Mr Bean said:While strictly not a still image, it did take 290 stills to make the following movie
Awesome. Well done, Mr Bean.
Upvote
0
Mr Bean said:While strictly not a still image, it did take 290 stills to make the following movie
Thanks Click.Click said:Mr Bean said:While strictly not a still image, it did take 290 stills to make the following movie
Awesome. Well done, Mr Bean.
StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
How do you suppose a multiple exposure could have happened? Some sort of hardware malfunction? I was shooting a panoramic series with no issues on any of the other shots. Curiously it's just on this one image and not affecting all the stars equally.JMZawodny said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
I see the repetition of two identical patterns to these squiggly lines. To my eye, this appears to be something we used to call multiple exposure, in this case a triple exposure.
cazza132 said:Full spectrum modified 6D + Zeiss 135mm f2.0. A multi-panel mosaic.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130830021@N02/20029858014/
StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
The mystery is solved.rfdesigner said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
It's all one frame.
Check each "cluster" of squiggles.. one "vertical" one and a "patch".. then go and find another "patch" and hey presto there's another vertical just to the side of it... it's a bit like lining up complex patterns on wallpaper, it seems impossible until you get your eye in.
So the camera moved.
I've had loads like this when I was trying to get tracking working in the early days... the movement involved is not terribly much and easy to miss in the dark.
StudentOfLight said:How do you suppose a multiple exposure could have happened? Some sort of hardware malfunction? I was shooting a panoramic series with no issues on any of the other shots. Curiously it's just on this one image and not affecting all the stars equally.JMZawodny said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
I see the repetition of two identical patterns to these squiggly lines. To my eye, this appears to be something we used to call multiple exposure, in this case a triple exposure.
StudentOfLight said:The mystery is solved.rfdesigner said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
It's all one frame.
Check each "cluster" of squiggles.. one "vertical" one and a "patch".. then go and find another "patch" and hey presto there's another vertical just to the side of it... it's a bit like lining up complex patterns on wallpaper, it seems impossible until you get your eye in.
So the camera moved.
I've had loads like this when I was trying to get tracking working in the early days... the movement involved is not terribly much and easy to miss in the dark.
You are indeed right. My brother (an astrophysics student) helped fill in the last piece of the puzzle. The camera was not properly locked down and did in fact move. And the clouds did impact the image as well.
There were two instances of movement one vertical sag and one horizontal twitch. The passing cloud obscured some of the stars during those two instances. As a result some stars weren't exposed during the various phases of movement and were captured as sharp, while stars which were exposed during the movement(s) would have one or a combination of the movement trails.
It is indeed difficult to see minute movements in the dark. Dark sky photography requires concentration, and with that light pollution and overhead cloud I guess my head was not in the game.
Hey, thanks Click on three counts. Cheers mate! The new Canon tech with on sensor chip ADCs - I really hope they maintain good long exposure integrity (low dark current and amp glow). They reckon the 7DII is excellent in that respect. We already know that the new tech is better for pushing 5 stops at ISO100 (not required for even my landscape work), and producing very good high ISO with digic NR. Hoping for a good snr 5DsR II with good QE and low dark current with new sensor tech. Looking forward to seeing some long exposure/high ISO raws! We will see that with the 80D first.Click said:cazza132 said:Full spectrum modified 6D + Zeiss 135mm f2.0. A multi-panel mosaic.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130830021@N02/20029858014/
Stunning picture. Well done, cazza132.
Hi Troy, I stumbled on an article about the award you won last year. Congratulations. You've brought some incredible images to the fore here on CR and it is amazing that you've gained recognition from your peers. I hope you keep inspiring us here for years to come. Best regards!cazza132 said:Hey, thanks Click on three counts. Cheers mate! The new Canon tech with on sensor chip ADCs - I really hope they maintain good long exposure integrity (low dark current and amp glow). They reckon the 7DII is excellent in that respect. We already know that the new tech is better for pushing 5 stops at ISO100 (not required for even my landscape work), and producing very good high ISO with digic NR. Hoping for a good snr 5DsR II with good QE and low dark current with new sensor tech. Looking forward to seeing some long exposure/high ISO raws! We will see that with the 80D first.Click said:cazza132 said:Full spectrum modified 6D + Zeiss 135mm f2.0. A multi-panel mosaic.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130830021@N02/20029858014/
Stunning picture. Well done, cazza132.
StudentOfLight said:Image pulled from time lapse sequence. The passing satellite (I assume) in this frame makes for a more interesting shot.
Exposure: 20s @ f/2.5, ISO 6400.
In aiming for a good exposure of the LMC, I ended up overexposing some of the milky way stars. You live you learn...
I don't mind satellites and meteors as they leave a clean line, but airplanes leave dashed lines which are quite harsh and distracting.rfdesigner said:StudentOfLight said:Image pulled from time lapse sequence. The passing satellite (I assume) in this frame makes for a more interesting shot.
Exposure: 20s @ f/2.5, ISO 6400.
In aiming for a good exposure of the LMC, I ended up overexposing some of the milky way stars. You live you learn...
not bad at all.. Southern hemisphere?.. I've never seen the Magellanic Clouds.
It's worth doing say 4 or 5 exposures all the same then doing a median stack if you want to remove satellite/aircraft trails