Long exposure on an unstable platform

[RChauhan]

I work on a ship and have seen some amazing night skies.

The problem with the normal long exposure techniques is that the engine vibrations and the motion cause a lot of shake.

Does anybody have any ideas to deal with this?

I am carrying a 70D & aTokina 11-16 f2.8.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For a really long exposure, it isn't going to work. A lens with good IS might help, but only for minor vibration, and not pitching of a boat.

You should probably try taking a series of short exposures and then merge them in Photoshop or similar software. Each image will be sharp, and as long as they are focused on distant objects, the perspective may not change enough to matter over a few seconds.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Oops, I suddenly realized that you might be wanting to show motion of the clouds? The multiple shot technique will give a sharp in-focus image, but will not show blurred clouds or water from motion.

 

[RChauhan]

Those are just the kind of pictures I can get so far.

I wanted to get some pictures of the milky way.

The problem I find is that short exposures on my 70D need too high an ISO and the noise gets too high and ruins the stack.

 

[Don Haines]

I work on a ship and have seen some amazing night skies.

The problem with the normal long exposure techniques is that the engine vibrations and the motion cause a lot of shake.

Does anybody have any ideas to deal with this?

I am carrying a 70D & aTokina 11-16 f2.8.

The first thing I would try is a set of anti-vibration pads from a telescope store....
http://www.telescope.com/Mounts-Tripods/Mount-Tripod-Accessories/Orion-RockStable-Anti-Vibration-Pads-for-Telescope-Mounts/c/2/sc/38/p/5155.uts

That will help with the vibration, but as to the rolling motion, unless you have a tracking mount (like for the ship's Inmarsat dish), there isn't much you can do. It is easy to get a telescope mount with an "autoguider" that will track your target, but they are meant for celestial speeds and are nowhere near fast enough to compensate for a ship's motion.

P.S., how do you like the Tokina?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Those are just the kind of pictures I can get so far.

I wanted to get some pictures of the milky way.

The problem I find is that short exposures on my 70D need too high an ISO and the noise gets too high and ruins the stack.

The idea is that you can underexpose the images and still merge them to get a good one.

http://www.media-division.com/photoshop-tricks-solving-common-photography-problems-using-image-stacks/

 

[Chisox2335]

Those are just the kind of pictures I can get so far.

I wanted to get some pictures of the milky way.

The problem I find is that short exposures on my 70D need too high an ISO and the noise gets too high and ruins the stack.

The idea is that you can underexpose the images and still merge them to get a good one.

http://www.media-division.com/photoshop-tricks-solving-common-photography-problems-using-image-stacks/

I realize this doesn't help with your existing setup but if you got a 6d with a Rokinon 24 f1.4 you can take excellent shots with remarkably quick shutter speed and high ISO. I can get shots in 2 seconds sometimes

 

[unfocused]

Looking at that first image, my reaction is: why would you want to change anything? It's beautiful and far more interesting than a razor sharp image. Sure it would be nice if the containers could be a little sharper and you might be able to figure a way to achieve that, possibly by mounting the camera to some surface iof the ship and using IS, but honestly that image is so original that I'd encourage you to just keep experimenting to see what you come up with without worrying about how the picture is "supposed" to look!

(You might also be able to create the illusion of sharpness by using the high pass filter in Photoshop and masking it So the filter only affects the containers.)

 

[Eldar]

Looking at that first image, my reaction is: why would you want to change anything? It's beautiful and far more interesting than a razor sharp image. Sure it would be nice if the containers could be a little sharper and you might be able to figure a way to achieve that, possibly by mounting the camera to some surface iof the ship and using IS, but honestly that image is so original that I'd encourage you to just keep experimenting to see what you come up with without worrying about how the picture is "supposed" to look!

(You might also be able to create the illusion of sharpness by using the high pass filter in Photoshop and masking it So the filter only affects the containers.)

My exact thoughts too.

 

[tpatana]

Looking at that first image, my reaction is: why would you want to change anything? It's beautiful and far more interesting than a razor sharp image. Sure it would be nice if the containers could be a little sharper and you might be able to figure a way to achieve that, possibly by mounting the camera to some surface iof the ship and using IS, but honestly that image is so original that I'd encourage you to just keep experimenting to see what you come up with without worrying about how the picture is "supposed" to look!

(You might also be able to create the illusion of sharpness by using the high pass filter in Photoshop and masking it So the filter only affects the containers.)

My exact thoughts too.

Me too!

 

[Don Haines]

Sure it would be nice if the containers could be a little sharper and you might be able to figure a way to achieve that, possibly by mounting the camera to some surface iof the ship and using IS

A 20,000 HP engine on a seagoing vessel makes a fair bit of vibration, and you also get flex over the vessel. hard mounting the camera to the ship makes it worse.... we ended up using mounts that clamped onto a post and a 2" thick rubber plate to cut down on vibration.

 

[RChauhan]

Looking at that first image, my reaction is: why would you want to change anything? It's beautiful and far more interesting than a razor sharp image. Sure it would be nice if the containers could be a little sharper and you might be able to figure a way to achieve that, possibly by mounting the camera to some surface iof the ship and using IS, but honestly that image is so original that I'd encourage you to just keep experimenting to see what you come up with without worrying about how the picture is "supposed" to look!

(You might also be able to create the illusion of sharpness by using the high pass filter in Photoshop and masking it So the filter only affects the containers.)

My exact thoughts too.

Me too!

Thanks for the encouragement. I intend to keep shooting these pictures, but the question was for a completely different type because of the total darkness we get mid-ocean we can see a lot more stars than we would see almost anywhere on land.

 

[RChauhan]

Sure it would be nice if the containers could be a little sharper and you might be able to figure a way to achieve that, possibly by mounting the camera to some surface iof the ship and using IS

A 20,000 HP engine on a seagoing vessel makes a fair bit of vibration, and you also get flex over the vessel. hard mounting the camera to the ship makes it worse.... we ended up using mounts that clamped onto a post and a 2" thick rubber plate to cut down on vibration.

Try 50,000+ HP ;D

 

[Orangutan]

At this very moment, Surapon is in his workshop constructing a DIY 3-axis gyroscopic stabilization system with 1.2 meters of motion latitude using nothing more than old tripods, packing material from Amazon.com, and parts from a rusted-out Trabant.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

At this very moment, Surapon is in his workshop constructing a DIY 3-axis gyroscopic stabilization system with 1.2 meters of motion latitude using nothing more than old tripods, packing material from Amazon.com, and parts from a rusted-out Trabant.

Already been Done

http://www.littlegreatideas.com/stabilizer/diy/

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

At this very moment, Surapon is in his workshop constructing a DIY 3-axis gyroscopic stabilization system with 1.2 meters of motion latitude using nothing more than old tripods, packing material from Amazon.com, and parts from a rusted-out Trabant.

Your comment caused me to search.

It has already been done

http://www.littlegreatideas.com/stabilizer/diy/

I wonder if something like the video stabilizers would help. I've never used one, and, for me, its not intuitive.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For a bit more, a active stabilizer would do it.

http://www.prutchi.com/2012/03/09/d-i-y-gyroscopic-camera-stabilizer-that-really-works/

 

[Orangutan]

For a bit more, a active stabilizer would do it.

http://www.prutchi.com/2012/03/09/d-i-y-gyroscopic-camera-stabilizer-that-really-works/

Your Goog-Fu must be better than mine, I did a quick search for such a thing before I posted. For 30-second exposures an active stabilizer could certainly help with stars, and probably clouds. I think physical laws of the Universe preclude doing anything about the cargo at the same time (other than via a composite image).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

For a bit more, a active stabilizer would do it.

http://www.prutchi.com/2012/03/09/d-i-y-gyroscopic-camera-stabilizer-that-really-works/

Your Goog-Fu must be better than mine, I did a quick search for such a thing before I posted. For 30-second exposures an active stabilizer could certainly help with stars, and probably clouds. I think physical laws of the Universe preclude doing anything about the cargo at the same time (other than via a composite image).

You have to guess the right words to search with. Apparently, camera gyro stabilizers are getting popular due to the quadcopter fad. They do tend to be expensive. You might easily rig up a simple stabilizer with a weight. Its a simple principle, and cheap ones abound.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=video+camera+stabilizer

 

[Orangutan]

For a bit more, a active stabilizer would do it.

http://www.prutchi.com/2012/03/09/d-i-y-gyroscopic-camera-stabilizer-that-really-works/

Your Goog-Fu must be better than mine, I did a quick search for such a thing before I posted. For 30-second exposures an active stabilizer could certainly help with stars, and probably clouds. I think physical laws of the Universe preclude doing anything about the cargo at the same time (other than via a composite image).

You have to guess the right words to search with. Apparently, camera gyro stabilizers are getting popular due to the quadcopter fad. They do tend to be expensive. You might easily rig up a simple stabilizer with a weight. Its a simple principle, and cheap ones abound.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=video+camera+stabilizer

The OP needs it for 30 second exposures rather than video, so active gyros are probably the best bet, especially if he can mount it in a very low friction cradle.