I used 2 programs, PIPP and RegiStax 6. I will try over the next day to find the YouTube video that showed how to use them. I need a refresher course. The stacking does add incredible detail.How did you stack them?
Upvote
0
I used 2 programs, PIPP and RegiStax 6. I will try over the next day to find the YouTube video that showed how to use them. I need a refresher course. The stacking does add incredible detail.How did you stack them?
the number of photons falls off proportional 1/d^2. But the size of the image on your sensor also decreases proportionately to 1/d^2
It does, why didn't I think of that?I used 2 programs, PIPP and RegiStax 6. I will try over the next day to find the YouTube video that showed how to use them. I need a refresher course. The stacking does add incredible detail.
It was correct. The number of photons going through the lens aperture falls off as 1/d^2 because the photon flux depends on a solid angle, not a 2D angle..Correction. The angular size decreases proportionally to 1/d (approximately). The area will follow 1/d^2 though.
As a scientist, I do regret the paucity of scientists in newsrooms, parliaments etc. However, I am not sure that a science degree is essential for the study of history. The ability to use Ngram viewer does help though. Here is the frequency of occurrence of "snow moon" in books. It appears to go back for a couple of centuries. I am not going to read all the books to look at the context.
View attachment 188594
Random juxtaposition is unlikely because the Ngram is case sensitive and Snow Moon is far more frequent than snow moon. Similarly for poetry. Two words together beginning with capital letters is usually a compound structure.One wonders whether many or any were in the context of describing a particular wintertime full moon. Could be poetry and not science. Or random juxtaposition
Was the 2nd moonscape photo yours? It was quite good.
Note: Some of my older 300mm and 400mm shots were made at 1/125 and 1/250 and are sharp at 1:1.
I too have had cameras with and without the AA filter and agree completely. No AA filter gives very fake, outlined detail in many cases - even with sharpness dialed down. Far more realistic looking pics when you have a filter, in my opinion.Not necessarily a bad thing if done well.
I shoot with the Sony A7RIII while I wait for the Canon mirrorless cameras and I find the absence of an AA filter gives the impression of sharpness but the images easly look over sharpened due to aliasing and false colour. If you're into the super real look for something like product photography then fair enough but for people, subjects with lots of fine detail like feathers/fur and even landscape I'm not a massive fan.
No, but it would be nice to see them get back on top of FF sales. Then we could lurk Sony forums and hear how Sony is doomed.
Canon's dedication to strong anti aliasing filters will continue, I'm sure.
Not necessarily a bad thing if done well.
I shoot with the Sony A7RIII while I wait for the Canon mirrorless cameras and I find the absence of an AA filter gives the impression of sharpness but the images easly look over sharpened due to aliasing and false colour. If you're into the super real look for something like product photography then fair enough but for people, subjects with lots of fine detail like feathers/fur and even landscape I'm not a massive fan.
Crippled is popular word among those that don't understand the first thing about business or are just Sony trolls. Sony does indeed offer a very affordable FF camera. But it comes at a cost. Weather sealing is an industry worst based on testing. Dust removal system is very poor based on many reviews. Ergonomics are awful and apparently - despite user complaints for years - is not worth spending money on improving. Exposure metering is poor based on my own experience. I have read numerous comments from photographers that they have to buy multiple copoes of their lenses until they get one that isn't very decentered.Hey yes agreed, if it’s a $1000 entry level camera that represents an upgrade from the RP, then I can’t complain much about missing specs. And I won’t.
But if the R6 is intended to be an upgrade from the current EOS R with pricing in line with or just above the Sony A7III and it then falls short of meeting those specs on the A7III then that’s disappointing. I mean the A7III is a two year old system, if they can’t meet its minimum standards then it’s crippled.
A7III has IBIS, has Dual Slot, 4K no crop, Magnesium Alloy, 24mp etc and it’s selling for sub $2000. That should be Canons starting point. I mean if you can’t even make a camera that at least rivals a two year old Sony body, then don’t waste my time. Hence crippled.
I like the idea of a weak or moderate AA filter. Sounds like the new 1Dxiii has just that. What that means for the R5/6 is anyone's guess. Days away from knowing I hope!I too have had cameras with and without the AA filter and agree completely. No AA filter gives very fake, outlined detail in many cases - even with sharpness dialed down. Far more realistic looking pics when you have a filter, in my opinion.
Random juxtaposition is unlikely because the Ngram is case sensitive and Snow Moon is far more frequent than snow moon. Similarly for poetry. Two words together beginning with capital letters is usually a compound structure.
Yo davo, CR is a rumours site. We also talk about our gear, and what works best in certain situations. Some of us are afflicted with GAS, and not the hot air you are spewing. You joined on Jan 11, with your trollish negativity you are welcome to leave at any time. You've probably already been banned at different sites under different names. Get a life. All this is just my humble opinion.
Okay, might have over reacted. Sorry.Holy Crapamoly Aaron..... Just having a bit of fun. Chill dude.
RP got auto stacking for lowering noise.Apparently the #1 feature we need in the R5 is not megapixels or dynamic range or IBIS or even sweet 4k video specs. It's automatic stacking of moon exposures.