Moon last night (14 June) with Canon 350D Large File

Originally Posted by Chris Taylor

Another clear evening last night but with the moon a little high. Took this
with the Canon 350D and 80mm Skywatcher refractor mounted on a celestron
goto mount. Great thing about this arrangement is the whole lot can be
carried outside in one go. Camera bag over shoulder, scope under-arm and
battery in hand. Its up, running and taking snaps within 5 minutes.

Its about 350k to download though (1 to 2 mins on dial up?).

http://tinyurl.com/74efs

Regards Chris

Hi Chris - nice image and not IMHO out-of-focus. It is perhaps presented a little too large and could benefit [and appear much sharper!] is cropped tight around the moon itself and rescaled to fit a typical PC monitor say 1000 pixels wide. It also saves on file size and download speed if the image is JPG crunched by say 20% but you probably know that anyway.

Good luck.

Nytecam

"nytecam" wrote in message
...
It is perhaps presented a little too large and could benefit [and appear
much
sharper!] is cropped tight around the moon itself and rescaled to fit a
typical PC monitor say 1000 pixels wide. It also saves on file size
and download speed if the image is JPG crunched by say 20% but you
probably know that anyway.

Hi

Thanks for the positive critisism. I've resized the image but left the index
etc untouched. You're right, it is more presentable.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.t...Moonresize.jpg

Thanks and Regards


Chris

I do hope this is out of character Andrea?

It strikes me as appalling that someone can't post "such horrors" (as
you put it) without being jumped on. The fact that you didn't offer
Chris any advice on improving his technique by calling on your vast
experience only compounds the horror of your own posts in this thread.
Shall we put your insensitivity down to tiredness from too many hours
at the telescope?

I'm not convinced that digital cameras can always manage the trick of
getting a sharp focus through a telescope. My own Sony goes crackers if
I try and use spot focus. Though it usually does reasonably well on
normal automatic focussing. But I still prefer to set my camera to
infinity when my taking my handheld moon and planetary "snaps". My
camera even seems to be able to cope with my near one diopter lack of
accomodation. No doubt the infinity setting is insensitive to focussing
errrors. Those who use spectacles should remember to keep their glasses
on for critical focussing. Or the telescope will be at a focus setting
that matches your prescription.

Camera shake is also a problem when taking pictures through any
telescope. Taking twenty shots and picking the best works for me.
Sometimes I can't even find a good shot amongst the twenty I take
despite having a massive mount and pier supporting my telescope. So I
take fifty more and hope. My best horrors satisfy me. Few as they are
amongst the 2 gigs of snaps on my hard drive.

Keep up the good work Chris. Every great journey starts with a single
step. Just beware of serpents on the path! ;-)

Chris.B

On or about 2005-06-16,
Chris Taylor illuminated us with:

"nytecam" wrote in message
...
It is perhaps presented a little too large and could benefit [and appear
much
sharper!] is cropped tight around the moon itself and rescaled to fit a
typical PC monitor say 1000 pixels wide. It also saves on file size
and download speed if the image is JPG crunched by say 20% but you
probably know that anyway.

Hi

Thanks for the positive critisism. I've resized the image but left the index
etc untouched. You're right, it is more presentable.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.t...Moonresize.jpg

That's more like I saw it the first time, which looks great. For some odd
reason my browser at home must have auto-scaled the original, which explains
why I couldn't understand why Andrea was being so miserable about it. Having
seen the original at full-scale I can sort of see her point now, though I
wouldn't dream of being anything like as rude about it. Even if I was a lot
more competent at this stuff than I am.

Onwards and upwards Chris!

--
Mark
Real email address | Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, while
is mark at | dishwashing liquid is made with real lemons?
ayliffe dot org |

wrote:
Tim Auton wrote:
wrote:
[snip]
Well, I guess we see things in a rather different way, shall I say. I'm
always astonished by people lack of self-criticism (or they won't post
such horrors).

I'm astonished at how some people can only judge others by their own
standards.

Do you judge people by someone-else's standard???

Yes. At least, I try to 'put myself in their shoes'. Usually I fail,
but I manage to keep my judgment to myself unless I see a pressing
reason not to. Life is too short for me to shout '******' at every
driver of a 1.1 Corsa with a body-kit, tell people who watch soaps
they are wasting their lives and tell people how to build their
websites. I've learnt that there is a big chunk of the population I
just don't understand, so provided they don't impede me I let them do
their thing while I do mine. I just let it go.

Why do you go to the effort of posting your negative comments about
other people's images? If it's to try and educate them you are very,
very poor at it. Is simply ignoring threads related to images you
don't consider worthwhile too much effort?


Tim
--
Don't tell me I'm still on that feckin' island!

Chris Taylor,
Was wondering; what would the pixel resolution of that same
"Moon%20050614.jpg" picture be like if you were situated 3,844 times
closer?
~

This is about a basic Township, Bridge & Tarmac upon Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
China/Russian LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
A few alternative topics from wizard Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm

Good question. I usually don't bother but once in a while I just do it.
Hit 1 to educate 100.

Andrea T.

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
oups.com...
Chris Taylor,
Was wondering; what would the pixel resolution of that same
"Moon%20050614.jpg" picture be like if you were situated 3,844 times
closer?

The pixel resolution is determined by the camera, not your location.

Regards


Chris

If your digital camera has a video-out socket you can connect your
camera to a mini-TV. I used this method on the Venus transit using a
tiny 5" B&W TV from the supermarket. (~=A310]. The bigger screen
enlarges the image enough to read the exposure details which are
usually quite invisible on the usual LCD screen. I used this feature to
capture snaps of the transit using the fastest exposure figures in
rapidly-changing cloud cover. Naturally the larger screen allows much
more accurate focussing. Those with a weatherproof observatory can use
a larger LCD screen. It should be a very dry night (or day) to use a
conventional TV out of doors. A domestic TV and condensation are best
avoided. Downside is the bright TV screen affecting your nght vision.
Though with the moon as your subject this is unlikely to be a serious
problem.

Chris.B

wrote in message
ups.com...
If your digital camera has a video-out socket you can connect your
camera to a mini-TV.

Brilliant Idea. Ebay may be worth another visit..

Regards


Chris