Canon 600D, cls filter, Sigma 10-20 @10, F3.5 180x30secs.Stacked with Startrails.
I think if i had a darker sky this would have come out a lot better. I am pleased I got the hang of the Intervalometer. Bit of a palavar to do, change cr2 to Tiffs & then stack, time consuming
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/7182445382_c21827f11c_b.jpg)
Very nice Fay.
Yes, it's a shame you can't stack RAWs in Startrails. The answer is to capture JPGs as it's not an issue with this sort of image.
BTW I think you have a couple of dodgy subs in there - there are some static stars! I had the same when I did one as I included a few test shots by mistook.
That's very nice Fay. I'd echo Duncan's comments but it's a good start especially with new software and camera to get to grips with.
Robert
Thanks. how do you know that there are some duff subs Duncan? not sure how I would spot them from the individual subs
Nice one BUT
You now admit the 600D is for astro use, which means the bad weather is your fault :P
Very nice Fay, funny thing is I was planning on doing star trails this evening at the Outreach event, assuming there is clear enough sky.
Carole
No not really astro use Mick, i have been practising HDR photos & ND filters, normal pictures :lol: :lol:
Very Nice Fay
Good star trails and I really like the trees they make the picture, so I hope you will stop moaning about them now. :cheesy:
:lol: :lol: :lol: it is a palavar doing them. took ages to convert to tiff & then ages to stack them, we are talking hours here! i do need more hours and a darker sky. will set it up again at DSC
Agree looks really nice. Like Dunc says there are some static stars in your image so you probably accidently included a much shorter sub...?
If I was you I would just shoot in Jpeg & stack straight away without all the conversion palaver (much quicker) & I don't think there is any benefit in shooting raw for this type of image (I don't think)...
John
yes i think you are right John regarding jpeg. Is it the big stars whose trail suddenly ends that are the problem?
Fay, if you look between the trails esp. to the left there are non-trailed stars from subs that are not part of the sequence. The blob at the end of each trail is probably a sub or two with longer exposures (hence bigger stars) taken at the beginning or end of the sequence - maybe you were checking exposures or something. I would look at leaving out the first 5 or ten subs as these are probably the culprits.
Duncan, all the subs are 30s F3.5. once i had it going i left it alone.
Just restacked in Starstax, a lot quicker, but then in Startrails I chose the longer option. Duncan do you think that the Sigma 10-20 @ 10 could have caused what you are talking about, around the edge? It is nearly a fisheye.
Oh thats good, much much better than my naff goes at it.
thanks Chris. i would have liked longer trails & more of them but not that many stars were visible
Fay - It's a star trail image so why aren't ALL stars showing trails?
can someone enlighten me? Imay put it on PAIG to find out
I think you've confused the stacking algorithm. There looks to be double stars around near the perimeter, although it could be the lens I've not seen that before.
Why don't you just stack all the images and see if there are any duff'uns.
i stacked in two programs and they came out the same
Fay as Duncan said, I think you may have one or two rogue subs there, perhaps a couple of your test/alignment shots at the beginning ?
Take a look at say the first 3 or 4 images and see if there's a noticeable difference - ie Not part of the "trail" collection.
Also check out the very last images for the same
Well this is better. I contacted a chap I know in Durham & he told me to check the last sub as it could have been moved. when i looked, it was lighter than the others. i restacked & voila, lot better!!
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7234/7196826732_e35e56fec7_b.jpg)
That's really nice Fay. Apart from it being a much better result with no stationary stars, one thing that also is noticeable is that none of the trails now start with a star "blob" which your first process did in some of the outer trails.
What camera lens did you use. None of my widefield images come out decent and I wonder whether it's to do with the lens.
Carole
Sigma 10-20 Carole
Thanks Fay.
Thanks Duncan & Mick you were on the trail, so as to speak, but i was already sorting it. Being that the last sub was mentioned & it was lighter than the rest, i thought I would try missing it out in the stack, as all of them looked ok to me :-?
much better...! got there in the end Fay.. :-)
I'd agree, miles better plus a small meteor to boot 8)
If frames are much lighter then I ignore them unless I'm desperate otherwise they will destroy your signal to noise.
Hope that helps
Robert
where is the meteor?
10 o'clock position out near top left. I can even see it on my 3inch phone screen...
oh the feint line John
It's not 'feint' it's 'faint'. A feint is a deceptive movement - ah um, is that what you meant :lol:
I like that a lot Fay! The second version is definitely better.
I can't add much that hasn't already been said. However it does appear that the lens has aberrations out towards the corners which are causing the thicker trails. Maybe stop the lens down a bit further next time.
Mark
BTW Apocalypto Wednesday night BBC4 22:40 - I've heard it's a good film!
You are right Mark, the lens is causing the thicker trails on the outside.
You beat me to it regarding Apocalypto, i have also heard it is a good film.
You going to DSC?