| written by Magnulus on May 20, 2009 06:53 |
 | |  | | ![]() How big do you actually see that within the telescope? I mean, do you see it as a little blob vaguely resembling Saturn, or do you see a nice, big representation of it when you look in the eyepiece? | |  | |  |
|
 | |  | | ![]()  | Magnulus said: | | How big do you actually see that within the telescope? I mean, do you see it as a little blob vaguely resembling Saturn, or do you see a nice, big representation of it when you look in the eyepiece? |
In my own telescope, I can see the planet as fuzzy blob, and clearly make out the rings around it. I might be able to see cloud stripes in the atmosphere, but only in rare, perfect conditions during the winter. Mcwgog's picture is much more detailed though. I am impressed!  | |  | |  |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on May 20, 2009 08:48 |
| | | | Normally i would use the 10mm eyepiece which gives 120x magnification. For Saturn that's about as big as 0.5cm at an arms length.
You can see him quite well, including the Cassini division on the rigs
But for the camera i use the 25mm eyepiece which gives only 48x magnification, but works well with my camera which with it's own 12x zoom that i used for Saturn here, and no camera zoom for the Space Station. | | | | |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on May 20, 2009 20:20 |
| | | | ![]() Just awesome. How did you manage to follow the station, anyway? Have a computer-controlled tripod, or something?
The stupid question of the day: on the two-frame image, the right frame has a distinct blue tint on one of the ISS modules, which I guess is not real. Do you know why the color distortion? Is it some atmospheric thing?
Edit: I was watching this Astronomy Picture of the Day, with also a blue-ish ISS, and they suggest that the blue color is... drumroll please... the Earth reflected!
Hurray for the Saturn picture, too. We are so used to the Cassini or Hubble images that we tend to forget how hard is to see something like this with your own eye. | | | | |
|
└> last changed by Barebones on May 20, 2009 at 21:27
|
| written by Mcwgogs on May 21, 2009 07:57 |
| | | | I hand guided the telescope and for the last few flybys I've gathered the experience, so i get a ''hit' every few seconds. (the camera is just attached to the scope with the trigger screwed in, so it just shots.) More than half of the photos are empty misses. In a raw photo the station would appear in a random spot, these are aligned.
The photos are also color saturated to bring out the orange solar panels.
I don't know what the blue glint is, probably a photo artifact, the ISO was pretty high. There's also yellow and red glints on the solar panels. | | | | |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jun 18, 2009 22:54 |
 | |  | | ![]() Are noctilucent clouds those ones that look like the beach (without footprints) except in the sky? | |  | |  |
|
 | |  | | ![]() No, the beach is much sandier.
Nice photographs, by the way. : ) | |  | |  |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jun 19, 2009 07:52 |
| written by Mcwgogs on Jun 25, 2009 22:26 |
| i haz title: speed-y-???-1 |
|
  | written by Speeder on Jun 28, 2009 15:13 |
 | |  | | ![]() How? Autocamera? Something else? | |  | |  |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jun 28, 2009 15:35 |
| | | | The exposure was set to 1 second, and the trigger was pressed in with a small vice, taking a ton of photos. Most of them are empty. I use the same thing for deep space, star trails and meteor photography. (i've yet to capture a meteor, but i should get lucky when the Perseids came. | | | | |
|
| i haz title: speed-y-???-1 |
|
| written by Speeder on Jun 30, 2009 19:48 |
| | | | ![]() Baaah... That I can do too 
I tought that you invented some better method...
Not that this one do not result in totally awesome images | | | | |
|
| written by Mcwgogs on Jul 14, 2009 00:05 |
| 
