2 ms·

Did anyone capture it in video format, with a high-ISO camera mounted to a telescope? It would be fun to see it, if it's possible with today's image sensors.

bongodongobob 3y ago
That's likely what the picture is and according to the caption you could barely notice.
dylan604 3y ago
It happened over several seconds, and would have been so faint that you won't notice it without heavy video processing.
- dmurray 3y ago
  The photographer says it had been expected to decrease by 3 orders of magnitude, which would definitely be noticeable with the naked eye. The video in a sibling comment by bscphil also seems to show it decreasing by ~2 orders of magnitude (compare it to the stars in the "sword") - do you think this is highly processed?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    What's expected and what actually happens are totally different things. How many times have we heard "comet of the year/decade" only for it to barely even survive the approach? A 1 minute exposure is different than highly processed video. It is definitely artificial compared to naked eye viewing due to amount of photons captured. To see it dimming over the course of 3 seconds that matches the differences seen in the long minute exposure, I doubt the average person would see it in a video, but I could be wrong. Reading about this event in the run up to it occurring, I came to the same conclusion that I would try a long exposure the same way using the equipment that I have. At least, until I realized I wasn't in the path. The amount of information that can be captured with a 1 minute exposure is totally different from a video camera running at 24-50fps. It's just one of those things that becomes better understood with experience. People want to see things moving in realtime as video, but space doesn't bother itself with your wants. Best to just do what needs to be done to get the most information possible when you're available to get it.
bscphil 3y ago
Not a telescope, but this is the best video I've seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dePmzxejd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dePmzxejd8

bongodongobob 3y ago

That's likely what the picture is and according to the caption you could barely notice.

dylan604 3y ago

It happened over several seconds, and would have been so faint that you won't notice it without heavy video processing.

dmurray 3y ago
The photographer says it had been expected to decrease by 3 orders of magnitude, which would definitely be noticeable with the naked eye. The video in a sibling comment by bscphil also seems to show it decreasing by ~2 orders of magnitude (compare it to the stars in the "sword") - do you think this is highly processed?
- dylan604 3y ago
  What's expected and what actually happens are totally different things. How many times have we heard "comet of the year/decade" only for it to barely even survive the approach? A 1 minute exposure is different than highly processed video. It is definitely artificial compared to naked eye viewing due to amount of photons captured. To see it dimming over the course of 3 seconds that matches the differences seen in the long minute exposure, I doubt the average person would see it in a video, but I could be wrong. Reading about this event in the run up to it occurring, I came to the same conclusion that I would try a long exposure the same way using the equipment that I have. At least, until I realized I wasn't in the path. The amount of information that can be captured with a 1 minute exposure is totally different from a video camera running at 24-50fps. It's just one of those things that becomes better understood with experience. People want to see things moving in realtime as video, but space doesn't bother itself with your wants. Best to just do what needs to be done to get the most information possible when you're available to get it.

bscphil 3y ago

Not a telescope, but this is the best video I've seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dePmzxejd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dePmzxejd8