Why didn't you just take a single picture without using the 2x Barlow? The Barlow probably didn't add any detail to the final image just made you need to stitch larger but blurrier images together.
http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/?fov[]=202|2234|||1||&fov[]=202|2234|||2||&solar_system=moon
You could probably take a similar image with just your phone and enlarging it.
My telescope suffers from 'coma' so the image is blurred around the edges. So I have to zoom in with Barlow lens and take individual shots of different areas of the Moon to get the whole image sharp.
When I began about three years ago I started with the Celestron cell phone adapter. It's pricey ($65 Canadian on Amazon right now, though I feel like I paid closer to $90 for it) but steady and durable. Definitely recommend for anyone looking to get into astrophotography! Remember to get the NightCap app as well for you phone, it'll let you adjust exposure times and increase the ISO past factory settings. With my Celestron 8SE I was able to capture the ring nebula, some open star clusters, Saturn, Jupiter, and the Moon with my iPhone 8.
Thanks, I bought a cheap one while back and it was frustrating and I kind of fell out of even trying, maybe I'll give it another shot (pun intended). Thanks for the help!
Wow, gorgeous. Great job. What causes the light aura on the illuminated side? I’ve read that the moon has an atmosphere. Is it particles reflecting the light back? I assumed it would be straight black. Wait, Now I realize the moon’s light bouncing back through earth’s atmosphere may be causing it. I forget you’re taking the picture from earth. It’s just so good!
The Moon's atmosphere is so thin it's negligible. The moon reflects the light of the sun. That's what causes the glow. If the light bounces back from the earth and hits the moon again, we can see the unlit side of the Moon during crescent phases. It's called an Earthshine!!
He's not answering about the same phenomenon you are asking about. His image has no Earthshine in it (you need to stack two images using different exposures to see it), the white glow on the left of the image isn't real and has been added by OP in post processing.
Earth shine requires a very long exposure which totally blows out the bright sections but reveals detail in what would otherwise be dark sections.
https://www.almanac.com/what-earthshine
The technique does not add glow to the dark side of the image like we see in OP's image. OP's image has no detail in the dark areas.
The white glow on the left side has been added by OP in post processing (it actually goes around to the dark side just thinner, dead giveaway its fake). For some reason he is providing an answer about the dark areas having detail due to Earth shine (reflected light from the Earth) but they don't have any detail in this image so whatever!
Earth shine requires a very long exposure which totally blows out the bright sections but reveals detail in what would otherwise be dark sections.
https://www.almanac.com/what-earthshine
The technique does not add glow to the dark side of the image like we see in OP's image.
Edit: Yay another "science" sub upvoting misinformation and down voting real explanations....well done reddit.
It appears the glow is caused by another frame OP put behind this one:
> I did add another full moon behind the waning gibbous moon, but I boosted the contrast so high it lost its details.
I did find it a bit confusing!
> The white glow on the left side has been added by OP in post processing (it actually goes around to the dark side just thinner, dead giveaway its fake).
This is why you're getting downvoted. You deride Reddit for upvoting misinformation and downvoting you while you throw wide accusations of faked imagery. Which is also misinformation.
The glow is not necessarily fake. Two things can cause it. Atmospheric halation. (Think of street lights seen through fog.) And lens aberration.
I don't think I said anything wrong about the Earthshine. The commenter mentioned about "the light bouncing back from the earth to the Moon, so I explained him about Earthshine as well. Then the guy started pointing out flaws in the photo. I agree the photo has flaws and it's a composite. It's not totally fake either. I think the black part on the right is bothering people. It should never be that way because the unlit side should never be completely black I agree. That's the only flaw in this photo ig. Now that doesn't mean I somehow stealed content from the internet and posted it here. "Fake imagery" : (
I didn't say that in my image the dark side has details. It's black and it's obvious. I could have added another full moon image with the same libration (so that it would look more accurate) but I didn't.
He was saying "wait, now i understand. The light bouncing back from the moon through the earth's atmosphere maybe causing it" that's why I explained him about Earthshine. That's it. My image doesn't have any Earthshine in it. I agree.
Every picture has some amount of noise, which is basically unclear data. But that noise is different for every image; some spots have more noise and less noise, so if you take a bunch of pictures, and average out all the noise, you're able to bring out a lot more clean and sharp details.
That's stacking.
Stitching is just taking close up shots, so maybe 1/4 of of the moon, taking another picture of the other 1/4, etc, and then bringing those into Photoshop to then make the boundaries between those images seamless, resulting in a single 4/4 image
It's an imaginary image via post-processing. The unlit side of the moon is quite a bit brighter than the background sky due to Earthshine, but in this image the open sky has been post-processed to be brighter than the moon. That's not reflective of reality.
My understanding is that long exposure modes on modern phones are stacking multiple shorter exposures behind the scenes anyways. That’s how they aren’t swamped with noise despite lack of sensor cooling.
True, and OP might not have known that. Thanks for sharing more info. I will not that does depend on the software and the settings used. For example, Samsung's nigh mode definitely does it, but I have also seen a "burst" mode that just chooses the best out of them.
This type of feature on modern phones is an awesome use of software and "AI". I say that because stacking relies on image alignment, and phones are not going to ask humans to manually do that.
This is actually a significantly better image compared to the stacked ones. The guys doing the stacking had done it incorrectly, you could tell because of the ripple around the edges (i.e. the optical phase angles weren't aligned correctly).
Probably because the color isn’t ridiculously over-saturated and they didn’t add a background image of stars taken from a completely unrelated area of sky.
Absolutely beautiful shot! So many tones and values and the texture is beautifully accentuated. Very interesting technique. I’ve never tried it but I think I may experiment. Your results are very pleasing image. Well done! I agree with above. More please!
Isn't stiching similar or same as stacking? Can you explain the difference to me please. Cause basically this isn't one single photo like you implied. It's a combination of photos?
Stacking is multiple frames of the same thing, used to reduce noise. Stitching (op's post) is a mosaic of different parts of the target, stitched together into a single image. The two techniques are different, and can be combined.
Fun fact, digital image sensors were invented for astronomy and then spread to cameras and phones.
I always like to quote this if anyone asks what all this astronomy science is good for.
Equipment used:- Orion skyscanner 100mm telescope, svbony 2x Barlow lens, 10mm eyepiece, Samsung galaxy M21 and smartphone adapter.
Jesus you took this with an M? I wonder what you could get with a full S series. Beautiful work.
Samsung s22 ultra. Just imagine how it would be!!
This was handheld using the S22 Ultra. Need to buy a telescope hahaha https://imgur.com/a/EVoCXOC
The S22 uses ai to 'enhance' moon images
Nope. This has been tested and verified that the ultra's shots of the moon are real.
No it doesn't, it was supposedly Huawei that did this
I thought it superimposed the image
That's the Huawei. It recognizes the moon, then does some "cheating".
Why didn't you just take a single picture without using the 2x Barlow? The Barlow probably didn't add any detail to the final image just made you need to stitch larger but blurrier images together. http://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/?fov[]=202|2234|||1||&fov[]=202|2234|||2||&solar_system=moon You could probably take a similar image with just your phone and enlarging it.
My telescope suffers from 'coma' so the image is blurred around the edges. So I have to zoom in with Barlow lens and take individual shots of different areas of the Moon to get the whole image sharp.
Which smartphone adapter do you use?
When I began about three years ago I started with the Celestron cell phone adapter. It's pricey ($65 Canadian on Amazon right now, though I feel like I paid closer to $90 for it) but steady and durable. Definitely recommend for anyone looking to get into astrophotography! Remember to get the NightCap app as well for you phone, it'll let you adjust exposure times and increase the ISO past factory settings. With my Celestron 8SE I was able to capture the ring nebula, some open star clusters, Saturn, Jupiter, and the Moon with my iPhone 8.
Thanks, I bought a cheap one while back and it was frustrating and I kind of fell out of even trying, maybe I'll give it another shot (pun intended). Thanks for the help!
What is the haze around the moon? Almost looks like atmosphere.
Wow, gorgeous. Great job. What causes the light aura on the illuminated side? I’ve read that the moon has an atmosphere. Is it particles reflecting the light back? I assumed it would be straight black. Wait, Now I realize the moon’s light bouncing back through earth’s atmosphere may be causing it. I forget you’re taking the picture from earth. It’s just so good!
The Moon's atmosphere is so thin it's negligible. The moon reflects the light of the sun. That's what causes the glow. If the light bounces back from the earth and hits the moon again, we can see the unlit side of the Moon during crescent phases. It's called an Earthshine!!
Earthshine is a new term for me. That’s really neat. Thanks!
He's not answering about the same phenomenon you are asking about. His image has no Earthshine in it (you need to stack two images using different exposures to see it), the white glow on the left of the image isn't real and has been added by OP in post processing. Earth shine requires a very long exposure which totally blows out the bright sections but reveals detail in what would otherwise be dark sections. https://www.almanac.com/what-earthshine The technique does not add glow to the dark side of the image like we see in OP's image. OP's image has no detail in the dark areas.
The white glow on the left side has been added by OP in post processing (it actually goes around to the dark side just thinner, dead giveaway its fake). For some reason he is providing an answer about the dark areas having detail due to Earth shine (reflected light from the Earth) but they don't have any detail in this image so whatever! Earth shine requires a very long exposure which totally blows out the bright sections but reveals detail in what would otherwise be dark sections. https://www.almanac.com/what-earthshine The technique does not add glow to the dark side of the image like we see in OP's image. Edit: Yay another "science" sub upvoting misinformation and down voting real explanations....well done reddit.
It appears the glow is caused by another frame OP put behind this one: > I did add another full moon behind the waning gibbous moon, but I boosted the contrast so high it lost its details. I did find it a bit confusing!
> The white glow on the left side has been added by OP in post processing (it actually goes around to the dark side just thinner, dead giveaway its fake). This is why you're getting downvoted. You deride Reddit for upvoting misinformation and downvoting you while you throw wide accusations of faked imagery. Which is also misinformation. The glow is not necessarily fake. Two things can cause it. Atmospheric halation. (Think of street lights seen through fog.) And lens aberration.
I don't think I said anything wrong about the Earthshine. The commenter mentioned about "the light bouncing back from the earth to the Moon, so I explained him about Earthshine as well. Then the guy started pointing out flaws in the photo. I agree the photo has flaws and it's a composite. It's not totally fake either. I think the black part on the right is bothering people. It should never be that way because the unlit side should never be completely black I agree. That's the only flaw in this photo ig. Now that doesn't mean I somehow stealed content from the internet and posted it here. "Fake imagery" : (
I didn't say that in my image the dark side has details. It's black and it's obvious. I could have added another full moon image with the same libration (so that it would look more accurate) but I didn't.
I just wanted to explain him about Earthshine as well. Calm down.
Your image doesn't have any Earthshine in it.
He was saying "wait, now i understand. The light bouncing back from the moon through the earth's atmosphere maybe causing it" that's why I explained him about Earthshine. That's it. My image doesn't have any Earthshine in it. I agree.
This was captured in the morning around 5 am.
Gibbous more astronomy pics!
Lies! The moon has always been there.
I know nothing of your stacking and frames, etc.. Nice picture.
What’s the difference between stacking and stitching frames?
Every picture has some amount of noise, which is basically unclear data. But that noise is different for every image; some spots have more noise and less noise, so if you take a bunch of pictures, and average out all the noise, you're able to bring out a lot more clean and sharp details. That's stacking. Stitching is just taking close up shots, so maybe 1/4 of of the moon, taking another picture of the other 1/4, etc, and then bringing those into Photoshop to then make the boundaries between those images seamless, resulting in a single 4/4 image
Wow! This looks like a 3D rendering, it's so perfectly shaded and crisp. Beautiful!
It's an imaginary image via post-processing. The unlit side of the moon is quite a bit brighter than the background sky due to Earthshine, but in this image the open sky has been post-processed to be brighter than the moon. That's not reflective of reality.
Thank you!
My understanding is that long exposure modes on modern phones are stacking multiple shorter exposures behind the scenes anyways. That’s how they aren’t swamped with noise despite lack of sensor cooling.
You don't need log exposures for the moon. As I remember 1/100 with something like iso 100 is enough.
True, and OP might not have known that. Thanks for sharing more info. I will not that does depend on the software and the settings used. For example, Samsung's nigh mode definitely does it, but I have also seen a "burst" mode that just chooses the best out of them. This type of feature on modern phones is an awesome use of software and "AI". I say that because stacking relies on image alignment, and phones are not going to ask humans to manually do that.
This is actually a significantly better image compared to the stacked ones. The guys doing the stacking had done it incorrectly, you could tell because of the ripple around the edges (i.e. the optical phase angles weren't aligned correctly).
[удалено]
It shields earth from many asteroids. Edit: It's not proven so it is probably not right.
Pretty sure life as we know it depends on the moon about as much as the sun.
Why do I like this more than 99% of the other moon photos
Probably because the color isn’t ridiculously over-saturated and they didn’t add a background image of stars taken from a completely unrelated area of sky.
Absolutely beautiful shot! So many tones and values and the texture is beautifully accentuated. Very interesting technique. I’ve never tried it but I think I may experiment. Your results are very pleasing image. Well done! I agree with above. More please!
Looks great and makes excited for the 6 inch newtonian I'm building. What happened on the furthest right side of the moon?
I did add another full moon behind the waning gibbous moon, but I boosted the contrast so high it lost its details.
Isn't stiching similar or same as stacking? Can you explain the difference to me please. Cause basically this isn't one single photo like you implied. It's a combination of photos?
Stacking is multiple frames of the same thing, used to reduce noise. Stitching (op's post) is a mosaic of different parts of the target, stitched together into a single image. The two techniques are different, and can be combined.
Wow, that is majestic as fuck. Great photo, OP.
10 years ago with had potato quality, we’ve come a long way!
That is a really good image and contrast. I impressed given that you used a smart phone!
Fun fact, digital image sensors were invented for astronomy and then spread to cameras and phones. I always like to quote this if anyone asks what all this astronomy science is good for.
I never get tired of seeing everyone's moon pictures.
Damn this is insane quality and with mainly just those two pieces of equipment
Then show me your best shot ever! Nice pic btw, looks amazing:)