January 28, 2015, 01:34:57 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - East Wind Photography

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 62
31
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:40:30 PM »
ok let me see what I can do.  Too late tonight to start re-integrating.  Will try tomorrow and see if I can get you something a bit more manageable.

32
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:37:22 PM »
Nice comet, East Wind! I haven't had the opportunity to image that yet (weather :'( ).


How are you stacking? There are some specific techniques to stack the comet separate from the stars, stack the stars separate from the comet, then combine the two. DSS can actually do it for you, it's decent. PixInsight has comet stacking capabilities as well...more manual, more complex, but the results can be amazing.


I would download DSS (DeepSkyStacker, free) and try that first.


@dcm: Hubble stuff puts most ground-based astrophotographer's work to shame. Having no atmosphere to contend with is a HUGE bonus for Hubble...it can resolve an incredible amount of detail. Seeing is the bane of all earth-bound imagers, although with cameras like the A7s, which is so incredibly sensitive, we may be able to employ lucky imaging techniques to solve that problem within the next few years. Lucky imaging (high speed imaging, allowing you to take tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of frames, then discard any that aren't near-perfect, integrating only the best ones), combined with adaptive/active optics, is how the new Thirty-meter and Forty-meter telescopes from ESO will resolve more detail than Hubble (by a lot.) There are some adaptive optics options for ground-based imagers...their effectiveness has never been fully verified...but combined with lucky imaging, ground-based imagers with 16-32" scopes could produce some amazing results, for sure.

Yeah I have been working with DSS.  Got a nice stack.  background is bright due to the moon that night.  The issue is in processing using photoshop and trying to stretch the tail out of the background.  When I get done with the editing it looks like about 8 shades of grey and I give up to try again another time.  I'm certainly obviously missing something.


You want me to give processing the data a try?

Its a lot of data.  need to figure out where to stash it for you.  The TIFFs from DSS about about 236MB each.


How many files are you getting from DSS? If you use comet stacking, you should have just one...

Yeah after stacking it's 236MB.  I have a couple of different stacks.  One without a filter, one with a deep sky filter, and a 3rd taken the day prior but I only have maybe 12 subs but it has less moon.  Got started too late.

Is it possible to attach large files to CR messages?

33
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:27:04 PM »
Nice comet, East Wind! I haven't had the opportunity to image that yet (weather :'( ).


How are you stacking? There are some specific techniques to stack the comet separate from the stars, stack the stars separate from the comet, then combine the two. DSS can actually do it for you, it's decent. PixInsight has comet stacking capabilities as well...more manual, more complex, but the results can be amazing.


I would download DSS (DeepSkyStacker, free) and try that first.


@dcm: Hubble stuff puts most ground-based astrophotographer's work to shame. Having no atmosphere to contend with is a HUGE bonus for Hubble...it can resolve an incredible amount of detail. Seeing is the bane of all earth-bound imagers, although with cameras like the A7s, which is so incredibly sensitive, we may be able to employ lucky imaging techniques to solve that problem within the next few years. Lucky imaging (high speed imaging, allowing you to take tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of frames, then discard any that aren't near-perfect, integrating only the best ones), combined with adaptive/active optics, is how the new Thirty-meter and Forty-meter telescopes from ESO will resolve more detail than Hubble (by a lot.) There are some adaptive optics options for ground-based imagers...their effectiveness has never been fully verified...but combined with lucky imaging, ground-based imagers with 16-32" scopes could produce some amazing results, for sure.

Yeah I have been working with DSS.  Got a nice stack.  background is bright due to the moon that night.  The issue is in processing using photoshop and trying to stretch the tail out of the background.  When I get done with the editing it looks like about 8 shades of grey and I give up to try again another time.  I'm certainly obviously missing something.


You want me to give processing the data a try?

Its a lot of data.  need to figure out where to stash it for you.  The TIFFs from DSS about about 236MB each.

34
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:23:43 PM »
I also picked up a used 52mm drop in gelatin filter holder for 69 bucks.  Condition was too good so paid a bit of a premium.  I'll toss the glass and insert my new filter.  Best deals are finding one with a scratch or crack in the glass.  :) 

I had been wanting to pick up a lumicon comet filter for a while to pull out the C2 lines whenever they may show up.  Was able to get it for 25% off.  Aside from that it seems to be very good in the OxIII range  98% transmission so maybe some hope there for other things.


35
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 06, 2015, 11:00:58 PM »
Nice comet, East Wind! I haven't had the opportunity to image that yet (weather :'().


How are you stacking? There are some specific techniques to stack the comet separate from the stars, stack the stars separate from the comet, then combine the two. DSS can actually do it for you, it's decent. PixInsight has comet stacking capabilities as well...more manual, more complex, but the results can be amazing.


I would download DSS (DeepSkyStacker, free) and try that first.


@dcm: Hubble stuff puts most ground-based astrophotographer's work to shame. Having no atmosphere to contend with is a HUGE bonus for Hubble...it can resolve an incredible amount of detail. Seeing is the bane of all earth-bound imagers, although with cameras like the A7s, which is so incredibly sensitive, we may be able to employ lucky imaging techniques to solve that problem within the next few years. Lucky imaging (high speed imaging, allowing you to take tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of frames, then discard any that aren't near-perfect, integrating only the best ones), combined with adaptive/active optics, is how the new Thirty-meter and Forty-meter telescopes from ESO will resolve more detail than Hubble (by a lot.) There are some adaptive optics options for ground-based imagers...their effectiveness has never been fully verified...but combined with lucky imaging, ground-based imagers with 16-32" scopes could produce some amazing results, for sure.

Yeah I have been working with DSS.  Got a nice stack.  background is bright due to the moon that night.  The issue is in processing using photoshop and trying to stretch the tail out of the background.  When I get done with the editing it looks like about 8 shades of grey and I give up to try again another time.  I'm certainly obviously missing something.


36
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 06, 2015, 06:19:17 PM »
Yeah What I see jrista do with a photo editor is amazing.  I've been trying to tease out my stack of 30 taken of Comet Lovejoy and it turns to mush every time I try to tease out the detail. 

A single shot from the stack looks better than the stack.  :(

It's obviously an art itself.

37
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 06, 2015, 01:41:55 PM »
Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics.  There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.

I find primes have about a 1/2 stop advantage over zooms of similar apertures.

Yep and for most who require big teles for wildlife also require better low light capability and 1/2 stop can make a difference in the morning or late evening or when adding an extender to the mix.

The actual difference is more like 1/6th of a stop.
Example:  70-200/2.8L IS II T-stop=3.6, 200/2.8L II T-stop=3.3.

depends on the number of optics.  For that lens 1/6 may be correct.

38
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 06, 2015, 12:26:16 PM »
Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics.  There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.

I find primes have about a 1/2 stop advantage over zooms of similar apertures.

Yep and for most who require big teles for wildlife also require better low light capability and 1/2 stop can make a difference in the morning or late evening or when adding an extender to the mix.

39
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 05, 2015, 11:08:12 PM »
I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing.  Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO?  A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

I'm surprised you're so sceptical about DO with how much people raved about the weight difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 Big Whites.

My bet is all Mk3 Supertelephoto lenses will be DO, there really isn't much else they can improve otherwise.

I think by 2020 the 500 and 600 dinosaur primes could be replaced by a single 400 - 600/4 DO zoom unit.

Canon are getting the hang of DO now so this would be a natural developement - two for one! Primes are going to be replaced by zooms.

Primes will always beat zooms in light transmission due to fewer optics.  There is an advantage to primes that most people don't realize.

40
Lenses / Re: Cost to repair image stabilization on 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:13:51 PM »
Yikes.  Assuming that price from Canon Canada is correct, if you had shipped the lens to Canada for repair, after taking 20% off their fixed price, and after converting to USD, it would cost you only $218.27 US (plus shipping).

Why does Canon USA charge almost double what Canon Canada charges for the same repair?

Actually having torn a couple similar lenses apart.  It takes a considerable amount of time to diagnose the problem, tear it down, replace the bad module, then reassemble the elements...keeping it all clean...then recollimating the optics again.  It's not something you can just replace like a set of spark plugs.

I think 400.00 to fix it is quite reasonable for employing someone as specialized as they are to do it right.  I personally would not attempt it even if I had a great YouTube video showing me how.  The specialized tools and knowledge to do it correctly would cost more than the repair.

Why Canada costs less?  Not sure unless they are just giving you a refurbished one and using less skilled techs to repair it later.  could be other reasons including some fine print somewhere that exclude certain repairs from that low price.

41
I have found focal to be largely useless for most people.  You end up with a false sense of security and blow away way too many shutter actuations.  You get better and more accurate results by using something like a spyder lenscal.

I had terrible and inconsistent results across the board with it.  So I don't recommend anyone waste their money unless you do camera repair and calibration for a living.


42
Lenses / Re: Cost to repair image stabilization on 70-200 f2.8L IS II
« on: January 01, 2015, 04:19:54 PM »
IS is the most fragile part in these lenses.  It is not rugged by any means.  Treat your lens like a carton of eggs.  That being said, my 300mm was no match for a linebacker that had the run of his career.  I sent it in to have the  IS replaced and it was about 400.00 and included a needed lens collimation, and a couple of other minor things replaced.

For the 70-200 it is worth getting repaired as a replacement is about 2K.

If you are not a CPS member, this may be a good time to join if you qualify (register your lens first via CPS before sending in) as you will get a discount on your repair and parts.

43
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 01, 2015, 03:59:47 PM »
Tested out the sky-watcher star adventurer last night. Worked rather well with my 7d2 and 300mm f2.8l II.  However needed a larger counterweight from an old Orion p.o.s. Mount...about the only good thing to come from that.

Seemed to track unguided pretty accurately and was able to take 30 sixty second subs of lovejoy at ISO 1600 without any drift errors.  The moon had more of an impact than the mount.

Today I attempted to mount my 5d3 and 600mm f4 to it but with both counterweights it was still a bit top heavy.  However I was able to lock the clutch and it tracked without stalling the motor.  Took about 15 seconds to  stabilize so I will likely have to use a manual cardboard shutter for the subs.  I'm sure this combo exceeds the useful weight limit but it will be worth trying once the moon gets out of the way.

I have a trip planned next year to the Midwest and have been looking for something to take that will not require an extra suitcase.  The skywatcher is small enough And takes about as much space as a couple of  dslrs , excluding the tripod which has to go anyway.

I stacked the subs but having some issues with my laptop so the final will have to wait until that get resolved.

Here is one sub which I edited on my iPad.


44
Technical Support / Re: Battery drain
« on: December 27, 2014, 09:51:41 AM »
I have now tried every combination of things to get to bottom of this. Memory cards out, swapped batteries, reset the settings. But I have come to conclusion that the repair was not executed properly. Looking at various forums, I have come to point that it's more than likely a main circuit board issue. So another wait from my dealer, who on the first instance wanted to bin a rather expensive piece of hardware, but I don't want to give up.

Forget the dealer.  If you are serious about keeping it then it would be good to send it back to canon for repair.  Possible they may not since it's an older model but they may be the best ones to evaluate what's wrong and do the repairs.

If it is a circuit board issue, I doubt anyone will repair it.  The labor to diagnose and repair/replace suspect chips or components may cost more than buying another used one.


45
Smartphone cameras just suck. What else can I say.  They are fine for taking shots of your baby doing something silly but I've found if the conditions are even somewhat challenging, forget it.  I've never liked touch screen cameras much either.  The Eos-m is the only touch screen camera I use frequently.  However I despise the touch screen interface.  Takes way too long to make exposure adjustments...and with a phone, there are no adjustments that are of any real value.

Smartphone cameras may be only good for capturing the vehicle of the guy that just stole your DSLR...then again the quality is so bad it probobly wouldn't be of any use to anyone.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 62