OT: The center of the galaxy

[Tremont]

A high (25,600) ISO time lapse experiment I did last weekend in Yosemite:

[Recty]

Very nice I'm amazed how crisp it looks, I was figuring at 25K ISO you'd be just looking at noise.

[ibanezgfx]

that is incredible! very nice

[Tremont]

Thanks!

It's heavily processed/denoised in Adobe After Effects.

[sedor]

Very cool!!!

[Logzor]

Amazing. What kind of camera do you need to achieve something like that?

[Tremont]

I used a 5d mark ii. I think one of the Nikons can do 25,600 ISO as well, but I don't know how well deals with the noise (for 25,600 ISO, the canon does a damn fine job of keeping the noise level down).

Here is a unprocessed shot (using default raw import settings) from the sequence:

[t5Nitro]

I've really never noticed that in the sky before. Nice.

[90sShooter]

That's awesome! What lense? I imagine your somewhere remote, like lake mead? I know when I vacationed out there years ago you could see the edges of the milkyway with the naked eye on a clear night. Something you can never see here in southern California...

Edit... just re-read your post, looks like you were in yosemite

I like the day to night shots as well! Very nice!

[Tremont]

It was shot at Olmsted Point in the Yosemite high country on a night when there was almost a new moon (and moonrise wasn't until 4 hours later) so there was very little light pollution. I rented the Canon 24mm f1.4 lens for the weekend specifically because I wanted to work on astrophotography. Next time I want the 85 mm 1.2 @ 25,600.

[SKremk]

Very very cool!

[TitusvileSurfer]

You completely blow me away. There were so many shooting stars! All of the clouds forming and dissipating was a sight to behold as well. How long of a period did that 10 seconds take pace and how did you get the stars in?

[Tremont]

It was done with 10 second exposures, at 12 second intervals for 250 shots.

I *think* the stars were mostly airplanes/satellites, but I'm honestly not sure. I can only see shooting stars with my naked eye for what would constitute one frame, I figured they would show up as such. They are showing up for multiple frames like a plane/sattelite would, they fade out at the edges like a shooting star would because at that high of ISO there is sensor blooming (like vignetting).

[t5Nitro]

How do you make the camera shoot exposures for X amount of seconds and have it do that for intervals? I have the same camera. I think it'd be cool to do that. So shooting bulb isn't good to leave it open for say 40 minutes, but to have smaller exposures and take shots on intervals?

What setting do you do that with?

[Tremont]

You can use an off the shelf intervalometer:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...r_TC_80N3.html

I use a custom built intervalometer that let's me do a bit more advanced stuff (bulb mode ramping) and I can build off it (for controlling my linear stage/rotary table, etc..). I used it for this shot, but I could have easily used the TC_80N3 to do the same thing.

[t5Nitro]

That's cool. Do you recommend shooting intervals instead of just one long bulb exposure?

I haven't messed with bulb. I'd imagine if you did just one shot it would've been completely white, which is why you did multiple shots and put them together?

[Recty]

Originally posted by t5Nitro
That's cool. Do you recommend shooting intervals instead of just one long bulb exposure?

Hmmmm, it would be real hard to get motion out of just one long exposure.

[Tremont]

I've seen awesome examples of multiple exposure Astrophotography. If you have an equatorial mount and you can do multiple lower ISO exposures and then post process them together, the results are incredible (as in, high detail/low noise).

This is multiple exposures because it is a time lapse, not for exposure purposes. The Milky way moving in the shot is due to the earths rotation (ie. I'm not doing a pan on a still photo). I chose to go this route as an experiment - I wanted to see if with heavy post processing 25,600 ISO was viable for serious astro work, as it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities for the type of time lapse stuff I want to do.

[t5Nitro]

Oh, right. Not sure what I was thinking. I know bulb isn't video ha ha.

Tremont, what video editing software would you recommend for a mac if you had to pick one program. I'd like to start trying the video out on the camera more.

Your work has inspired me enough to want video editing software.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by t5Nitro
Tremont, what video editing software would you recommend for a mac if you had to pick one program. I'd like to start trying the video out on the camera more.

Your work has inspired me enough to want video editing software.

Your mac should already have it. iMovie. I'd start with that, and if you need more, you can get something really fancy later.

[t5Nitro]

Oh, cool, you can adjust exposure on iMovie.

I figured for stuff like Tremont did there you need that setting. Other than that, iMovie is pretty limited.

[Wolverine]

I'm at work, and don't have access to his video, so I can't comment on what was done on there. I'm just talking about editting in general; iMovie is great for almost anything you could ever want (it definitely does everything I need out of it).

[vbjimmie]

You can adjust each frame (photo) in PS and then open the next image as another layer. In the end you can just make a gif.


just sucks for compression.

[Tremont]

I honestly haven't had much experience with film software. I use after effects and it does what I need (while being very expensive). I hear lot's of people use final cut pro and related programs on the mac, but I'm not sure if it can do the the same sorts of things as AE (I think it is more of for arrangement/editing).

[commonstranger]

Not into the cameras and stuff much but that videos was Sweeeet !!