March 06, 2015, 03:03:13 AM

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 6 ... 64
46
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 17, 2015, 06:31:48 PM »
Here is comet Lovejoy from last weekend.  I'm still learning pixinsight and that is much more daunting than actually taking the subs.

Working on some new subs I took last night.  Good split in the tail.  My biggest issues are finding any clear instructions on the finer settings within the tool.  Experimentation seems to be the best way to learn.

47
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 13, 2015, 12:11:54 AM »
Keeping in mind the whole premise of a zoom is flexibility over IQ (of which isn't really an issue anymore either) the difference in transmission I doubt will influence the majority of buyers.

It really depends on what you shoot...and how deep your pockets will let you go.  A zoom is ALL about flexibility and in very few instances do they equate to the same IQ as a prime of the same FL.  The only one that comes to mind is the 200-400.

I shoot wildlife with my primes.  Sold all of my zooms (except the 70-200 2.8L IS II) and would not buy any of the latest except the 200-400 but my pockets aren't big enough ..yet.

48
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: January 13, 2015, 12:04:57 AM »
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.

What other pairs can be checked?  As far as I can think of, the only other one is the 100-400L and 400/5.6L where the f-stops and focal lengths are the same between prime and zoom.  The 400/5.6L hasn't been tested.

You could also compare the 70-200 2.8L II to the 100 F2.8L Macro and a host of others.  Logically one would compare the lenses wide open when possible. You can compare other lenses if you stop down the prime.  For example compare a 70-300 to a 300 2.8 stopped down to F5.6.

The light transmission benefit also holds true at similar F-stop settings.

49
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 12, 2015, 11:46:42 PM »
Yeah, I've been having a lot of problems with DSS comet stacking as well. I found a PDF recently that explained a specific imaging procedure. The guy was imaging with a mono CCD with color filters, so his sequencing was complex. The trick was to use 20-second gaps between frames to ensure that stars were fully separated from each other. That is the only way that DSS will be able to properly apply kappa sigma clipping to reject stars when it registers on the comet. Anything else, and you'll have problems.


I've been integrating with PixInsight, and have had largely the same problem as with DSS. I think the star-gap technique is the right way to image a comet. If I get another change, I'll be employing it.

Ah interesting.  Since I took 130x20sec subs, I can use every other one that passes a decent score and see how that works.  That gives me a 21 second gap between subs.  Surely I can get at least 40 subs still.

So one of the issues I a see with pixinsight comet integration is that it assumes all subs are taken without moving the field of view.  That is you specify where the comet is on the first and last subs and it interpolates the position on every other sub.  I guess you have to do a star align on every sub first to normalize the fov then do comet integration.


Yes, generally that's how comet imaging works. Most things assume that (DSS does for it's default integration, where you only mark the comet in the first and last subs sorted by time index.) If you change the field between subs, then your on your own. :P

Wow.  PixInsight with 8 subs and no calibration already has done better than DSS and photoshop.  Need a few more days of learning before I have something to post.

50
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 12, 2015, 11:45:53 AM »
Yeah, I've been having a lot of problems with DSS comet stacking as well. I found a PDF recently that explained a specific imaging procedure. The guy was imaging with a mono CCD with color filters, so his sequencing was complex. The trick was to use 20-second gaps between frames to ensure that stars were fully separated from each other. That is the only way that DSS will be able to properly apply kappa sigma clipping to reject stars when it registers on the comet. Anything else, and you'll have problems.


I've been integrating with PixInsight, and have had largely the same problem as with DSS. I think the star-gap technique is the right way to image a comet. If I get another change, I'll be employing it.

Ah interesting.  Since I took 130x20sec subs, I can use every other one that passes a decent score and see how that works.  That gives me a 21 second gap between subs.  Surely I can get at least 40 subs still.

So one of the issues I a see with pixinsight comet integration is that it assumes all subs are taken without moving the field of view.  That is you specify where the comet is on the first and last subs and it interpolates the position on every other sub.  I guess you have to do a star align on every sub first to normalize the fov then do comet integration.

51
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 12, 2015, 07:45:05 AM »
Yeah, I've been having a lot of problems with DSS comet stacking as well. I found a PDF recently that explained a specific imaging procedure. The guy was imaging with a mono CCD with color filters, so his sequencing was complex. The trick was to use 20-second gaps between frames to ensure that stars were fully separated from each other. That is the only way that DSS will be able to properly apply kappa sigma clipping to reject stars when it registers on the comet. Anything else, and you'll have problems.


I've been integrating with PixInsight, and have had largely the same problem as with DSS. I think the star-gap technique is the right way to image a comet. If I get another change, I'll be employing it.

Ah interesting.  Since I took 130x20sec subs, I can use every other one that passes a decent score and see how that works.  That gives me a 21 second gap between subs.  Surely I can get at least 40 subs still.

52
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 11, 2015, 07:32:54 PM »
LOL.  More DSS fail.  Cant get a good stack using this software.  Look at those artifacts!

53
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 11, 2015, 05:27:51 PM »
Seems that no matter what I do with DSS and the post in PS, this is the best I can get.  By the time I work through the repetative curve process, the background ends up looking like 16 shades of grey.  I know there is nice data here to be had but it's not coming out with the old school tools.

So I just submitted my trial license for pixinsight before I get too discouraged and give up.


PixInsights calibration, registration, and integration tools are far better than DSS. The registration is far superior, and it includes a CometRegistration tool. I recommend following this:


http://harrysastroshed.com/pixinsight/pixinsight%20video%20files/2013%20pix%20vids/cometstack2/cometstack2.mp4

Good stuff.  I'll be checking out likely all of their videos.  Lol.

Today I have been experimenting with DSS settings and get varying results.  They don't go into much detail on when some settings should be used or not...but I guess that's what you get for free.  ;)


54
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 11, 2015, 04:23:12 PM »
Seems that no matter what I do with DSS and the post in PS, this is the best I can get.  By the time I work through the repetative curve process, the background ends up looking like 16 shades of grey.  I know there is nice data here to be had but it's not coming out with the old school tools.

So I just submitted my trial license for pixinsight before I get too discouraged and give up.

55
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 11, 2015, 12:15:46 PM »
Pixinsight offers a 45 day trial version.  I can't think of a better time to try it out and see if it helps.  Though it may take 45 days just to learn how to use it.

Downside is in 45 days you have to cough up 230 euros!

56
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 10, 2015, 11:22:51 PM »
Just brutal...110 subs of lovejoy tonight with the 600 and 5d3.  Didn't realize it was 18 degrees F outside.  Good news is that the sensor stayed at 19C the entire time.

I ended up using ISO 1600 and 20 sec shots at f 5.6.  Running them now to see how many have a decent score.

This will be the last op for a while as a front is coming in tomorrow.  Next window will be Friday or Saturday night.

57
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 10, 2015, 04:45:15 PM »
I see you even picked up a galaxy there on the right.

58
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: January 10, 2015, 04:12:05 PM »
Comet Lovejoy C/2014 Q2


I don't get to do comets often. They aren't in the sky that much, and even when they are, they are often low to the horizon during sunrise. Terry Lovejoy, comet-finder extraordinaire, discovered another comet in August 2014. It finally drifted into the northern horizon skies on December 24th, and I've been wanting to get some comet photons ever since. Finally got a chance last night:





In my haste to get some data before the moon came up, I ended up underexposing my subs. That resulted in the heavy banding of the 5D III showing through. I managed to eliminate most of it, but some is still visible in the coma. This was my first tracked comet image, and I managed to get some detail on the tail, which I'm fairly happy about. Hoping I get another opportunity to image this again, and get some better data.

Really nice.  And very nice you have dark skies!  I'm going to try the 600 tonight but I'm not expecting much.  What was your integration to get this?

59
EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 10:43:31 PM »
@ East Wind ( and others):

Does Magic Lantern with its focus system improve the AF time and/or the lag time?

@ Distant.star:

I've been looking at the Fuji X system and wondering if that would be a "better" system for me even though I'd need a set of lenses with the X-mount?

@ Cory:

You might want to look at the Joby Gorilla-pod series for light and small that could go nicely with a small mirrorless setup.  I've used the SLR-Zoom with the Ballhead-x to support my 5Diii and a 70-200 f/4 and that is much smaller and lighter than my Redged  tripod.  So an even smaller Gorilla-pod should work for you.

All:

Appreciate your comments sofar.....

No it does not improve the lag or AF speed. just adds additional capabilities.

60
EOS-M / Re: Why do I keep my Eos M?
« on: January 09, 2015, 04:44:36 PM »
A pocket camera that runs Magic Lantern that I carry everywhere.  What more can I say.

Dual ISO (single shot HDR)
Time lapse video
Intervalometer
Automatic focus stacking
Raw video when I need it
And lastly accepts all of my EF lenses in a pinch


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 64