# 74% Full Moon from Tonight (April 14/15)



## astrostu (Apr 15, 2008)

I think this came out well in terms of no blown-out highlights.  The posted version is 10% of the original size.


----------



## bla (Apr 15, 2008)

Wow. How?


----------



## Robstar1619 (Apr 15, 2008)

Wow indeed...how did you get so close up of the moon.


----------



## Mathias13 (Apr 15, 2008)

me three...first word was 'wow'..nicely captured


----------



## Renair (Apr 15, 2008)

Turned out well indeed, was that taken with your 500-1000mm lens?


----------



## Antarctican (Apr 15, 2008)

Jaw dropping stuff, to get such detail.  :hail:


----------



## astrostu (Apr 15, 2008)

Thanks for the compliments.  Here're the basic steps I used:

*Equipment*
- dSLR camera
- really big lens (4.877 m focal length, 0.61 m aperture (f/8))

*Camera Settings*
- 1/60th sec
- remote control


*Steps*

(1)  Takin' lots of pictures, since at that focal length, I have a field of view much smaller than the moon's size.

(2)  Set all the RAW pictures to the same color/brightness settings in Adobe Camera RAW, exporting as 16-bit TIF files.

(3)  Use AutopanoPro to stitch the 23 photos together, again in 16-bit and saving as uncompressed TIF.

(4)  Bringing the output into Photoshop.  Desaturate.  Scale down in size to something standard (in this case, the moon being 100" in diameter).  Convert to a Smart Layer.  Adjust levels and curves non-destructively.  Add an Unsharp Mask smart filter, in this case a 150% filter at 7.5 px (since my seeing was worse than 1 arcsec, otherwise the filter should've been at 4 px (see below)).

(5)  Flatten and shrink in size.  Keep in mind that the best seeing on Earth from a reasonable site is about 1 arcsec.  Since the moon is 30 arcmin in diameter, then the highest resolution you can expect where each pixel contains unique information is 1800 px in diameter vs the 7200 that I was editing it at.  In this case, I saved the final JPG to post with the moon being 720 px across for purposes of posting here.


----------



## EricBrian (Apr 15, 2008)

You stitched this image together? Wow. So very nice.


----------



## mdcrisp2000 (Apr 15, 2008)

astrostu said:


> (5)  Flatten and shrink in size.  Keep in mind that the best seeing on Earth from a reasonable site is about 1 arcsec.  Since the moon is 30 arcmin in diameter, then the highest resolution you can expect where each pixel contains unique information is 1800 px in diameter vs the 7200 that I was editing it at.  In this case, I saved the final JPG to post with the moon being 720 px across for purposes of posting here.


That flew straight over my head, but it's an awesome shot nonetheless. Astonishing detail.

And also, 4.877 m focal length? Some kind of telescope, I can only presume...


----------



## Coldow91 (Apr 15, 2008)

can we get a picture of that lens?


----------



## Sim (Apr 15, 2008)

Unbelievable detail.  Not to sound like a broken record, but wow.


----------



## astrostu (Apr 15, 2008)

mdcrisp2000 said:


> And also, 4.877 m focal length? Some kind of telescope, I can only presume...





Coldow91 said:


> can we get a picture of that lens?



I don't have a picture on-hand, but here's an old one I found that someone else took (university, in public domain, etc., so I'm including it below instead of as a link).


----------



## astrostu (Apr 18, 2008)

Hmm ... I guess I killed the conversation by posting my "lens."


----------



## paddy_pilani (Apr 18, 2008)

Mindblowing photo !! 
Till now I used to think that pictures with such detail can only be taken by satellites.. 
Other photos on your website are also amazing.. :hail:

I have one question for you.. I haven't seen any telescope till now.. But, is it possible to somehow attach a DSLR to a telescope and take pictures? 
What I actually mean to say is: Can I just visit an observatory and attach my DSLR to their telescope and take pictures?


----------



## Nacho (Apr 19, 2008)

This photo had me thinking "how in the heck?"
Now that I see how you did it, awesome work man. Then you look at the number of craters on the moon and can't help but think "thank the heavens for our atmosphere!"


----------



## kbeelitz (Apr 19, 2008)

That is just amazing!!!


----------



## Parkerman (Apr 19, 2008)

Very nice.. although isnt 74% full moon an oxymoron? lol


----------



## Phranquey (Apr 19, 2008)

> *74% Full Moon *


 


Very nice shot, but I think you can call it a three-quarter moon just like everyone else. 74%.....jeez


----------



## astrostu (Apr 19, 2008)

Thanks for the compliments, folks!




paddy_pilani said:


> Other photos on your website are also amazing.. :hail:



Thanks. 




paddy_pilani said:


> I have one question for you.. I haven't seen any telescope till now.. But, is it possible to somehow attach a DSLR to a telescope and take pictures?
> What I actually mean to say is: Can I just visit an observatory and attach my DSLR to their telescope and take pictures?



Only if you make arrangements before-hand.  Speaking as someone who runs public open houses at that observatory, it's a bad idea to go up and ask to take up time on the telescope to figure out how to hook up your camera.  That being said, a good idea would be to try to contact an amateur astronomy group in your area and see what kinds of meetings they have, if it's at telescopes, etc., and that would be a much better avenue.




Nacho said:


> This photo had me thinking "how in the heck?"
> Now that I see how you did it, awesome work man. Then you look at the number of craters on the moon and can't help but think "thank the heavens for our atmosphere!"



Speaking as someone who studies craters ... it's not our atmosphere.  Any impactor that wouldn't make it through the atmosphere would not produce a visible crater on the moon at the resolution you can take from Earth.  Earth has experienced as much - if not more - impacts than the moon (of large size).  It's due to plate tectonics, the recycling of Earth's crust, and erosion that we don't see them.  I believe there are about 130 recognized craters on Earth.




Phranquey said:


> Very nice shot, but I think you can call it a three-quarter moon just like everyone else. 74%.....jeez



Didn't even cross my mind to call it 3/4 moon.


----------

