Matthew Hunt wrote:
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
In simple terms, the definition of infinity focus would be to have parallel
incident light rays. Divergent rays from a point source are closer than
infinity. One could probably set up a calibration unit with parallel ligh
Lovely shots of M31, my favorite "close" object.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> Gonz wrote:
>>
>> Interesting capture of M42. I remember the first time I saw M42 with
>> an 8" scope at the top of the Green building in Cambridge MA. It blew
>> me away. Have you tried M
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
> In simple terms, the definition of infinity focus would be to have parallel
> incident light rays. Divergent rays from a point source are closer than
> infinity. One could probably set up a calibration unit with parallel light
> rays using conv
i always assumed other adjustments were done with other
programmes and one used something like starstax for stacking. stacking
multiple milky way photographs and creating star trail photographs was
what led me to it in the first place but i am just starting out...and
have absolutely no experience o
Larry Colen wrote:
Thank you. Do you mean from the july 4 mount hamilton set?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157667869222073/
+++
I do indeed. Lovely set.
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
IIRC, StarStax is okay for blending the exposures, but not much else.
It's a very basic piece of software.
However it's very cool for creating looong star trails from individual
exposures.
Jostein
Den 07.12.2016 03.46, skrev Subash Jeyan:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 11:47:34 -0800
Larry Colen wrote:
Malcolm Smith wrote:
Larry Colen wrote:
Now that I'm home, here's a link to my astro collection on flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157627826423347/
++
I love 04884& 05001 by the way!
Thank you. Do you mean from the july 4 mount hamilton set?
Stanley Halpin wrote:
On Dec 4, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Larry,
I haven't done much of astro-photography, so, I am just
curious: why focusing at infinity wouldn't work in this case
(i.e. turning the focusing ring to the end of the range)?
Is it just becaus
Larry Colen wrote:
Now that I'm home, here's a link to my astro collection on flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157627826423347/
++
I love 04884 & 05001 by the way!
Malcolm
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/li
Subash Jeyan wrote:
On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 11:47:34 -0800
Larry Colen wrote:
I tried that once and didn't have any luck with the software I used,
it wasn't significantly better than what I got with one frame. I'm
curious if anybody has stacking software they like that runs on macs
(or linux)
On Sun, 04 Dec 2016 11:47:34 -0800
Larry Colen wrote:
> I tried that once and didn't have any luck with the software I used,
> it wasn't significantly better than what I got with one frame. I'm
> curious if anybody has stacking software they like that runs on macs
> (or linux)
StarStaX is a good
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
>
> Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> I haven't done much of astro-photography, so, I am just
>> curious: why focusing at infinity wouldn't work in this case
>> (i.e. turning the focusing ring to the end of the range)?
>> Is it just
Gonz wrote:
Interesting capture of M42. I remember the first time I saw M42 with
an 8" scope at the top of the Green building in Cambridge MA. It blew
me away. Have you tried M31?
Now that I'm home, here's a link to my astro collection on flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/colle
On December 6, 2016 1:40:22 PM PST, Gonz wrote:
>Interesting capture of M42. I remember the first time I saw M42 with
>an 8" scope at the top of the Green building in Cambridge MA. It blew
>me away. Have you tried M31?
That was my first of that sort, I'm on my phone but if you search my flick
Interesting capture of M42. I remember the first time I saw M42 with
an 8" scope at the top of the Green building in Cambridge MA. It blew
me away. Have you tried M31?
Here is a pic of M42 taken by Hubble that is drool worthy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Messier_objects#/media/File:Or
Jostein wrote:
Den 04.12.2016 20.47, skrev Larry Colen:
I tried that once and didn't have any luck with the software I used, it
wasn't significantly better than what I got with one frame. I'm curious
if anybody has stacking software they like that runs on macs (or linux)
If it's been a whi
Den 04.12.2016 20.47, skrev Larry Colen:
I tried that once and didn't have any luck with the software I used, it
wasn't significantly better than what I got with one frame. I'm curious
if anybody has stacking software they like that runs on macs (or linux)
If it's been a while since last time
In my experience, the best way to focus is to use LiveView, zoom the
screen in on a star, and use manual focus. Correct focus is never at the
lens' infinity setting. :-)
Jostein
Den 04.12.2016 22.50, skrev Larry Colen:
Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Larry,
I haven't done much of astro-photography,
Loved your prose,
B
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 4, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
>
>
>> On 4 Dec 2016, at 21:51, Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>>>
>>> Larry,
>>>
>>> I haven't done much of astro-photography, so, I am just
>>> curious: why focusing at infinity wouldn't
Most lenses go beyond infinity for two reasons: they focus shift and
need the extra room to reach infinity or they are designed to deal
with temperature fluctuations. A cold lens shrinks.
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
>
>
> Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>>
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> I haven't
On 4 Dec 2016, at 21:51, Larry Colen wrote:
>
> Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>>
>> Larry,
>>
>> I haven't done much of astro-photography, so, I am just
>> curious: why focusing at infinity wouldn't work in this case
>> (i.e. turning the focusing ring to the end of the range)?
>> Is it just because the
Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Larry,
I haven't done much of astro-photography, so, I am just
curious: why focusing at infinity wouldn't work in this case
(i.e. turning the focusing ring to the end of the range)?
Is it just because the particular lens(es) are not designed or
manufactured well for infin
Larry,
I haven't done much of astro-photography, so, I am just
curious: why focusing at infinity wouldn't work in this case
(i.e. turning the focusing ring to the end of the range)?
Is it just because the particular lens(es) are not designed or
manufactured well for infinity focus? (E.g. they h
Thanks Jostein, also Malcolm, and all who looked.
Jostein wrote:
Well done you.
The Orion season starts a little later up here. It's a bit low on the
horizon yet, with light pollution and heat shimmer getting in the way.
To make up for it, you have a much better Aurora season than we do.
Yo
Well done you.
The Orion season starts a little later up here. It's a bit low on the
horizon yet, with light pollution and heat shimmer getting in the way.
Your results are on par with what I've got from single exposures with
the Sigma 500/4.5. Proper focusing seems to be the limiting factor
Larry Colen wrote:
Inspired by actually being able to see it in photos with the FA77 I had a go
at photographing the Orion nebula.
Here it is with the bigma, 500mm, wide open at f/6.7, ISO 800, astrotracer
only seems to work up to about 10 seconds at 500mm. However, that beats the
rule of 600 by
Inspired by actually being able to see it in photos with the FA77 I had
a go at photographing the Orion nebula.
Here it is with the bigma, 500mm, wide open at f/6.7, ISO 800,
astrotracer only seems to work up to about 10 seconds at 500mm. However,
that beats the rule of 600 by a factor of 8.
27 matches
Mail list logo