Quake3World

andyman wrote:Ha ... just realized that supernova happened over 12 million years ago.

Mind bending when you think about it...and I don't think any telescope could see the moon landing sites: Not sure though, then Hubble might.

I'm inclined to think that the moon is too close for the Hubble to properly focus on. Same likely goes for most large earth based telescopes. Ever tried to look at someone that is ten feet away with binoculars? Doesn't work so well. Which makes sense, cuz your fucking eyes do a fine job of that.

@andy: there was a dude on reddit that had a very impressive astro-photo setup. People were calling him out and saying he was re-labeling Hubble shots with his own name. This is until he made a page with all his gear and his process for each shot. I think he did something like 30hrs of exposure time each in R, G, B channels and had a GPS device that adjusted his camera on the fly to the apparent motion of the sky to remove streaking effects. He had some pretty amazing shots of nebulae and stuff that was freakishly far away. I guess that is the stuff you're referencing? IIRC he said his setup was worth around 40 grand.

mrd wrote:I'm inclined to think that the moon is too close for the Hubble to properly focus on. Same likely goes for most large earth based telescopes. Ever tried to look at someone that is ten feet away with binoculars? Doesn't work so well. Which makes sense, cuz your fucking eyes do a fine job of that.

@andy: there was a dude on reddit that had a very impressive astro-photo setup. People were calling him out and saying he was re-labeling Hubble shots with his own name. This is until he made a page with all his gear and his process for each shot. I think he did something like 30hrs of exposure time each in R, G, B channels and had a GPS device that adjusted his camera on the fly to the apparent motion of the sky to remove streaking effects. He had some pretty amazing shots of nebulae and stuff that was freakishly far away. I guess that is the stuff you're referencing? IIRC he said his setup was worth around 40 grand.

Yeah that process he described is how it's done.... a guidescope, with it's own smaller camera and software, mounted on the main scope will keep the rig on track through a night. What happens is you'll do say 20 exposures at 15 minutes a piece, in more than just the 3 channels or RGB. The camera setups that cost more than his whole rig will utilize 6 to 8+ channels. That many channels at that long of exposure times will add up to 30hrs of total exposure or more. Add to that the control frames of say 10 exposures of 10 min each (which only needs to be done once and saved) to baseline the camera for dark, light, and bias frames, and you've got a lot of work that goes into one picture. One picture could take a week just to get the data which still has to be processed which is a whole other world. At this point it isn't really photography, it's an astronomical science experiment.
edit: forgot to mention, the control frames need to be taken with the same temperature of the camera as the data frames. so you might have a whole library of control frames at different temperatures depending on what temp you decide to have the camera set to.

tl;dr: the majority of redditors are fucking emo hipster retards that buy apple products.


check out this guys site: http://bf-astro.com/index.htm

From island camping two weeks ago.

leadpipe getting outdone by ygp

There's certainly no argument when it comes to YourGrandpa being camp.

A picture of a swamp.

a swamp where it's not cold and pissing down or covered in ice

so better than here then

That's the intracoastal waterway, better know around here as the Indian River.

And here it's known as the No One Gives A Shit River.

seremtan wrote:a swamp where it's not cold and pissing down or covered in ice

so better than here then

Na, I'm loving the weather at the mo.

found a used camera for sale, bought it. awaiting shipment.

Quickie

Do I need a polarizing filter if I am taking photographs in snowy conditions?

I ask because I have never really taken the time to take descent photos in snowy areas and I will be traveling to New Zealand soon enough.

andyman wrote:found a used camera for sale, bought it. awaiting shipment.

Very good
I'm a fan of your space pictures... they're all kinda mind blowing.

Not looked in here for a while and there are some beautiful shots

obsidian wrote:Much of southern Ontario was hit by a 3 day long freezing rain storm which layered Toronto with as much as an inch of ice. Entire trees were split apart under the weight of the ice and 300,000 residents went without power. An estimated 115,000 will spend Christmas in the dark. Since I still had all the lights on, was all warm and toasty, didn't have a tree fall on my car, and wasn't in a panic raiding the supermarket and hardware stores, I decided to go out for a walk. Contrary to all the damage, there is a remarkable beauty to a city covered in ice, especially when the sun breaks from the clouds and lights up the ice like sparkling glass.

Excellent pictures, obsidian


Andyman, completely mind blowing space pics. Keep up the awesome work

I thought her riding shoe selection was quite interesting.

haha i like that nice one yg

All that flesh.
Be a mess if it meets Mr Bitumen

Lots of skin would hit the pavement. Makes you wonder why she bothered to put on the helmet.

Probably because it's easier to recover from road rash than brain trauma, although I can see why you would discount wearing a helmet since there isn't one manufactured on this planet that would fit your bloated blockhead.

Gwamps, stop sniping photos of women from behind a bush, you fucking blockheaded creeper.

Andyman, I like these photos of your... umm... pussy.

Much better control of depth of field than your earlier shots.

obsidian wrote:Gwamps, stop sniping photos of women from behind a bush, you fucking blockheaded creeper.

She's in public, on a motor cycle, in 5" heels, short shorts and tank top. Are you telling me she didn't want her picture taken?