3 ms·
These are neat images, but it's hard to tell how they differ from long exposures taken without any illumination by atomic blast. I've taken long exposures at ni
by kmoser 11mo ago
These are neat images, but it's hard to tell how they differ from long exposures taken without any illumination by atomic blast. I've taken long exposures at night that look very similar.
- SoftTalker 11mo agoLike recent Northern Lights occurrences where phone cameras capture them much more vibrantly than they appear to the naked eye. But that might be more of the phone sensor being more sensitive to colors in low light than the human eye is.
- dylan604 11mo agolet me help you, s/phone/camera/ you make it sound like it is something specific to phone cameras, when any digital camera has a chip much more sensitive than your eyes. add in the ability to do long exposure, and your camera will give you much more information to what's out there.
- SoftTalker 11mo agoYeah, phone/camera has become close to the same thing for many people I guess. I meant camera (of the modern digital sensor type). I'm not aware of phone cameras being able to do long "open shutter" types of exposures, but maybe I'm mistaken. Wouldn't that need a tripod or some other sort of physical stabilization? All the aurora photos I saw a few weeks ago had been taken from a hand-held phone and were fairly sharp and clear. Is image stabilization so good that a modern camera can take a sharp, hand-held multi-second exposure?
- dylan604 11mo agomy camera phone has been able to do longer exposures for quite some time now. some apps even have astro mode. my phone will do long exposure instead of using the flash, and expects the user to hold the camera steady (ha!) but i'm assuming uses a lot of stacking. and yes, if you want good long exposure, you don't want to do it hand held. but the "AI" is doing a lot in the post processing to fool you into thinking hand held is an option