Our Beautiful Universe - Photos and Videos

In summary: I love it and the clip finishes with a great quote:In summary, these threads are all about the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed).
  • #1,471
DennisN said:
How To Easily Focus On The Stars (Astro Pills)
- in which he among other things describes how to make a cheap focusing aid (for lenses with shorter focal lengths) from a frying pan splatter screen :smile:. He also provides some focusing tips if you don't have or get your Bahtinov masks to work for you.
That's a cool idea sticking the screen on an existing Bahtinov, turns any star into a Gamma Ray Burst :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #1,472
Here are two great instruction videos I've found recently.

They are particularly useful for those who use cameras without trackers for astrophotography, but there is other interesting info in them too. He is a very calm and good presenter, in my opinion.

Among many other things he shows how to calculate maximum exposure time (shutter speed) for various focal lengths in order to not get star trails (both the "NPF rule" and "rule of 500"). For NPF calculation for many different cameras and focal lengths there is a French page here, and the app PhotoPills can also do it. He also describes calibration frames (bias, dark and flat frames).

He also does some post-processing editing tricks in I did not know about at 1:14:13 and onwards.

They are long videos since they show the entire process, from start to finish, which I think is good.

Orion Nebula WITHOUT a Star Tracker or Telescope, Start to Finish, DSLR Astrophotography (Nebula Photos)
Another video: ANDROMEDA GALAXY with only a Camera, Lens, & Tripod (Nebula Photos)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
  • #1,473
I was able to more than double my resolution compared to the last video with a few tricks...

.

My camera is a Nikon D800 with a 36 megapixel full frame sensor, but it only shoots video full frame in 1080p (doesn't crop the image), which means you lose 4/5ths of the native resolution before the video is even saved to the memory card.

I got around this by shooting 7 shots in RAW mode (equivalent to 8k), aligning them and then importing to iMovie, and playing them in a loop at 15 frames per second. This still gives the appearance of video from the random noise & atmospheric wobble. Once in imovie I did some digital zooms and there you have it. I think I lost half my resolution when fully zoomed in because imovie doesn't support 8k so everything was essentially downscaled to 4k by imovie prior to the digital zooms and prior to uploading to youtube.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes collinsmark, DennisN and Keith_McClary
  • #1,474
Re-process of a couple of milky-way photos (shot with a 14mm lens on a full frame camera sensor with equatorial mount)...

(looks best on a 4k television... most computer monitors won't show 4k video without downscaling)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes DennisN, Borg, dlgoff and 1 other person
  • #1,475
I caught 3 frames @ 1800mm f/12 1/1000th sec 3200iso in RAW format during an ISS flyover last night. It was over Redding, California, USA at about 6:46p local time on 11/19/21. I converted just the green channel of the individual frames to a short video.

I'm not sure if I'm seeing any actual details or if it's all artifacts...

green-1.jpg


green-2.jpg
green-3.jpg


IMG-7127_cropped.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #1,476
Devin-M said:
I caught 3 frames @ 1800mm f/12 1/1000th sec 3200iso in RAW format during an ISS flyover last night. It was over Redding, California, USA at about 6:46p local time on 11/19/21. I converted just the green channel of the individual frames to a short video.

I'm not sure if I'm seeing any actual details or if it's all artifacts...

Using some noise reduction and histogram stretching techniques in Adobe Lightroom I was able to obtain these color versions (0.463 arcsec/pixel):

IMG-7127-2.jpg


IMG-7130-2.jpg


IMG-7131-2.jpg


72911393-AE81-412E-A11E-1A243E243FDE.jpeg


482416D8-F5F1-4379-ACDB-2F1A52045557.jpeg


BCFAB8C5-52A8-41CA-87F6-BEBA8363CBDC.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DennisN and collinsmark
  • #1,477
Jupiter:
jupiter.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN
  • #1,478
Saturn:
saturn.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark and DennisN
  • #1,479
Hello,
its interesting images, its quite similar to my results. Which gear you use for these..?
thank you and lot of succes :smile:
 
  • #1,480
Some new fun and pretty affordable gear (homemade and second hand):Home-built Star Focusing Aid

I got inspired by the page I posted before about building a star focusing aid from some kind of perforated screen.

At home I had a couple of very thin perforated plastic screens which are for ventilation holes in computers and other electronic equipment (you put them in front of holes to protect the equipment from some dust and other things getting in). I'm pretty sure such screens can be easily found online (I think I got mine from AliExpress a couple of years ago).

I cut out two quadratic pieces of cardboard (120 x 120 mm) and then cut out quadratic holes (60 x 60 mm) in each of them, put them on top of each other and merged them with duct tape. I used two pieces of cardboard to make the frame more solid. Why quadratic and not circular? Well, it was easier to cut quadratic pieces and the shape really doesn't matter.

Then I put a cut-out plastic perforated screen in front of the 60 x 60 mm hole and secured it with duct tape.

It's not pretty, but it seems to work. I've tried it with a 400 mm tele lens on remote lights and it produces dotted diffraction spikes as a focusing aid. It will be put to test in the field on real stars.

I will also drill a couple of holes in the frame, put in and secure some small rods in the holes and connect a rubber band or something to the rods, so the focusing aid can be put in front of on any lens (up to ca 120 mm in diameter, though the perforated screen is smaller of course). Thanks to the material used, the focusing aid also got extremely lightweight.

Here's the "one size fits all" focusing aid:

Star Focusing Aid (1).jpg


Star Focusing Aid (2).jpg

(only the highest quality cardboard and duct tape were used to produce this premium product :smile:)


Fast Lenses

Here's a lens I won yesterday on a Swedish auction site (for $173) which I'm really excited to test.

Samyang 12mm f2.jpg

Samyang 12mm f/2.0

It's a Samyang 12mm f/2.0 ultrawide (ca 95-99 degrees field of view, IIRC) and also pretty fast lens, which is said to be great for low light photography and thus wide photography of the night sky. The same lens is also marketed under the brand "Rokinon".

I am very excited to test this lens at dark sites in the near future. :smile:

Two reviews of the lens:
Another lens I've been looking for is the Canon nFD 50mm f1.4, which is a pretty fast 50mm, also good for low light conditions. I found one in excellent condition on Ebay from Japan for $90 (+$21 shipping), which I ordered yesterday.

Canon nFD 50mm f1,4.jpg

Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4

Teleconverter

I also won this teleconverter recently on a Swedish online auction, and I got it dirt cheap. I payed $1 for it :biggrin: (+$6 shipping). It's a 2x teleconverter for Canon FD lenses, which doubles the focal length.

Canon Teleconverter.jpg

Canon FD Teleconverter (2X CFE TELEPLUS MC6)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes collinsmark and Devin-M
  • #1,481
Photo from the Bohemian Higlands with the milky way core.

- Sony A7 + Tamron 24/2.8 + Sky Watcher Star Adventurer mount
- Foreground is panorama from 3 images, sky is panorama from 3 images (each stacked from 9 expositions).
- Edited in: Photoshop, PixInsight and PTGui
Lipská hora (3).jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Love
  • Like
Likes Devin-M and DennisN
  • #1,482
Looks like the moon, but actually an overexposed crescent of Venus...

IMG-7037.jpg

bruha said:
Hello,
its interesting images, its quite similar to my results. Which gear you use for these..?
thank you and lot of succes :smile:
Thanks... it's a Meade Maksutov-Cassegrain LX85 1800mm focal 150mm (6") aperture f/12 w/ Nikon D800 on a Star Adventurer Pro 2i (overloaded 2-3x past the weight limit I should add)... I'm getting 0.463 arcsec/pixel with that combination and I've been running the numbers on Astrometry.net and Stellarium and I think it must actually be closer to 2180mm f/14.5, for some reason...
 
  • Like
Likes PhysicoRaj, DennisN, collinsmark and 1 other person
  • #1,483
DennisN said:
perforated plastic screens which are for ventilation holes
What pitch (holes per cm) is good? Would window screen work? I learned:
Standard screens have a mesh size of 18 by 16, meaning there are 18 squares per inch from the top left corner to the top right corner (also referred to as warp) and 16 squares per inch from the top left corner to the bottom left corner (also referred to as fill).
(I can't find that meaning of "fill" in my Oxford.)
 
  • #1,484
Keith_McClary said:
What pitch (holes per cm) is good? Would window screen work?
I don't know, maybe :smile:. I just did it with the perforated plastic sceens I had, i.e. trial and error.
But since you asked I just measured the holes on my screen and they are about 0.9 mm in diameter (ca 9-10 holes per cm).

The holes in the splatter screen the other guy used (on this page) looks a bit larger to my eyes.
I guess they are about 1-1.5 mm in diameter.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes Keith_McClary
  • #1,485
the Moon (11/19/21):

moon-1-IMG-7257.jpg


moon-2-IMG-7257.jpg


2180mm f/14.5 Maksutov-Cassegrain w/ Nikon D800, 1/1250th sec, 400iso, 50% crops, single shot, raw mode, edited Adobe Lightroom & Photoshop
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes DennisN and collinsmark
  • #1,486
Devin-M said:
the Moon (11/19/21):
Very cool! It looks like you took them from orbit. Which mission are you on? :smile:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes Borg and Keith_McClary
  • #1,487
Phantom Galaxy - Distance: 32 million light years

phantom_galaxy.jpg


phantom_galaxy_100pc_crop.jpg


22x 3.5 min (1.28 hrs) @ 6400iso 2180mm f/14.5

4246498.png


4246498-1.png


4246498-2.png

5959113-1.jpeg

5959113.jpeg

316875DA-0F67-4D18-A5E2-663CC8864044.jpeg

8569733B-934A-42C5-86CD-5AF930D75E99.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes collinsmark and DennisN
  • #1,488
Devin-M said:
Phantom Galaxy - Distance: 32 million light years

Nice. The Phantom Galaxy (Messier 74) is a difficult target (very low "surface brightness" for a Messier object). -- I'm presently working on that target too, but I still have several more nights of data to take. Image to come in the nearish future.
 
  • #1,489
collinsmark said:
Nice. The Phantom Galaxy (Messier 74) is a difficult target (very low "surface brightness" for a Messier object). -- I'm presently working on that target too, but I still have several more nights of data to take. Image to come in the nearish future.
Thanks. I think my biggest challenge last night was the wind. I think only 1 out of 22 of my 3.5 minute sub-frames wasn’t affected. 8 of them were so bad the software couldn’t align them but I went ahead and stacked the other 16 even though they were pretty bad and I think that’s mostly the reason it came out so blurry. I think the Star Adventurer 2i Pro is “the little tracker that could” when conditions are perfect but its very susceptible to wind and can take up to 2 minutes to stop wobbling once it starts.
 
  • Like
Likes collinsmark
  • #1,490
This is what the 3.5 minute subframes (x22) looked like from the wind:

 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and collinsmark
  • #1,491
  • Like
  • Love
Likes PhysicoRaj, Borg and collinsmark
  • #1,492
You know guys, I'm really amazed what way humanity has done to reach that development level we have now. Sputnik-1 was the first satellite in space. It spent 3 months in space, completed over 1400 Earth's orbits and traveled 70+ million km! I'll just attach a small documentary video, you should definitely see it!
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and collinsmark
  • #1,493
6AC73CF1-119F-4F5A-8756-1BCF07743A2B.jpeg
 
  • Like
Likes Keith_McClary, collinsmark and DennisN
  • #1,494
Devin-M said:
I see Orion and the Pleiades (at least I've learned something from being out in the cold nights. A couple of years ago I would not recognize the Pleiades :smile: ).
Are you shooting the Orion nebula?
 
  • #1,495
I've been annoyed at the consistently bad weather lately, particularly since I'm very keen and excited to try my new gear. As consolation I did a parody clip to let off some steam.

I know this meme has been done to death, but the astro/stargazing community all over the world is in desperate need of a parody. At least I had fun doing it. :smile:

Here it is, premiering on PF:

 
  • Like
Likes Devin-M and collinsmark
  • #1,496
DennisN said:
Are you shooting the Orion nebula?

Orion Nebula:

Orion_1.jpg


Orion_800x620_100pc_crop_1.jpg


Orion_800x620_100pc_crop_2.jpg


Orion_800x620_100pc_crop_3.jpg


Orion_800x620_100pc_crop_4.jpg


Orion_620h.jpg


These were with 30 second (x120) exposures at 1600iso, 2180mm f/14.5 on a Nikon D800 full frame dslr under moonless bortle 6 skies, no filters. View in WorldWideTelescope
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes Keith_McClary, collinsmark and DennisN
  • #1,497
Excelent image of O.nebulae, especially last one.!:)
 
  • #1,498
:thumbup: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #1,499
and Hitler clip is super as well.. (it seems that this part of movie is generally used for parody maker --I see
two more parody clip with this already..
 
  • #1,500
bruha said:
and Hitler clip is super as well..
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I had fun doing it. It's been cloudy here for weeks now, and I was tired of seeing the grey skies. :smile:

bruha said:
(it seems that this part of movie is generally used for parody maker --I see
two more parody clip with this already..
Oh yes, there have been many, many parodies done over the years using that scene. :smile:
Before I did mine, I searched for an astro parody of that scene, but it seems it had not been done before.
 
  • #1,501
Flame Nebula (NGC 2024):

Flame_620x620.jpg


This one is noisier than the last one mostly because I only did 10 minutes of exposures (10x1min) instead of an hour, and also it's a much dimmer nebula than the last one so I was shooting 1 minute exposures instead of 30 seconds, and I was shooting at 4x the ISO sensitivity... 6400iso instead of 1600iso and I was shooting from a light polluted area (moonless bortle 6) - the other one was shot from the same location. This was on a 2180mm focal f/14.5 telescope as was the other.

view in WorldWideTelescope

4258184.png


4258184-1.png


4258184-2.png


5973724.jpeg


5973724-1.jpeg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DennisN and collinsmark
  • #1,502
Is anybody shooting the comet C2021/A1 (Leonard)? It has entered telescope magnitude range and is performing better than estimates.

My skies are completely cursed, was waiting for this one since a long time :headbang:
 
  • Informative
Likes DennisN
  • #1,503
DennisN said:
It's been cloudy here for weeks now, and I was tired of seeing the grey skies.

Finally I had a breakthrough...

A detail of Grey's Nebula (NGC #808080) in the constellation Greyhound. Since the amount of noise was so low there was no need to stack images. And the color reproduction is natural, no edits have been done.

Detail of Grey's Nebula (NGC #808080) (ISO 200, 1/160s exposure)
01 - Grey Clouds.jpg


The gear and the sky:
02 - Grey Gear.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes collinsmark, berkeman, Keith_McClary and 2 others
  • #1,504
DennisN said:
Finally I had a breakthrough...
Well done. Seems like a reflection nebula, hard to conclude from spectroscopy. I read somewhere that experts have theorized that the major constituents could be molecular Nitrogen, Oxygen and water vapor.
 
  • Haha
Likes DennisN
  • #1,505
:smile:o_O:woot:
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top