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

A most beautiful Comet.

That looks really odd indeed, like something that is very much closer to you and hence out of focus or something like that.

I like the camera shot better really, the telescope seems to have some color fringing problems that makes the background stars look less nice. I suppose for astronomical observation you could just as well use monochrome, but it makes color pictures look 'off'.
 





Benm said:
That looks really odd indeed, like something that is very much closer to you and hence out of focus or something like that.
I like the camera shot better really, the telescope seems to have some color fringing problems that makes the background stars look less nice. I suppose for astronomical observation you could just as well use monochrome, but it makes color pictures look 'off'.
Click to expand...

The scope "close-up view" was made using a Meade 12-Inch LX200 Schmidt Cassegrain telescope, with a Canon DSLR @ Prime Focus @ f/10.
The Comet was very low, close to the horizon, in the muck of all the dust and light pollution.
The Schmidt Cassegrain telescope, although very high end, has coma and colour fringing inherit in it's design as you may know.
I needed to use the 12" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope instead of my 5" Refractor which has 'no' colour fringing because of the scale I wanted to capture.

The wide angle shot was using the high end Canon 85mm f1.2 lens on the Canon DSLR.
Hence 'cleaner' stars.

I don't do mono imaging, I love colour and if I was to go down the path of mono imaging, I would do RGB mono imaging to obtain colour.
This method yields very accurate colour rendition for astronomy but the filter 'weighting' needs to be precise to compensate for variations between the RGB filters.

RB

:)
 
RB astro said:
I don't do mono imaging, I love colour and if I was to go down the path of mono imaging, I would do RGB mono imaging to obtain colour.
Click to expand...

That's interesting - i thing colour makes for more appealing images surely, but not always for 'better' pictures in the sense that you can see detail etc.

I've always found it interesting in how colour is used in astronomy, especially 'false colour' for images that where actually taken in the infrared or microwave ranges. I guess with IR you could actually produce reasonable accurate color for things that are red-shifted so you get an image that resembles them not being red shifted for a certain perspective (i.e. flying towards them keeping your distance constant).

NASA likes to do that kind of thing too i suppose, with images from space telescopes, rendering fantastic looking pictures. I'm not overly opposed to that practice, but it may give people the illusion that you could actually see that image with your eyes.
 
I convert my photos to black and white mono when I want to convey a sense of simplicity. It helps when the photo is very busy with colour and by converting it removes the distraction. Converting to mono too often removes the shock value gained by it though.

Lovely photo RB. Can’t rep you.. yet.
 
@ Ben, the reason mono (true mono) shows more detail is because it utilises the whole sensor.
Colour is achieved in DSLR using an R,G,G,B - Bayer filter matrix.
Hence we don't get to use all the pixels of the sensor for one Chanel, as mono does.
The trade off is a quicker imaging run rather than doing three seperate mono images, one for each RGB filter.

I get enough detail in my images that I don't want to bother with mono.
And of course colour in astronomy photos is stunning, IMO.
I spend one whole night on one object when I image so I don't want to muck around with mono imaging just yet, not until I can get a permanent observatory built. :)

@ trencheel303, cheers buddy, will rep you back when I can too.
Glad you liked it.

:beer:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top