Full Moon with the 350D - practise part 2

[iceman]

Ok after my mediocre efforts (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=22545) of capturing the full moon with the 350D and standard 75-300mm lens, I had to try something different to give myself a better chance of capturing better quality results on lunar eclipse night.

I went back to basics :)

12" newt on dob base with 32mm GSO plossl eyepiece, and hand-holding the Canon 350D with lens, pointing into the eyepiece .. The old trusty afocal method - exactly how I started in astrophotography 2 years ago :)

* The first attachment is with the 17-70mm Sigma lens @ 17mm, f/5.6, 1/500s exposure @ ISO100.

The results were quite good, but inconsistent. The large opening on the 17-70 and the small eye lens of the 32mm plossl meant I couldn't get in quite as close as I would've liked and the moon only took up about 1/2 of the frame (in the vertical direction). I also got a lot of vignetting and it was difficult to get a shot that was evenly illuminated without an artificial umbral eclipse in the form of vignetting :lol:

* The second attachment is with the 28mm f/2.8 Canon lens @ 28mm, f/4, 1/400s @ ISO200.

The results were much more consistent here. The 28mm lens is tiny and the opening is very close to the front of the lens, so I could put the lens pretty much right on top of the plossl eyepiece. The moon took up 90% of the frame (in the vertical direction) giving me the resolution I was after. Also, there was no vignetting.
The only problem with this shot, is the moon is blurry on the right edge of the moon. I think it's a result of the cheap GSO plossl and the moon drifting to the edge of the FOV, where the image starts to get blurry (and stars would go seagull!).
If I used a better 30-ish-mm eyepiece, and ensured the moon stayed near the centre when taking the shot, I expect it would be sharper across the field.

I could've used the 12" newt on the EQ6 to keep the moon centered, but chose not to because:
a) The moon is so far South at the moment it's behind a tree from where I set up the EQ mount
b) When I go travelling for the eclipse, I'll take the dob base not the EQ mount, so it was better practise.

The results would also be better if I had an adapter or used a tripod to hold the camera and point it into the eyepiece, rather than hand-holding. At short exposure times (1/500s or so) it should eliminate most chance of hand-shake blurring the image, but there's still a chance. I'll look into getting an adapter in the next 4 weeks :)

Both images had identical post-processing:
1) Crop
2) Levels/curves
3) Sharpen
4) Reduce to 900px wide for web.

Obviously the 28mm image needed little cropping because the moon all but filled the frame.

The image on the left (from the Sigma) actually looks more 3D and in some ways more pleasing. Not sure if it's due to the colour or the fact it's sharper across the frame. Perhaps the right image is a tad overprocessed. I'll play a bit more in the processing to achieve the best result.

Thanks for looking.

[[1ponders]]

Mike have you thought about getting an adapter for your sigma 70-300 lens and then attaching to the DMK ;)

[[1ponders]]

Or borrowing RB's 135 for a weekend or two ;)

[iceman]

The DMK is still only 640x480 - good for animations and montages but not for a single high-resolution image suitable for a large print.

Not a bad idea I guess though, Al's shots with the ToUcam came out pretty good.

btw I've got the Canon 75-300 (stock lens), not the Sigma. The Sigma is better quality than the stock Canon.

RB has a very nice big white 300mm lens that maybe I could borrow.. but he might be using it that night :)

[[1ponders]]

Ugh, yesss I've seen what comes out of the Canon 75-300 :scared:

I reacon around the 200 range with the DMK would look good. I was actually thinking the other night of trying to do an animation of the event. Using the DMK and a suitable lens would be great for that. Lot of processing work though.

[iceman]

The other problem with using the DMK is that it ties me the laptop and hub, which ties me to needing power.

I'm planning to photograph the eclipse from a beach-side spot, not from home. So I can't rely on power.

[h0ughy]

are you after the moonlight vista of the beach scene Mike??

I am planning on going to a dark sky site to get the stars behind the moon when in full eclipse, or over water like a lake? Even thought about getting a monument;) or people in the shot, but that would be a wide field shot and it might not work. Might have to research some other eclipse shots people have taken over the years to get some ideas or inspiration. Might even think about going to Mt Sugarloaf as this will be mainly happening in the east and get the city in the shot with the moon. But then there is personal safety and security of gear:sadeyes: its not the same doing things by yourself, quite dangerous actually. I don't feel safe being by myself in certain parts of the city now:help:

[iceman]

I plan on doing some widefield shots (with nice foreground interest) as well long-focal length stuff through the scope, so need to be able to transport my scope to whereever I go.

I was thinking a beachside vista, but doesn't have to be a beach - just somewhere with (unique) foreground interest.

My son Jacob might be coming with me too.

[erick]

I've been thinking of not worrying about foreground on the day - concentrate on the Moon. Shoot various possible foregrounds under different conditions - say twilight or dawn - before and after - and photoshop the best foreground into a sequence of Moon shots. Sadly, my ideas exceed my technology and abilities :sadeyes:

(I saw Melbourne city skyline silhouetted against dawn some weeks ago and thought that would be great - with first image of the Moon peeking from behind the top left corner of a building. Alternatively, beautiful big old rocks as per Al's thread:- http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=22534 - plenty of those in nearby country.)

(Of course, for the final image, magnify the Moon many many times against the foreground, relative to normal size ;) )

[iceman]

Hi Eric

That's certainly possible, however the image then becomes totally doctored and not realistic - ie: the moon didn't actually rise there.

I'm trying to keep it as natural as possible, but ultimately there will be some post processing involved :) What you're proposing is a good picture, and it becomes more art then I guess.

[RB]

Totally agree David, it's not safe to travel out there at night (or even the day) especially with this sort of gear.
I always feel uneasy when I go out at night shooting landscapes.



I must admit I like to keep the photos as real as possible.
There's a big difference IMO between post processing in PS to enhance colours and sharpness and actually altering the image to add things in that where not really there.

The analogy is the same with film, obviously the film needs processing, then some dodging or burning in the dark room.
Once you start to superimposing different images/negs etc etc, to me it looses it's appeal.

[sheeny]

This is my biggest problem now - choosing the right site.

It's hard to find a good view of the eastern horizon with an interesting foreground. If it was in the west I'd set!:doh:

Al.

[RB]

Nice pun Al......:lol:

[erick]

OK, understood, but some of Stefan Seip's don't look too "real"? I guess there is a place for every approach.

[iceman]

A montage is a different story Eric, that's a beautiful composite - but it's not placed over the top of a city widefield foreground, for example.

It depends what you're trying to achieve. But as you say, photography is art and everyone looks at it differently.

[RB]

Yes that's true Eric, but this sort image is for relative comparison of the same object, much like how Mike and others display multiple Jupiter shots in the one frame.

But to place foreign objects in the frame that were not originally there just doesn't appeal to me personally.

:shrug:

EDIT: Sorry Mike you posted while I was writing mine.

[erick]

Thanks guys, I'm really looking forward to seeing all the results. Hopefully (cross fingers) I might have a humble offering of my own. :) Film-based sadly, so anything can go wrong :(

[MortonH]

I did a practice run the other night with 8" Dob and my Canon Powershot S60 attached to the eyepiece by an Orion Steadypix. My pictures came out very similar to Mike's above but weren't as sharp. Reason for this may be that I attached the camera before focusing the scope, so then I was focussing using the camera's live viewfinder. Next time I guess I should focus the scope first and lock the focusser. DOH!

I also had issues with the tube vibrating for a couple of seconds when I moved it to re-centre the moon, so I had to use the 10-second timer on the camera, which then meant having to put the moon off-centre to allow for drifting during the timer!

I ended up using a Meade 1.25" 32 mm Plossl as it's the only eyepiece I have that's slim enough to fit the Steadypix clamp. I might experiment with my 2.5x Powermate, but I suspect this wil reduce the field of view too much, so that even if the whole moon fits in, it'll be difficult to judge the timer.

The Steadypix isn't sturdy enough to hold my digital SLR, and the Powershot gives noisy pictures, even at ISO100. I have Noise Ninja so I may go with the Powershot on the night but using the SLR without the Steadypix might give better results. I suppose the length of the eclipse means there's time to try both! As for handholding the SLR, in the past I have mounted my SLR on a tripod and then lined this up with the eyepiece. It works, but it can be frustrating getting it all lined up before the moon drifts too far.

One big question: how much longer an exposure will be required when the moon is fully eclipsed? I hope it's still short enough that the moon won't 'trail' when shooting afocally with an undriven scope. Anyone know???

Morton

[Rob_K]

Cloudy here for the last couple of nights, and looks like continuing into the weekend. But I did have a practise a few nights ago. I'm resigned to being limited to off-the-tripod shooting with Canon 400D, and I've only got the 18-55mm kit lens. However, I'm reasonably pleased with the scale I can get shooting at 55mm - the 10.1 mpixels helps! Scale should suit a composite. Try as I might, I couldn't get better focus manually than with autofocus, so I'll stick to that even though it's not perfect (but it might be as perfect as you can get it?).

Have attached the following, all shot at ISO 200, with various F stops & exposures. Cloud came in and ruined further 'practise', before I could try ISO 100 and other settings. New camera, and I really need the practise!!

Cheers -

Edit: these are actual pixel crops from centre of larger shots, composite put together in PS

[iceman]

It's a shame about the scale Rob, but as you say a composite/montage will still look nice if you take enough shots at regular intervals.

The focus looks a little soft - probably some PP sharpening would help a bit.

[Rob_K]

Yeah, thanks Mike. Didn't apply any processing, just getting an idea of what sort of data I can get. Not much, but there are lots of examples of composites/montages around the web that suit this scale and even less, so I'll be more than happy with that. Of course, the clouds have to stay away too! ;) :whistle:

Cheers -

[MortonH]

LAst night I tried hand-holding my Canon EOS10D to the eyepiece (35mm Panoptic) to compare the results of my Powershot on steadypix. Using ISO400 and a 17-40mm zoom lens (at 40mm) the results were much cleaner than the POwershot, but suffered from camera shake due to the unnatural holding position. I think that puting the camera on a tripod and adjusting it to the eyepiece may be the way to go. It will be fiddly, but there will be enough time to keep trying until I get it right.

My other alternative is to try prime focus through the Megrez 90 (if it ever gets here) but my TeleVue mount may not be sturdy enough for the scope and a heavy DSLR. Mirror lockup woud certainly be required I imagine.

Morton

[Outbackmanyep]

Im just gonna go to wherever its clear!

I'll watch the weather satellite images and then do the dash if need be!

Hopefully i'll be able to set up at home or the sports oval if it stays clear!
I plan to image prime focus with the Digital SLR @ f/6.3 or f/10, depending on how it fits in the field of view with the radial guider attached as the other adaptor i have won't quite fit the f/10 shots in the FOV.
Might even image with the 300mm lens on my Minolta AF 35mm camera too on piggyback....

[sheeny]

:thumbsup: I think I've found a suitable site!:thumbsup: Since I don't need a dark sky I'm going to head down to "The Common" in town... trees, lake, gazebo... should be able to frame a nice shot there!;)

Al.