Our Beautiful Universe - Photos and Videos

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on sharing the beauty of the Universe through photos, videos, and animations, emphasizing the aesthetic appeal of space alongside scientific information. Participants are encouraged to post clips and images that comply with mainstream scientific guidelines, avoiding fringe theories. Notable contributions include time-lapse videos from the ISS and clips related to NASA missions, such as the Dawn and New Horizons projects. The thread also highlights the emotional impact of experiencing the vastness of space through visual media. Overall, it celebrates the intersection of art and science in showcasing the wonders of the Universe.
  • #1,201
DennisN said:
I thought telescopes was rather expensive (which they can be) , but if anybody has got a ton of money to spend, go for a couple of high-tier tele- or zoom lenses, and you'll see your money disappear faster than Millennium Falcon. :)

Therefore I will go for some decent budget lenses from budget brands and/or maybe some vintage lenses with manual focus. There are a lot of interesting sites and videos with reviews on good budget lenses.

If I had a heftier mount, something like this would be a surprisingly good deal for astrophotography:

Nikon Nikkor 600mm F/4 ED IF Manual Focus Lens $1400US

https://www.samys.com/p/Pre-Owned-L...--Pre-Owned/227434.html?origin=product-search

cm9kdWN0L21haW4vUy0wMDUyNzlfMDIuanBn_H_SH760_MW760.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and collinsmark
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #1,202
That would be a good deal! I use something similar (400/2.8 ED IF lens with optional 2x teleconverter), also purchased for not-very-much money.
 
  • #1,203
...In other news, we had three clear nights in a row over the weekend, so I worked on Orion @ 105/2 (5.4 hours @ ISO 64), incomplete background correction:

105_orion-mod-St-19380s copy.jpg


The interesting bits look much better now (100% crops):

105_orion-mod-St-19380s copy 2.jpg


105_orion-mod-St-19380s copy 4.jpg


105_orion-mod-St-19380s copy 3.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Klystron, pinball1970, DennisN and 3 others
  • #1,205
After Orion has moved out of view, I still had an hour or two of imaging time before bed- so last night I tried imaging M51 at 800mm rather than 400mm- previously, I reasoned that the benefit of imaging at f/2.8 outweighed the benefit of higher magnification. Now that I am using AstroPixelProcessor, I am re-visiting my assumptions. I was only able to get 10 minutes (8 seconds at a time) at 800/5.6 ISO 1000, but here's 'first light' at 100%:
3_7_21-1-lpc-cbg-mod-St-672s_filtered copy.jpg


For comparison, here's what 4.7 hours of 400/2.8 ISO 500 looks like, scaled to 200%:

M51-17141s-session_1-St copy.jpg


We'll see... possibly better.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Klystron, DennisN, collinsmark and 1 other person
  • #1,206
chemisttree said:
18-point stars? Did you shoot this stopped down a bit or wide open?

The lens was stopped down a full stop, from f/1.4 to f/2. Nikon uses 9-bladed aperture stops, so voila- 18-point starbursts!
 
  • #1,207
Amazing you get them with such a minor adjustment. Very nice, though.
 
  • #1,208
I composited the Hydrogen Alpha (9 x 5min 6400iso 600mm f/9) with the RGB (60 x 2min - 12800iso 600mm f/9) and got this:

DSC_0905-Mean-2_composite_flattened_1920.jpg


detail:

DSC_0905-Mean-2_composite_flattened_detail.jpg


3398911-1-png.png

4999558.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Andy Resnick, DennisN, chemisttree and 1 other person
  • #1,209
Devin-M said:
If I had a heftier mount, something like this would be a surprisingly good deal for astrophotography:
Nikon Nikkor 600mm F/4 ED IF Manual Focus Lens $1400US

Andy Resnick said:
That would be a good deal! I use something similar (400/2.8 ED IF lens with optional 2x teleconverter), also purchased for not-very-much money.

I stumbled upon a very funny picture when I was on a review page about camera lens mount adapters.
This one seems to be a small and nifty allround lens, and easy to pack :biggrin: :

a7RII-Canon-Smart-Adapters-1200mm.jpg


The handle on that lens is about as big as my cheap 70mm telescope. :biggrin:

Source: Sony a7RII Canon EF Smart Adapter Tests (Brian Smith Pictures)
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
  • #1,210
bruha said:
Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
One of my zoom lenses is a Tamron. :smile:

DennisN said:
I already have some tele- and zoom lenses at home so I will probably get mount adapters for them.
I just looked at the tele- and zoom lenses I've got, and they are these:
  • Chinon 135mm f/2.8 (according to reviews I've seen, people say it is a very sharp lens)
  • Tamron 55-200mm f/4-5.6
  • Optomax 300mm f/5.6
I bought them some years ago at a second hand store for about $30 to $50 each. I would need two lens mount adapters for them in order to use them with the Sony A6000, and I'm considering Fotodiox M42 to Sony E and Fotodiox Canon EF to Sony E.

My vintage Tele and Zoom lenses.jpg


I've also been looking at the Olympus Teleconverter 1.7x, since I've seen it recommended many times.
If anybody has any other teleconverter to recommend, please do! :smile:

If I've got my maths* correct that teleconverter (TC) will yield the following possible magnifications with the vintage lenses above (on an APS-C sensor):
  • Chinon 135mm:
    4x (default)
    7x (with TC)
  • Tamron 55-200mm:
    1.6x - 6x (default)
    2.8x - 10x (with TC)
  • Optomax 300mm:
    9x (default)
    15x (with TC)

(*)

Magnification = Focal length * Sensor crop factor / 50 mm
(50 mm is human eye equivalent, right?)

The sensor crop factor for APS-C is 1.5x, so

Magnification = Focal length * 1.5 / 50 mm = Focal length * 0.03

Adding a teleconverter (TC) means

Magnification = Focal length * TC magnification * crop factor / 50 mm

and for a Teleconverter 1.7x and an APS-C sensor this means

Magnification = Focal length * 1.7 * 0.03 = Focal length * 0,051 = (ca) Focal length / 20
 
Last edited:
  • #1,211
If you download stellarium to your computer/laptop, it will simulate the night sky, and you can input different focal lengths and sensor sizes and it can preview the framing you will get on various astronomical objects. There is a phone version but many of the features are missing and the framing function is harder to use.
 
  • #1,212
DennisN said:
(50 mm is human eye equivalent, right?)

50mm on a crop sensor is about 26 degree horizontal field of view, human eye is about 210 degrees horizontal field of view.
https://www.nikonians.org/reviews/fov-tables

Subjectively it could be argued 50mm lens on a full frame sensor shows the part of your vision which you pay most attention to and has a natural appearance. Those 50mm lenses usually have large aperatures (f/1.4) for enhanced bokeh and artistic effect, which also makes them the best option for low light photography as well since the large aperature let's in the most light.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,213
DennisN said:
I stumbled upon a very funny picture when I was on a review page about camera lens mount adapters.
This one seems to be a small and nifty allround lens, and easy to pack :biggrin: :

View attachment 279440

The handle on that lens is about as big as my cheap 70mm telescope. :biggrin:

Source: Sony a7RII Canon EF Smart Adapter Tests (Brian Smith Pictures)

Heh- how about these lenses?

https://img.kentfaith.de/cache/catalog/lense/2248-canon-tv-5200mm-f-14-800x800.jpg

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...sources/reflex/ReflexNikkor2000mmf11_Side.jpg
 
  • #1,214
DennisN said:
possible magnifications

Usually when I’ve heard “magnification” discussed in terms of photography it relates to the size of the object being photographed versus the size of the image of the object projected on the sensor. For example in macro photography it’s useful to achieve a 1:1 magnification ratio meaning whatever you photograph has the same dimensions projected on the sensor as its size in real life. For example, the nikon 105mm f/2.8 achieves 1:1 magnification for macro photography, and when used with a 2x teleconverter it will achieve 2:1 magnification. A big factor in this is how closely you can be to the subject and still be in focus. It so happens with the 105mm f/2.8 you can be just a couple of inches away and be in focus. Other lenses, particularly telephotos, have much longer close focus distances and as a result can’t achieve as much magnification. I have a 500mm f/5 mirror lens made by nikon in the late 60’s but you have to be over 60 feet from the subject to be in focus, so it has a lower magnification ratio than the 105mm f/2.8.
 
  • #1,215
DennisN said:
(50 mm is human eye equivalent, right?)

Pretty close- I have seen specs ranging around 40-50mm. You can verify for yourself by keeping both eyes open and looking with one eye through your camera (w/ 50mm lens)- your visual field is basically undisturbed.
 
  • #1,216
Devin-M said:
Usually when I’ve heard “magnification” discussed in terms of photography it relates to the size of the object being photographed versus the size of the image of the object projected on the sensor. For example in macro photography it’s useful to achieve a 1:1 magnification ratio meaning whatever you photograph has the same dimensions projected on the sensor as its size in real life. For example, the nikon 105mm f/2.8 achieves 1:1 magnification for macro photography, and when used with a 2x teleconverter it will achieve 2:1 magnification. A big factor in this is how closely you can be to the subject and still be in focus. It so happens with the 105mm f/2.8 you can be just a couple of inches away and be in focus. Other lenses, particularly telephotos, have much longer close focus distances and as a result can’y achieve as much magnification. I have a 500mm f/5 mirror lens made by nikon in the late 60’s but you have to be over 60 feet from the subject to be in focus, so it has a lower magnification ratio than the 105mm f/2.8.

Unlike macro (or micro) imaging, when the object distance is much much much much larger than the lens focal length, it's usually more convenient to think in terms of 'angular magnification'- comparing the angles subtended by object and image. Angular magnification (relative to unaided vision) can be easily estimated by the ratio of camera lens to eyeball lens- 400mm is about 8x angular magnification, for example.

There is also a slight complication that lens magnification varies with object distance (except for telecentric lenses). That's called 'perspective distortion' and used to great effect with ultrawide-angle and fisheye lenses.
 
  • #1,217
Devin-M said:
50mm on a crop sensor is about 26 degree horizontal field of view, human eye is about 210 degrees horizontal field of view.

That is definitely not correct- I am not able to see behind myself. A single eyeball has a (static) field of view about 30 degrees:

https://i.redd.it/5xdtk9ycnirz.jpg

Together your eyes cover a binocular field of view about 120 degrees.
 
  • #1,218
“If the analogy of the eye's retina working as a sensor is drawn upon, the corresponding concept in human (and much of animal vision) is the visual field.[3] It is defined as "the number of degrees of visual angle during stable fixation of the eyes".[4] Note that eye movements are excluded in the definition. Different animals have different visual fields, depending, among others, on the placement of the eyes. Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field,[5][6] while some birds have a complete or nearly complete 360-degree visual field.”

“For example, binocular vision, which is the basis for stereopsis and is important for depth perception, covers 114 degrees (horizontally) of the visual field in humans;[7]the remaining peripheral 40 degrees on each side have no binocular vision (because only one eye can see those parts of the visual field).”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view#Humans_and_animals
 
  • #1,219
Devin-M said:
If you download stellarium to your computer/laptop, it will simulate the night sky, and you can input different focal lengths and sensor sizes and it can preview the framing you will get on various astronomical objects. There is a phone version but many of the features are missing and the framing function is harder to use.
Thank you very much, I did not know that!
I've got Stellarium but I did not know there was that kind of preview function, which is enormously helpful.
Splendid!
 
  • #1,220
Hello, please do you know somebody how to adjust exp. time clone and ISO in Open Camera?
I tried by phone camera Orion Trapezium with bad (suburb) ligt condition of course and there is probably just stars Orionis A,C,D I suppose and some remote star.. :confused:o_O:confused:

Thank you and lot of succes...
 

Attachments

  • A.jpg
    A.jpg
    4.6 KB · Views: 143
  • #1,221
Devin-M said:
“If the analogy of the eye's retina working as a sensor is drawn upon, the corresponding concept in human (and much of animal vision) is the visual field.[3] It is defined as "the number of degrees of visual angle during stable fixation of the eyes".[4] Note that eye movements are excluded in the definition. Different animals have different visual fields, depending, among others, on the placement of the eyes. Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field,[5][6] while some birds have a complete or nearly complete 360-degree visual field.”

“For example, binocular vision, which is the basis for stereopsis and is important for depth perception, covers 114 degrees (horizontally) of the visual field in humans;[7]the remaining peripheral 40 degrees on each side have no binocular vision (because only one eye can see those parts of the visual field).”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view#Humans_and_animals

I'm not entirely sure what we are arguing about- again, looking through a 50mm lens (35mm image format) provides a nearly perfectly matched visual field, this can be easily verified.

A really good reference for the optics of human eyes is Atchison's book:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780750637756/optics-of-the-human-eye

and a really good reference for the physiology of vision is Snowden's book:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/019957202X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
  • #1,222
things may look the same size to your eye through the viewfinder with a 50mm lens fitted, but on a cropped sensor you’re only seeing a 26 degree horizontal field of view compared with the more than 180 degree field of view of human vision...

he-FOV-of-a-human-with-normal-vision-Creative_Q640.jpg
 
  • #1,223
I just performed an experiment. I looked at a picture on the wall with one eye looking through the viewfinder and one eye just open. I was looking with a full frame nikon d800 with a 50mm lens and a 105mm lens to test. The picture looked significantly smaller through the viewfinder than to my eye with the 50mm and bigger through the viewfinder than eye with the 105mm. Probably on an 85mm lens the picture would look much closer to the same size through the viewfinder and through my eye. A 50mm lens on a 1/1.5x DX cropped sensor would look like a 75mm lens on a full frame FX sensor.
 
  • #1,224
Ooooh! Look what came in the mail today!

179F2D66-9112-4B31-B19F-2F7A35053659.jpeg


Oh wait... let me check something!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes collinsmark, DennisN and Devin-M
  • #1,225
I thought so!

7654DAD8-4CDA-4D6C-AD19-0FFDE4A64991.jpeg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Andy Resnick, Borg, collinsmark and 2 others
  • #1,226
DennisN said:
This one seems to be a small and nifty allround lens, and easy to pack :biggrin:
https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images3/1/1115/20/nikon-ai-ed-600mm-4-lens-ct-602-case_1_7392b8dd2021eac21b3bfca438743a9e.jpg

https://cdn.fstoppers.com/styles/fu...9f0936246892c7c8c3e8b3d59f4.jpg?itok=2Vft_6xE

https://thumbs.worthpoint.com/zoom/images2/1/1115/20/nikon-ai-ed-600mm-4-lens-ct-602-case_1_7392b8dd2021eac21b3bfca438743a9e.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/pixelpluck.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/sigma-200-500mm-lens.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #1,227
chemisttree said:
Ooooh! Look what came in the mail today!
chemisttree said:
I thought so!
I just had an idea: Try the filter on the cloudy sky.
Maybe it can filter out the clouds and yield a clear view through them. :smile:

(Directed at the Internet in general):

There is a bunch of anti-light pollution filters available on the net.
We don't need any more of those, thanks!

Can someone please develop an anti-cloud filter for us`?
Anyone? Anyone?
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #1,228
I ordered the other 2 filters — Sulphur II 6nm and Oxygen III 6nm to go with the Hydrogen Alpha 6nm ... this way I can collect narrowband from home and when the moon is out, then I’ll collect RGB when it’s moonless from bortle 2, then I’ll superimpose all 3 bands (R-Sulphur, G- Hydrogen, Blue- Oxygen) over the RGB to get Hubble palette + RGB.
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN, chemisttree and collinsmark
  • #1,229
Another night viewing Orion- Flame and Horsehead nebulae @ 400/2.8, 4.8 hours @ ISO 320.

horsehead--17559s-1 copy 2.jpg


And a 100% crop:

horsehead--17559s-1 copy.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, Klystron, TSny and 3 others
  • #1,230
chemisttree said:
Amazing you get them with such a minor adjustment. Very nice, though.

Thanks! I needed some time to respond on this point, because you noticed a phenomenon that gets to the whole point of image stacking, or at least my approach to image stacking: dynamic range compression.

That is to say, the images that I post here are compressed from the original 32-bit/channel (in reality, around 24-bit to 26-bit) image to an 8-bit/channel image. When I post-process, my goal is to preserve and emphasize local intensity gradients, so that objects that may differ by 5 or 6 magnitudes (or more- up to about 10) maintain contrast in the final 8-bit image.

For example, two objects that differ by 6 stellar magnitudes appear as 1:250 relative brightness and two objects that differ by 10 stellar magnitudes appear as 1:10000 brightness ratio. 8-bits simply can't display either situation.

The diffraction pattern is not clearly visible in any of the original 14-bit RAW images because the amount of optical power that is diffracted is (nearly) negligible. However, by dynamic range compression, I increase the relative visibility of the diffraction spikes. In a sense, what I do is a variant of Dolby noise reduction.
 
  • Like
Likes chemisttree

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K