4 ms·
Interesting this field is changed significantly last 20 years. One thing is light pollution need to buy a big telescope if you can't transport it to the dark p
by nshm 4y ago
Interesting this field is changed significantly last 20 years.
One thing is light pollution need to buy a big telescope if you can't transport it to the dark place. You have to drive 100+ from a big city.
Second is advanced image processing with deep learning. There is no need for accurate sky tracker anymore, you just shot many images and software combines.
- dekhn 4y agoI don't have any problems in a suburban area of the Bay Area with a small refractor. I can see bright nebulas, etc. The only reason for the big scope in a dark area is if you're trying to look at deep sky objects. You still need a sky tracker to get enough exposures and generally, you want the item centered because that's where the optics are best.
- nshm 4y agoWe all know Bay Area is a great place to live geographically ;) Try to find black zone around Chicago for example.
- dekhn 4y agoI live in the middle of the peninsula- I can see orange in every direction I look at night. I just think this only matters when looking at DSOs. And generally, cities are bad for astro because of all the heat turbulence.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MonkeyClub 4y ago> Second is advanced image processing with deep learning. There is no need for accurate sky tracker anymore, you just shot many images and software combines. This is extremely helpful for professional astronomers, but having started astrophotography back in the day with a 35mm Rollei that allowed for arbitrary exposure, the moon, and a very numb index finger, I feel that the one image you produce with care and accuracy trumps the collage on some emotional dimension for me. The collage is obviously the better image, but the amateur's photograph somehow captures both stars and stargazer.
- alok-g 4y agoCan you pls. explain more on how to combine? :-)