Slashdot Mirror

Huh? You can't see those objects from an earth telescope.

http://www.telescopes.com/blog...

There's the square root of bugger-all oxygen in space, so the odds of an O atom finding an H atom are beyond astronomical.

That's nonsense. There's enough oxygen out there that they even sell filters for telescopes that filter for oxygen ionization. It shows up a lot in planetary nebulas which are formed by the remnants of supernova (and where you'd expect to find oxygen). Those routinely run into hydrogen gas clouds.

You'd be lucky to get that amount of detail out of the film; grain size is going to be an issue, but the optics of the scanner as well.

Ce depend, er that depends. Different films have different grain sizes even discounting film speed or ISO. Fuji Velvia for instance has bigger grain than some film but finer than others. As for my scanner, as I said it can optically scan 6400 dpi, interpolated resolution is 12,800. Still scanning at 4800 dpi still generates a good sized file, especially at 32 never mind 48 bit colour depths. And yes Photoshop can work with those depths, unlike GIMP which only works at 8 bit depths.

But then we're back to the "do you really need to store an image at that size?". See the quality concerns up above and in my previous post. Assume you would, some day, actually print this..

And I dealt with both of these in previous posts. If you want as high a quality as possible you want large files and for print it matters.

Note that this is typically a combined value. E.g. 16bits for red, green, and blue (16+16+16 = 48). 16bits isn't bad, by the way.. 16bits is good.. 16 bits is great! 32bits is even better but not even the film (movie) industry deals with 32bit very often.

I don't know what colour depths movie studios use a lot but CinePaint is used by studios a lot and it works with 32 bit colour depths. Of course the problem that neither of us has mentioned yet is that software and storage isn't the limiting factor when talking about high bit colour channels, the limiting factor are monitors and graphics cards that drive them. A monitor I was thinking I'd like to get, when I could afford it, was the HP DreamColor LP2480zx, however some comments aren't good.

Well that's the thing though, isn't it... if you're going to be using it in the very near future, then you'd have to find a way to get a bigger drive to begin with..

Oh, that's my plan. I want to start working as a photographer and as finances allow I'll upgrade my hardware. And maybe software, but I want to try FOSS programs first. Because buying Photoshop CS3 never mind CS4 would put a strain on my finances, I'm on disability and unemployed, I've been thinking about installing Ubuntu Studio which includes the afore mentioned CinePaint to edit photos. That's what I like about microstock websites, I can start with what I have now then if, with as many others using them a big if, and when I start to make money I can roll the income into better equipment.

if your tool of choice is Photoshop, then setting the quality to highest/100 will do. If you use The GIMP, there's several options there you can use to specify the exact JPEG encoding to have as little loss as possible.

If Film GIMP, CinePaint, doesn't do what I'll want then I'll try to get Photoshop.

Shooting (near-)IR with an 87 filter can be fun, yes, and it's certainly a lot easier and cheaper to do with a point-and-shoot.

I shot 35mm IR film before, but that was a long tyme ago. Having a digicam that has the ability would be easier. The "Make" article I said I read mentioned some cameras that were good for IR photography. I wonder what the photos would look like shooting astrophotography, one of the areas I want to shoot, in IR. I have, though haven't tried it yet, the Meade ETX80 telescope and camera mount for my camera.

Good luck with the developing - E6 shouldn't be an issue but I'd certainly pay attention to people there who have done it before as it -can- be finnicky.. and requires way more patience than I was ever will

Misdemeanor? Are you sure about that?

They're a popular accessory for stargazers, as seen here. Obviously, shining them at people/aircraft is a bad thing, but I didn't think their proper use was illegal.

If you want to use a camera on a telescope you need a T-adapter for your particular telescope:
http://www.telescopes.com/search/index.cfm?Ntt=T-adapter&Ntk=all
and a t-ring for your particular camera: http://www.telescopes.com/search/index.cfm?Ntt=t-ring&Ntk=all

What you found is for mounting your camera piggyback on a telescope, ie not looking through it.

Astrophotography is highly technical - it's not just hooking up a camera to a telescope and shooting like you do in terrestrial photography. That's why it's good to start small, with a tripod and a telescope. You have to learn how to do it.

No, you won't be shooting pictures of Titan. But you won't be shooting pictures of titan, except as a dot of light, without an investment of at least several thousand dollars.

The moon is the one astronomical target that you can shoot kind of like you would a terrestrial one, but you can get pretty good pictures of it with a normal telephoto lens, handheld even.

If you're interested in astrophotography the thing to do is find a star party and learn from someone who knows how to do it. If you just buy a $500 telescope and hook up your camera you'll be disappointed. Most people quit and miss out.

If you want to use a camera on a telescope you need a T-adapter for your particular telescope:
http://www.telescopes.com/search/index.cfm?Ntt=T-adapter&Ntk=all
and a t-ring for your particular camera: http://www.telescopes.com/search/index.cfm?Ntt=t-ring&Ntk=all

What you found is for mounting your camera piggyback on a telescope, ie not looking through it.

Astrophotography is highly technical - it's not just hooking up a camera to a telescope and shooting like you do in terrestrial photography. That's why it's good to start small, with a tripod and a telescope. You have to learn how to do it.

No, you won't be shooting pictures of Titan. But you won't be shooting pictures of titan, except as a dot of light, without an investment of at least several thousand dollars.

The moon is the one astronomical target that you can shoot kind of like you would a terrestrial one, but you can get pretty good pictures of it with a normal telephoto lens, handheld even.

If you're interested in astrophotography the thing to do is find a star party and learn from someone who knows how to do it. If you just buy a $500 telescope and hook up your camera you'll be disappointed. Most people quit and miss out.

What you've found on Google Checkout aren't tracking mounts, they're mostly piggyback mounts to attach a camera to the side of a telescope.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "tracking mount". But you're right about what I've found, I specifically searched camera telescope mount. Like I said before, I want to be able to mount a camera to a telescope. No matter whether you use a digital or a film camera, you can get photos that are a lot better. If that weren't so then people wouldn't be needing a telescope period, they can just go out and look up. Sure you can get photos for instance of the moon but with the camera mounted on a telescope you can get more details, see the craters or what have you. Or maybe you want to get shots of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, do you think a digital camera can capture it without a telescope? If it can don't you believe mounting the camera on a telescope will make a better photo? Or a nebulus? I think you're limiting yourself by not using a telescope to mount a camera on for astrophotography.

Here are some tracking mounts: http://www.telescopes.com/mounts-and-mount-accessories/8197+8200+9463.cfm?Nao=36

Using Find in Firefox, I only find two instances of "track" on that page and both are about tracking an order. So I'm still not sure what you mean by "tracking mount".

Anyway, I expect the original poster has already made up his mind how he's going to proceed and you evidently have a serious investment in film photography. Good luck if you decide to try some astrophotography. It can certainly be done with film.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if he were as confused as I am. And yes, for me I do have a substantial investment (Substantial for me anyway) in film photography, and want to increase my investment in it. I want to get more lenses, both telescopic and macro, wide angle, or fisheye. I also want to get a medium format camera with a film back, then later a digital back for it. And I want to set up a darkroom in my basement. I love photography and hope to make money at it. I am on disability and can't do much of anything else.

What you've found on Google Checkout aren't tracking mounts, they're mostly piggyback mounts to attach a camera to the side of a telescope.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "tracking mount". But you're right about what I've found, I specifically searched camera telescope mount. Like I said before, I want to be able to mount a camera to a telescope. No matter whether you use a digital or a film camera, you can get photos that are a lot better. If that weren't so then people wouldn't be needing a telescope period, they can just go out and look up. Sure you can get photos for instance of the moon but with the camera mounted on a telescope you can get more details, see the craters or what have you. Or maybe you want to get shots of Titan, one of Saturn's moons, do you think a digital camera can capture it without a telescope? If it can don't you believe mounting the camera on a telescope will make a better photo? Or a nebulus? I think you're limiting yourself by not using a telescope to mount a camera on for astrophotography.

Here are some tracking mounts: http://www.telescopes.com/mounts-and-mount-accessories/8197+8200+9463.cfm?Nao=36

Using Find in Firefox, I only find two instances of "track" on that page and both are about tracking an order. So I'm still not sure what you mean by "tracking mount".

Anyway, I expect the original poster has already made up his mind how he's going to proceed and you evidently have a serious investment in film photography. Good luck if you decide to try some astrophotography. It can certainly be done with film.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if he were as confused as I am. And yes, for me I do have a substantial investment (Substantial for me anyway) in film photography, and want to increase my investment in it. I want to get more lenses, both telescopic and macro, wide angle, or fisheye. I also want to get a medium format camera with a film back, then later a digital back for it. And I want to set up a darkroom in my basement. I love photography and hope to make money at it. I am on disability and can't do much of anything else.

You're forgetting that the digital camera lets you take exposures that are about 1/6 of the length of what you need for film. The individual exposures aren't aligned, but you can use software to line them up and stack them. So you can take untracked shots that are equivalent to what you'd get with a film exposure that takes six times longer -- which not only needs tracking but needs fairly decent tracking.

What you've found on Google Checkout aren't tracking mounts, they're mostly piggyback mounts to attach a camera to the side of a telescope.

Here are some tracking mounts: http://www.telescopes.com/mounts-and-mount-accessories/8197+8200+9463.cfm?Nao=36

The Losmandy G-11 is the standard for most amateur astrophotographers. It's $2200 without computer goto, $3200 with. The G-8 is probably similar quality but supports less weight, for $1300, no computer control. If you were going to eventually upgrade to a decent sized telescope, particularly if you're going for a Newtonian, you're going to need at least the G-11.

You can go cheap... there are some cheap mounts in the $400 to $800 range, but they won't let you track nearly as long. Again, if you have a digital camera you can make shorter exposures than you can with film and that tracking inaccuracy won't limit you quite as much.

The $200 or so you save going film instead of digital won't save you money, it will cost you, a lot, in the long run. Not to mention you'll shoot through $200 worth of film and developing LONG before you get anything you're satisfied with.

Because of the way digital sensors capture images, in astrophotography they let you image any given object with much less demand on the really expensive and finicky equipment -- the mount. But if you don't believe me go to a star party where there are some guys doing astrophotography and ask them what they use.

Anyway, I expect the original poster has already made up his mind how he's going to proceed and you evidently have a serious investment in film photography. Good luck if you decide to try some astrophotography. It can certainly be done with film.

Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.

To stay within budget and get good exposures of the night sky, stars and planets, it's better to get a 35 mm film camera. Then get a mount along with the telescope, using the mount the camera can be attached to the telescope. Someone at Astronomy.com asks for advise on getting a camera and mount for $500. Here's an adapter and mounts for different cameras for less than $100. If there is already a camera then several hundred dollars is available for the telescope. However if a camera is needed as well, one can be bought for $300 leaving $600 for the telescope. Oh, and a high quality dslr won't fit in that budget, for astrophotography and high quality a fullframe DSLR is where it's at. And the cheapest fullframe DSLR I know of is the Canon EOS 5D which retails for about $3000.

Though I haven't spent much tyme researching it, I have done some because I'm interested in astrophotography myself. I've got the 35mm and have been looking at telescopes, unfortunately I live in a brightly lit city and know of no place where I can go to shoot the stars.

In much of North America, the moisture in the sky causes a white high altitude fog as soon as the sun goes down, so light or no light, you can't see much of anything anyway, even when you are in the middle of nowhere, of which there actually is quite a lot of around here - it's a big place. So don't blame the white night sky on all the street lights - take a drive out of the city and look up, chances are that you'll still see nothing.

From what I've heard over the last decade, I guess it could be My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas, eXcept 1 Sausage.

After all, after the first nine, there's Xena, Setna, and the not-prominently-named 1996TL66, all of which have been the "10th planet" in major news media.

I have to wonder what the next 10th planet will be called...

Can you see the flag or other objects left behind on the moon from the Apollo missions?

Unfortunately the answer to this question is no. Not even the most powerful telescopes ever made are able to see these objects. The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter. Resolving the lunar rover, which is 3.1 meters in length, would require a telescope 75 meters in diameter. So our backyard 6 inch and 8 inch telescopes are not even going to come close!"

source