Suggestions to improve imaging

[feverdreamer1]

Hi, I'm pretty new to AP and decided to take a photo of the full moon yesterday night. I used a canon 550d unmodded, a tripod and a 55-250mm lens. The picture I attach below is a composition of about 40 lights (I know it's not much but I didn't have time for more). It is processed through Autostakkert and all though I think it's not that good I'm quite happy with one of my first moon captures

What I wanted to know is what improvements do you think that could have been done while shooting?

Thank you in advance,

S

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by feverdreamer1

[endless-sky]

Hi, the picture looks pretty good, maybe I would brighten it up just a touch.

Another thing you could try doing, instead of taking still photographs, is record a video (if your camera has the function), this way you should be able to get 25-30 frames per second. Take a video of two / three minutes and then you will have a couple of thousands of frames to pick from and integrate. Then use AutoStakkert! to choose say the best 10-20% (will still be a few hundred images) and the results will definitely improve: more pictures, better SNR. You could even go for longer videos, to have more data to play with. The Moon - unlike for example Jupiter - doesn't rotate in such a short period of time, so you don't have to limit the length of the video to just a couple of minutes. Another benefit of the video is that the shutter won't keep opening and closing, creating unwanted vibrations that could ruin the single shot exposures.

[feverdreamer1]

1 hour ago, endlessky said:

Hi, the picture looks pretty good, maybe I would brighten it up just a touch.

Another thing you could try doing, instead of taking still photographs, is record a video (if your camera has the function), this way you should be able to get 25-30 frames per second. Take a video of two / three minutes and then you will have a couple of thousands of frames to pick from and integrate. Then use AutoStakkert! to choose say the best 10-20% (will still be a few hundred images) and the results will definitely improve: more pictures, better SNR. You could even go for longer videos, to have more data to play with. The Moon - unlike for example Jupiter - doesn't rotate in such a short period of time, so you don't have to limit the length of the video to just a couple of minutes. Another benefit of the video is that the shutter won't keep opening and closing, creating unwanted vibrations that could ruin the single shot exposures.

I brightened the pic and now it looks quite better thanks. 

And I will definitely try the video mode tonight. But does Autostakkert! align the photos itself or as with still photographies I have to place the AP grids by myself? (I know Autostakkert! Places them but I just found better results if I added a few)

Thanks for the fast reply,

S

[endless-sky]

When AutoStakkert! analyses the video, it presents you with what it thinks it's the best frame. Then you place the grid, manually or automatically, select the number of pictures to stack (as a percentage or as a number chosen by you) and it then aligns and stacks the best frames (percentage or number, accordingly to what you chose).

Edited July 5, 2020 by endlessky

[feverdreamer1]

33 minutes ago, endlessky said:

When AutoStakkert! analyses the video, it presents you with what it thinks it's the best frame. Then you place the grid, manually or automatically, select the number of pictures to stack (as a percentage or as a number chosen by you) and it then aligns and stacks the best frames (percentage or number, accordingly to what you chose).

And does it work if the moon comes out of the frame?

And can I put many videos in Autostakkert!?

Thanks,

S

[endless-sky]

I don't think it would work if the Moon is not in the frame for the whole duration of the video, otherwise you would only get a partial result, equal to the smallest part that's in common with all the "single images". I think you should put the full disc of the Moon on the side of the framing and let the video run until just before the Moon goes out of the framing on the other side.

I haven't tried doing more than one video at the same time, so I don't know if it works. I'll give it a try with a couple of videos tomorrow and then let you know if I could get it to work.

[feverdreamer1]

11 hours ago, endlessky said:

I don't think it would work if the Moon is not in the frame for the whole duration of the video, otherwise you would only get a partial result, equal to the smallest part that's in common with all the "single images". I think you should put the full disc of the Moon on the side of the framing and let the video run until just before the Moon goes out of the framing on the other side.

I haven't tried doing more than one video at the same time, so I don't know if it works. I'll give it a try with a couple of videos tomorrow and then let you know if I could get it to work.

I'm really curious about this method. Can it be used to stack for example milky way frames, or DSO? 

I tried out the video thing last night and I must say that the results were SO much better.

Thank you very much,

S

[endless-sky]

I think the reason it works on the Moon or the brighter and bigger planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus) is because these objects are already really bright and only require short exposures to show on the image. Shooting a video at 25 frames per second is equivalent to saying that each image is 1/25th of a second of exposure. If you tried that on Milky Way shots or DSOs, 1/25th of a second will not be high enough to record any data, I am afraid - maybe only the brightest stars would show, but nothing much in terms of dimmer nebulosity.

With your setup, without an equatorial tracking device, you could still try to do some widefiled images of the Milky Way, maybe with a short lens (18mm or 35mm, for example) and set the exposure to 10-20s (experiment with the exposure length until is the longest one you can accept with little to no star trails) and then stack a lot of images. The video technique is more suitable for the Moon or the major planets.

EDIT: also, I tried loading more than one video and it doesn't seem to work, so I guess you can only process and integrate one video at a time, unfortunately.

Edited July 6, 2020 by endlessky

[prusling]

Like you i have a 550d and I don't know whether you are aware but there is (unusually) a movie crop mode where it uses pixels from the central part of the sensor to give a 'magnified' view at 640x480 resolution. 

I haven't used that feature on mine for a while and I think the Moon may be too large to exploit it, but it's definitely worth considering for the planets. 

[rickwayne]

In principle video stacking can be used for deep sky objects, but since they're so dim, hours of integration time are usually required. But that doesn't mean you can't get results that please you.

[feverdreamer1]

8 hours ago, endlessky said:

I think the reason it works on the Moon or the brighter and bigger planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Mars, Venus) is because these objects are already really bright and only require short exposures to show on the image. Shooting a video at 25 frames per second is equivalent to saying that each image is 1/25th of a second of exposure. If you tried that on Milky Way shots or DSOs, 1/25th of a second will not be high enough to record any data, I am afraid - maybe only the brightest stars would show, but nothing much in terms of dimmer nebulosity.

With your setup, without an equatorial tracking device, you could still try to do some widefiled images of the Milky Way, maybe with a short lens (18mm or 35mm, for example) and set the exposure to 10-20s (experiment with the exposure length until is the longest one you can accept with little to no star trails) and then stack a lot of images. The video technique is more suitable for the Moon or the major planets.

EDIT: also, I tried loading more than one video and it doesn't seem to work, so I guess you can only process and integrate one video at a time, unfortunately.

Well the video issue is a bummer, but using a video instead of still photographs is just so clever. It's still blowing my mind how people can be so creative with a limited equipment. I've recently taken up AP and everytime I read about it I end up learning so many things. It's just amazing.

I have done some milky way exposures before, and next time I have the opportunity to go to some truly dark skies I'll try to image DSO with just a tripod and DSLR. Wish me luck hehe.

Clear skies,

S

[feverdreamer1]

6 hours ago, prusling said:

Like you i have a 550d and I don't know whether you are aware but there is (unusually) a movie crop mode where it uses pixels from the central part of the sensor to give a 'magnified' view at 640x480 resolution. 

I haven't used that feature on mine for a while and I think the Moon may be too large to exploit it, but it's definitely worth considering for the planets. 

Honestly, I picked a 550D because of its price, I found it second hand for about 100 pounds with a kit lens, a tripod and a handbag to carry it. And the shutter count was only about 3k.

I wasn't aware of the movie crop mode thin tok mention. And I will definitely take it into consideration.

Thanks,

S

[feverdreamer1]

30 minutes ago, rickwayne said:

In principle video stacking can be used for deep sky objects, but since they're so dim, hours of integration time are usually required. But that doesn't mean you can't get results that please you.

I guess I'd get more detail using longer exposures than a video right?

I mean, instead of doing, for example, 3 minutes of video with about 30fps (about 5.4k total frames) I'll do a couple hundred of images with exposures of about 10-15 seconds and stack them. I'm guessing the second one gives better results but if I'm wrong let me know.

Thanks,

S

[happy-kat]

For night sky images the second one will yield more. As a rough guide with your camera to get a starting point for how long to expose 400 / focal length of camera lens gives you the seconds. Take a sample photo and check for star trails. For iso use aim for the light histogram to be clear of the left edge when viewing your sample photo. Press the disc button when reviewing to cycle through which info shows. Generally ISO 800 or 1600 is safest for managing noise. Generally make sure dark frame subtraction is off, otherwise each shot takes twice as long to take. For ease I like to use dslr controller Android app on my phone to control my canon, very handy if your camera is supported and you don't have a laptop to take out. If you can grab an area of sky with interesting stuff in it it's surprising what you can see after processing.

Have fun.

[endless-sky]

1 hour ago, feverdreamer1 said:

I guess I'd get more detail using longer exposures than a video right?

I mean, instead of doing, for example, 3 minutes of video with about 30fps (about 5.4k total frames) I'll do a couple hundred of images with exposures of about 10-15 seconds and stack them. I'm guessing the second one gives better results but if I'm wrong let me know.

Thanks,

S

Yes, the second option will give you better results for sure. 1/30th of a second is not enough to expose for the Milky Way. Generally, like happy-kat said, when shooting for deep sky astrophotography, you should try to get the histogram to move enough from the left side such that you are not clipping any data, but the exposure short enough that you don't get star trails. Experiment with the exposure time / ISO settings combination that gives you the best result in regard to these two ideal scenarios, and you should get a good starting point. Then it's all a matter of stacking images. The more, the better (up to a point of diminishing returns).

[feverdreamer1]

51 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

For night sky images the second one will yield more. As a rough guide with your camera to get a starting point for how long to expose 400 / focal length of camera lens gives you the seconds. Take a sample photo and check for star trails. For iso use aim for the light histogram to be clear of the left edge when viewing your sample photo. Press the disc button when reviewing to cycle through which info shows. Generally ISO 800 or 1600 is safest for managing noise. Generally make sure dark frame subtraction is off, otherwise each shot takes twice as long to take. For ease I like to use dslr controller Android app on my phone to control my canon, very handy if your camera is supported and you don't have a laptop to take out. If you can grab an area of sky with interesting stuff in it it's surprising what you can see after processing.

Have fun.

I guess using 400 instead of the typical 500 rule will give off much better result and I will definitely try that. I actually own an intervalometer so I guess I can just use that to do the shots. I didnt know the histogram trick and I'm pumped up to check it out :D.

Thanks,

S

[feverdreamer1]

24 minutes ago, endlessky said:

Yes, the second option will give you better results for sure. 1/30th of a second is not enough to expose for the Milky Way. Generally, like happy-kat said, when shooting for deep sky astrophotography, you should try to get the histogram to move enough from the left side such that you are not clipping any data, but the exposure short enough that you don't get star trails. Experiment with the exposure time / ISO settings combination that gives you the best result in regard to these two ideal scenarios, and you should get a good starting point. Then it's all a matter of stacking images. The more, the better (up to a point of diminishing returns).

And what stacking software is the best? I've been using Autostakkert! Because it let's me place the AP grid (other software like Sequator doesnt allow me this and gives off errors when stacking for example shots of the moon). DSS unfortunately isnt an option as it doesn't work on my computer.

Thanks,

S

[feverdreamer1]

By the way, am I crazy if I want to image neowise with an unmodded, untracked DSLR?

[happy-kat]

If using a mac then try using siril for DSO stacking.

[endless-sky]

I was going to suggest DeepSkyStacker, since AutoStakkert! is more for videos, but since you said it doesn't work on your computer... I really don't know what else you could use.

Neowise should be well within the reach of your camera. It doesn't have H-alpha, so it shouldn't matter if your camera is modified or not. Same general tips as for the Milky Way: detach histogram from the left and keep exposure short enough to avoid star trails. Comets don't have the same apparent motion of stars, but for short exposure times it shouldn't matter if you are imaging from a still tripod.

[feverdreamer1]

16 hours ago, endlessky said:

I was going to suggest DeepSkyStacker, since AutoStakkert! is more for videos, but since you said it doesn't work on your computer... I really don't know what else you could use.

Neowise should be well within the reach of your camera. It doesn't have H-alpha, so it shouldn't matter if your camera is modified or not. Same general tips as for the Milky Way: detach histogram from the left and keep exposure short enough to avoid star trails. Comets don't have the same apparent motion of stars, but for short exposure times it shouldn't matter if you are imaging from a still tripod.

Just realized sunset is behind some mountains... I guess I'll have to wake up early.

Even better, might try and pull off an all-nighter and image the moon too.

Clear skies,

S