4 ms·
It’s likely that some of them are constructed through “stacking”. The technique is easy to pull off, with software built for that specific purpose. You take yo
by xondono 5y ago
It’s likely that some of them are constructed through “stacking”. The technique is easy to pull off, with software built for that specific purpose.
You take your N long exposures, and then have the program map the movement of stars around you during those (if you do 20 30s exposures, you’ve spent ~10 minutes on it, so the stars will have shifted). Then the program corrects that motion and sums the images. It’s a cheaper and easier way to “simulate” a longer exposure, that would require a tracking system otherwise.
- bobbylarrybobby 5y agoThis is neat: some Pentax cameras that have GPS, a compass, and most importantly a sensor attached to small motors that allow it to move inside the camera (normally used for in-body image stabilization), also can compensate for the movement of stars in a photo by rotating the sensor to keep the stars stationary relative to the camera. The GPS is needed to tell how the stars overhead will actually rotate. I assume that this means that anything stationary on the earth will be blurred instead, but still very cool.
- xondono 5y agoYes, part of the “art” of stacking is choosing a location where you can easily create a mask that covers the sky but not the ground to avoid blurry artifacts, and then blending the two sections seamlessly.