ISS WITH ONLY SMARTPHONE CAMERA..2

[robj64]

this is a video

and another frame

[robj64]

 

[Kropster]

Amazing if all you used was a smartphone.

Did you zoom in digitally?

[Steve Ward]

Having been through your capture frame by frame I can still see no way that the image produced is correct ... 

Best frame I could find provided this ... 

 

And a quick stretch of your final image was rather revealing too ... 

 

 

 

[Steve Ward]

And I neglected to mention that your video shows you had a FOV covering around 30-40 degrees ( going by the stations 15 degree maximum elevation on that pass ) 

At this kind of focal length you'd never have filled that many pixels with a crisp focused satellite.

[Stu]

Interesting Steve. Looks like rather than being ISS it was actually the light from the house down below with a fair bit of camera shake?

[Steve Ward]

Not sure Stu , but sure as eggs is eggs the image of the ISS was not captured handheld with an un-aided mobile phone camera.

Just remains for the OP to come clean now , unless he's waiting for a call from the APOD team ... !

Edited January 8, 2017 by Steve Ward

[robj64]

I am sorry that you are not convinced of what I did, but the homes of two lights are down, and you can also try to draw a few frames, I do not allow myself to make fun of anyone, mine was only a serene and peaceful sharing.

[Tim]

At least you managed to keep the moving ISS in the frame Rob, that can be tricky when zoomed in.

From our calculations though it looks impossible to get any kind of detail at all at this resolution.

I would think possibly the stacking program has done its best job on artifacts, and by sheer chance the result happens to look slightly satellite shaped.

The good thing is that you are experimenting, and finding out what is possible. It is possible to image the ISS in remarkable detail, and SGL members should be able to help you achieve some success if you're interested.

Thanks for posting the video

Tim

[robj64]

Certainly Tim, are also here to learn and to learn new techniques, have a quick and avid lover of space and the universe, thanks for the advice.

[Stu]

30 minutes ago, Steve Ward said:

Just remains for the OP to come clean now , unless he's waiting for a all from the APOD team ... !

Perhaps the StuPOD team?...........

[RayD]

I have to admit, whilst I always try to get a visual on the ISS when possible, this has sparked a little something to have a go at imaging it now (albeit not with my mobile).

Keep up with the hobby Rob it's great and, like Stu, if you can get at some point to image the ISS with a large OTA I'm sure we would all love to see the results.

Edited January 8, 2017 by RayD

[Steve Ward]

26 minutes ago, Tim said:

I would think possibly the stacking program has done its best job on artifacts, and by sheer chance the result happens to look slightly satellite shaped.

There was no stacking involved , just a single frame selected 'resized and Photoshopped' ... 

[Debo]

As Stu suggested - Here's my version using the house light, just did a screen print from one of the video frames and PS'd it.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Debo

[Scooot]

1 minute ago, Debo said:

Here's my version using the house light, just did a screen print from one of the video frames and PS'd it.

 

I wondered if it was that but didn't realise they were house lights, thought they were some sort of reflection until it was mentioned in the thread.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

It is very likely that we are looking at compression artefacts brought out by overstretching the contrast. The pixel size of a good smartphone camera on the sky is just under a minute of arc, which is the size of the ISS during a favourable pass (near overhead). As the houses in the foreground show, the ISS wasn't overhead. Therefore to the camera the ISS was a point source.Point sources do not compress well in most compression methods, because a lot of high frequencies are needed to represent them. They are therefore easily distorted if compression is high.