3 ms·
I think this requires not just a GPS fix but also fairly accurate heading information from an electronic compass and tilt information from the camera's accelero
by wtallis 6y ago
I think this requires not just a GPS fix but also fairly accurate heading information from an electronic compass and tilt information from the camera's accelerometer, because shifting the sensor in the right direction requires knowing which part of the sky the camera is pointed at. (I haven't bought the astrotracer add-on for my Pentax because it's crazy expensive for what it is, but it should be at least a bit more than just a GPS receiver.)
- martyvis 6y agoSurely in camera, it is just a matter of taking a shot, wait an interval, take another shot, then shift/rotate the two images until X number of bright spots line up and then form a new composite, rinse and repeat. If you have a motor in the camera for stabilising you can use that shift/rotate parameter to move the sensor for the next shot.
- TaylorAlexander 6y agoModern cameras can physically move the sensor inside the camera. It is called IBIS or In Body Image Stabilization. Taking one long exposure I imagine would better pick up on faint sources of light compared to multiple short exposures.
- wtallis 6y ago> Taking one long exposure I imagine would better pick up on faint sources of light compared to multiple short exposures. You definitely need an exposure long enough for the light sources to actually show up on the image. But beyond that point, sometimes you can do better by taking lots of separate exposures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_imaging Really depends on what the limiting factor is in your imaging system. For cheap consumer cameras, sensor sensitivity is more of an issue than atmospheric fluctuations, so longer exposures are usually better.