A very moody photo. Unfortunately - in my case, the moon also scrubs its belly on the horizon near this phase...

Old Scopes and Modern Imaging
#876
Posted 17 June 2022 - 11:24 AM
- Borodog likes this
#881
Posted 23 June 2022 - 07:01 PM
- shredder1656 and LukaszLu like this
#882
Posted 23 June 2022 - 07:59 PM
M27. 4.3 hours at the right exposure this time, although it was pretty windy.
This is just great!
-drl
- shredder1656 and Borodog like this
#883
Posted 24 June 2022 - 09:33 PM
Thanks, deSitter. Much appreciated.
#884
Posted 26 July 2022 - 12:43 AM
From few minutes ago. Wss imaging M12 and captured an interesting meteor in one of the frames. This is cropped and reduced by 50 percent from original. No darks or flats (with noise on this hot humid evening in Joshua Tree, CA. A simple brightness applied, which shows the vignetting at the corners of the Panasonic Lumix full frame chip. Taken with a Televue Renaissance 102mm f/8 brass refractor. 30 seconds at ISO 6400
- Joe Bergeron, Steve_M_M, clamchip and 13 others like this
#885
Posted 26 July 2022 - 09:13 AM
Very interesting trail!! Does that mean it had an asymmetrical heterogeneous composition and was tumbling? Or was it "skipping" on the upper atmosphere? Or was it an orbiting satellite that was rotating? Or was it an incompetent UFO pilot executing a poor landing?
Hmmmm. Can't wait to hear what Terra says about this one! As a Geologist I am sure she will have some insight.
- tim53 and Terra Nova like this
#886
Posted 26 July 2022 - 09:24 AM
Well, I'm a geologist, too! But I've had a similar thought: What if it's a tumbling satellite? But it seems it would have to be tumbling rather rapidly for it to change brightness that radically. But who knows?
- Terra Nova likes this
#887
Posted 26 July 2022 - 09:26 AM
I will note that last month, while I was looking for Neptunian satellites just before dawn, I must have had 4 or 5 satellites cross the narrow field while watching the live view. Starlink, I suspect, as they were faint (but annoying).
- Terra Nova likes this
#888
Posted 26 July 2022 - 09:43 AM
I see a few trails in my astrophotos as well. Most are obvious and easy to explain; not like this one. I throw away about 1/4 of my exposures for one reason or another; many due to periodic error in my mount. One of the great advantages of our modern stacking technology is that such problems do not completely ruin our shots. In the bad old days of film, such a meteor track would be fatal to a half hour or longer exposure. Nowadays, it's just a little irritation... or an interesting conversation piece.
- tim53 and Terra Nova like this
#889
Posted 26 July 2022 - 09:47 AM
Even worse, from the film days, is guiding a 1/60th second exposure for an hour. I've done that!
- mdowns likes this
#892
Posted 26 July 2022 - 10:51 AM
That’s a pretty typical satellite track for an object that is tumbling, usually a spent upper stage. Very cool.
- Terra Nova likes this
#893
Posted 26 July 2022 - 06:04 PM
Even worse, from the film days, is guiding a 1/60th second exposure for an hour. I've done that!
I was at the Texas Star Party in the 1980's and shot an entire "roll" of exposures with no film in the camera. Those would have been world-class publishable shots!! I can laugh about it now after all these years. :-)
- tim53, CCD-Freak, semlin and 5 others like this
#894
Posted 26 July 2022 - 08:09 PM
I was at the Texas Star Party in the 1980's and shot an entire "roll" of exposures with no film in the camera. Those would have been world-class publishable shots!! I can laugh about it now after all these years. :-)
Ouch!
- CCD-Freak likes this
#895
Posted 29 July 2022 - 01:30 PM
I had to laugh.....I have done that too!!! Back in the film days we did not have auto guiders so it was much labor lost. )^8
I have also shot 4 hours of subs before I noticed I did not click the auto save button ! 8^P
Edited by CCD-Freak, 29 July 2022 - 01:31 PM.
- Dave Trott, mdowns, Bomber Bob and 1 other like this
#897
Posted 04 August 2022 - 10:15 AM
22,000 images... WOW! How long does it take to collect such huge amount of frames, and how long does it take to process them? I usually collect some 1,500 frames for the Moon - and it seems a huge challenge to my computer, especially if I try do apply 1,5x drizzle while stacking...
#898
Posted 04 August 2022 - 11:15 AM
22,000 images... WOW! How long does it take to collect such huge amount of frames, and how long does it take to process them? I usually collect some 1,500 frames for the Moon - and it seems a huge challenge to my computer, especially if I try do apply 1,5x drizzle while stacking...
Hi, the video was 14 minutes long, 31Gb, 25k frames, 22k useable frames.
It actually didn't take too long to process, I had made Autostekkert AP boxes' size to 104 and no drizzle. In the summer, I generally do the stacking as I continue to do visual and can do the sharpening / post-processing after coming in
- semlin likes this
#899
Posted 04 August 2022 - 01:23 PM
Very interesting trail!! Does that mean it had an asymmetrical heterogeneous composition and was tumbling? Or was it "skipping" on the upper atmosphere? Or was it an orbiting satellite that was rotating? Or was it an incompetent UFO pilot executing a poor landing?
Hmmmm. Can't wait to hear what Terra says about this one! As a Geologist I am sure she will have some insight.
Te way that the brightness seems to smoothly modulate along the path, I would guess it’s a tumbling satellite.