Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

andrea_g_amato_art OP t1_iy0pod9 wrote

So, a bit of background on this:

INFO ON THE EQUIPMENT:

  • I have always been passionate about astrophotography, but I couldn't afford a telescope nor an equatorial mount. I also live in one of the most light polluted areas in the world (Napoli, Italy), which discouraged me even more.

  • I still took pictures of a solar eclipse (left) by pointing my Nikon D7100 with a 105mm lens directly to the sun (Bad idea, I know!), and photographed the transit of Mercury a few years ago by projecting the sun on a sheet of paper using a binocular.

  • I took pictures of Jupiter and I could even distinguish its moons, and took really sad pics of Saturn and Mars, but my camera wasn't powerful enough.

  • Then, one day everything changed when my father decided to buy a Nikon P1000 for fun (which, although technically not a telescope, it has a super zoom) and he used it for birds and stuff like that. Once he got it I knew I had to test it with astrophotography! The first results were promising, but the quality wasn't great, and manually pointing at planets, manually focusing while the planet got out of frame was quite the task, but it paid off!

  • Still, I felt I was missing something. This is when I discovered the magic of stacking! I started taking long videos instead of photos, then through PIPP, Autostakkert and Registax I made progress.

ABOUT THE PICS:

  • The ISS was probably among the most difficult ones, since it was manually tracked (handheld) and focused while in-flight. It took several attempts to get a usable image.

  • Mercury was super annoying since it was very close to the Sun and almost impossible to find. I got it once, and I decided it was enough. Never again!

  • Venus took a long time, because I wanted to show all the different phases.

  • I have other cool composite pictures of the Moon, but I wanted to use plain ones in order to be 'fair'. The eclipse is from many years ago, before I got the super-zoom camera.

  • The only planet I was missing was Mars, because I was waiting for its closest approach (which is in a few days, but I won't be home to take pictures), and once I had it I decided to post the final collection here, hoping many other people will take pictures despite not having super expensive equipment!

  • Jupiter and Saturn are probably the easiest, although it's hard to find a night with good seeing conditions and no clouds! In the top pic you can see the red spot, which I didn't think I would be able to see with just a DSLR.

  • I only 'cheated' a bit with Uranus and Neptune, since I enlarged the pictures a bit for the final composite, which smoothed them, and I adjusted the color to match their proper one. Aside from these minor tweaks, everything else is 'fair'.

P.S. Apologies for the watermarks, I know they are annoying, but I had other works stolen in the past, and I poured years of work into this project, I hope you can understand, so I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

Have a wonderful day, and I hope I inspired you to take more photos! Space is amazing!!!

278

ST0IC_ t1_iy0qcpc wrote

This pretty darn cool. Even more so since you did it without the fancy telescopes and mounts.

105

buuuurpp t1_iy0qhs3 wrote

Brilliant ! What a great project, and an end result you should be very proud of !

18

pineapplecooqie t1_iy0s8jg wrote

unless your zoom lens is a literal telescope by some other name, that sort of resolution of outer planets is absolutely not possible. I call bullshit

−17

kytheon t1_iy0sccv wrote

Hey OP, that’s an awesome collection! Seems like you’re missing Earth. /s

97

Quasar9111 t1_iy0stms wrote

Amazing work...I am just going to bin my stuff now, I can’t even get a successful stack of the moon, lol

8

andrea_g_amato_art OP t1_iy0v231 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#717,152)

Maybe you’re just bad lol (jk)

Keep in mind that I have trashed hundreds and hundreds of pictures. These results were accomplished with long videos stacked under almost perfect seeing conditions, during the closest approach of each planet. (There’s a reason this project took so long!). Also, some of them were enlarged for the final composite, but that’s about it. Aside from Uranus and Neptune, where I adjusted the color and smoothed the pics a bit, everything else is legit, I have the .tiff files that came from the stacking, I don’t know how else to prove it. I can assure you, if you take some time to do a quick search on Google, you will find other pictures like mine taken with my same equipment. Feel free to believe what you want, I haven’t lied, that’s for sure.

I take your comment as a huge compliment by the way, it means I really am a decent astrophotographer after all, ha!

13

ChuckBorris_1st t1_iy0wtfk wrote

Very good work, I'm impressed! I'd buy this poster not gonna lie

3

rocketsocks t1_iy15op5 wrote

Replying to pineapplecooqie (#716,963)

Camera lenses are literally telescopes. The OP is using a 105mm lens which is equivalent to a small refracting telescope (4"). The diffraction limit on an aperture that size is around 1.5 arcseconds, which is enough to resolve most naked eye planets into multiple pixels. Jupiter is up to 50 arcseconds across, Mars is up to 25.

Many refracting telescopes have smaller apertures, and "good" amateur telescopes start out at not much larger (at 6" or 8" apertures). Of note, Galileo Galilei's telescopes had apertures of 15mm, 26mm, and 38mm, which he used starting in 1609, 1612, and 1620, respectively. Newton's pioneering reflecting telescope, built in 1668, had an aperture of 2 inches (50mm).

The main constraint is always going to be atmospheric seeing. Which is where digital photographic techniques and stacking comes into play. With a modern top tier astronomical observatory they would use adaptive optics to cancel out the effects of atmospheric distortion. If you don't have that option you can simply use lots and lots of individual exposures. Each exposure represents a snapshot of the atmospheric conditions at a particular moment. If you're lucky you can get a single frame or a part of a single frame where by chance the air happens to be just right to have a minimal amount of distortion and blurring. With enough frames you can use a computer to select the individual frames and portions of frames with the best seeing and digitally combine them together to improve the overall signal to noise ratio of the final image. This allows you to approximate the performance of the same optics without atmospheric distortion.

6

12monthspregnant t1_iy18yhy wrote

Jesus. That's some MacGyver level photography right there. Well done!

14

Lumostark t1_iy1dnas wrote

Looks cool, but why do you do my boy Pluto dirty like that

21

Belzebutt t1_iy1io8l wrote

For Uranus / Neptune, what was the color you actually captured since this one is “adjusted”?

6

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iy1joci wrote

You took a handheld pic of the ISS? While doing manual focus? Respect.

60

TrailWhale t1_iy1vk52 wrote

Replying to pineapplecooqie (#716,963)

I thought the same thing, assuming most superzoom cameras were generally in the 10-15x zoom range so maybe 400mm tops. Then I looked up the P1000, turns out that thing is a absolute beast with a 24-3000mm zoom. I believe it now.

2

kmoonster t1_iy21dvg wrote

A round of applause or ten!

​

And, what kind of lens? With a 600 on a crop body (900 equivalent) I can *just* begin to make out banding on Jupiter and get Saturn to look lumpy. I've toyed with a bit of astro- but it's been a lot of thinking and only a little dabbling. Before I invest more it's worth asking how big to go.

edit: also on a tripod or other stable surface; I can do the Moon unsupported but nothing else obviously! and the sun @ 150 is fine, but I don't buy it for the others, that or you are REALLY talented!

2

Kuwangerman t1_iy224ib wrote

Am I weird for thinking "but why? Someone already did that work for you"

−10

dr_basko t1_iy23fm2 wrote

Poor Pluto…

(This is very very cool and I’m proud of you)

67

Mannix-Da-DaftPooch t1_iy23no4 wrote

This is some r/nextfuckinglevel type stuff!! Thanks a lot for sharing!

2

andrea_g_amato_art OP t1_iy27qys wrote

Replying to Routine_Shine_1921 (#721,120)

You have no idea! Luckily the camera has a decent stabilizer, but still, the ISS is fast! It took several attempts. I made a video, and when the ISS was in frame I tried to follow it while rotating the focus ring. This way I could ensure at least a few frames were in focus. Then I worked with those.

52

TheLeftMetal t1_iy2ciw7 wrote

In my heart Pluto will always be a planet, goddammit.

15

JustinChristoph t1_iy2fjzs wrote

Pluto isn't considered a planet anymore, correct?

5

mimbari t1_iy2gdf0 wrote

How do you focus on Uranus and Neptune? I face struggle even when using a telescope

1

Neaterntal t1_iy2jifk wrote

Impressive. So, all distant planets captured only with the super zoom? No 🔭?

1

joshsreditaccount t1_iy2kcaj wrote

you still haven’t taken a picture of earth though, i will admit it is pretty pretty hard to look for

1

D3lu5ionist t1_iy2p33r wrote

Anyone experts!!! Is it the Aurora in Mars that is also captured here ?? 🤔🤔

1

earlofmonkey_bossa t1_iy2r16y wrote

This is really cool and thank you so much for the description on how you did it. Definitely inspiring stuff!

1

sandtymanty t1_iy2r9os wrote

I'm a bit underwhelmed not seeing actual Earth.

2

Cangar t1_iy2tqv3 wrote

Replying to D3lu5ionist (#727,215)

In German there's a catchy phrase with which you can remember the orde rof the planets but it obviously involves pluto and now I'm stuck.

Mein Vater erklärt mir jeden Sonntag unsere neun.

5

mitchanium t1_iy2y2x8 wrote

And there was putting off such shots because o was worried my goto scope won't cut it.

Well done.

1

globefish23 t1_iy2zitm wrote

Replying to JustinChristoph (#725,874)

It was recategorized into the new category 'dwarf planet' in 2006, after bigger objects (e.g. Eris, Sedna) further out in the Kuiper belt were discovered.

We would have hundreds of planets by now, and would be in the same predicament as in the 19th century with Ceres.

Ceres was initially called a planet, until the category 'asteroid' was created. Now Ceres is a dwarf planet as well.

3

Goodtrueart t1_iy36zij wrote

I am really impressed by Uranus, I ain't a professional, I don't have camera or telescope.

Yet I enjoy reading about celestials objects. I always had the impression Uranus is really tough to have nice view of it.

Very apparently you have achieved it.

Now, Your catalogue is very nice way to introduce your achievements.

The idea that you succeeded doing it using only camera, make me also appreciate your efforts and commitment.

2

txmb_ t1_iy374kw wrote

Replying to andrea_g_amato_art (#716,611)

As someone also limited by the sheer cost of equipment, this has given me a lot of confidence to keep at it with my DSLR and fixed tripod.

These pictures are stunning! The main thing holding me back is lacking a lens with zoom. The one I have for my Canon EOS 4000D zooms out bht not in. Great for day-to-day landscape snapping and ad-lip photography, but less so for astrophotography haha.

I do plan on investing in a zooming lens primarily, and an equatorial mount secondly to take that astrophotography to the next level, but haave still questioned how worthwhile such a huge investment would be. Seeing these settles it though, it'll definitely be worth it!

Hope you keep up your photographical adventures!

6

cheverian7 t1_iy3at18 wrote

Why'd you miss earth? You just point the camera downwards :P

3

manalow88 t1_iy3dj4b wrote

THIS ISN'T COMPLETE!!!!!! WHERE'S PLUTO!?????

All seriousness tho this is amazing.

2

Routine_Shine_1921 t1_iy3f8vz wrote

Replying to andrea_g_amato_art (#724,679)

Indeed it is! I have tracked it with a computerized mount (which can't track it on its own, so I ended up writing some code on a raspberry to control it), and just debugging and adjusting that tracking to get the correct slew rate was hard. And just doing manual focusing on the scope while it was slewing after the ISS was a pain in the ass. It's quick for sure.

Impressive pics man!

8

BooFighters t1_iy3ocmd wrote

You got these pictures just from a 105 mm lens?

1

MorKSD t1_iy3ogwi wrote

Complimenti!! Bellissima collezione 🤩 Hai anche una pagina Instagram per caso?

1

Mankriks_Mistress t1_iy3oko8 wrote

Awesome pics! I'll trade you my Transit of Venus from 2012 for a collection of Gas Giants.

2

andrea_g_amato_art OP t1_iy3owkd wrote

Replying to Mankriks_Mistress (#732,690)

I wish! I was just thinking that I missed that transit forever 😩 Unfortunately back then I still wasn’t into astrophotography / I didn’t know I could capture it with a projection and I definitely didn’t know it was that rare!

2

andrea_g_amato_art OP t1_iy3papi wrote

Replying to BooFighters (#732,641)

No, I wish! I started with a 105mm, then I got the P1000 that has the equivalent of a 3000mm lens. While not technically a telescope and very ‘dark’ (the aperture is horrible and ISO as well), that thing is a beast, and I squeezed it like a lemon to get these pics

4

RAZR31 t1_iy3sgem wrote

Where is Pluto!?

I'm joking, but also not joking. I just want Pluto back. :(

2

SoretomoOre t1_iy3uotv wrote

Replying to globefish23 (#728,690)

> We would have hundreds of planets by now, and would be in the same predicament as in the 19th century with Ceres.

I hear this on reddit a lot, but why is this a predicament? It's not illegal to have 300 planets or whatever amount. I'm all aboard the "spherical due to it's own gravity" train

1

liger444 t1_iy3xp0x wrote

That's some extraordinary dedication on Venus. Good work tracking the phase like that!

3

zimirken t1_iy4bcw3 wrote

Replying to Flowchart83 (#733,022)

Never say never. Apparently someone did the math and it would only take <100 coils around the planet and about 100 kilowatts to make enough of a magnetic field for protection.

1

Flowchart83 t1_iy4e83l wrote

Replying to zimirken (#737,416)

It wasn't the concept of using a giant electromagnet that seemed off to me, it was the wattage. 10GW I can believe, 100kW I would find hard to. Also, since mars is smaller than earth and further from the sun it wouldn't need quite as powerful a field as we have.

1

globefish23 t1_iy4i8ao wrote

Replying to SoretomoOre (#733,892)

>It's not illegal to have 300 planets or whatever amount.

All of these categories are pretty arbitrary in the first place, but cramming everything into one category is just cumbersome and silly.

>I'm all aboard the "spherical due to it's own gravity" train

Yes, dwarf planets fullfill this requirement (hydrostatic equilibrium). What they lack is having cleared their orbit from other objects.

Asteroids lack both of these.

It's essentially dividing celestial bodies into three groups by their mass with physically measurable thresholds.

2

IamNICE124 t1_iy4lo1z wrote

Huh. I don’t see Earth in there.

Sad!

(Jk, this is dope)

1

SoretomoOre t1_iy4o9i4 wrote

Replying to globefish23 (#738,269)

> Yes, dwarf planets fullfill this requirement (hydrostatic equilibrium). What they lack is having cleared their orbit from other objects.

I know what they decided, I just call Ceres and Pluto planets anyway 😎

1

LouSanous t1_iy4vpx0 wrote

Very cool, but there's a problem. Uranus looks nothing like myanus.

0

waste_land_wanderer t1_iy5cqan wrote

What about Pluto, don't be that person who thinks it's just a rock. It's a planet too

1

Ok_Neighborhood_1203 t1_iy5czdv wrote

Awesome work! Im trying to do the same sub-$1000 astrophotography with much less success. I spent half on the telescope (Celestron Nexstar SLT 130) hoping I could use my cell phone for imaging but looks like I should have saved more for the camera. Didnt work out so well so far but I think an inexpensive eyepiece camera and stacking will solve the remaining issues. Keep it up... this hobby doesnt have to break the bank to open up the cosmos.

1

titanicboi1 t1_iy6ekjf wrote

Why does Venus have phases as if it’s like the moon

1

ocient t1_iy7eb01 wrote

Replying to AtticMuse (#734,066)

hubble wasn't designed to look at something like pluto, or even jupiter. its early jupiter pics werent as good as ground scopes either.

the math is pretty straightforward to figure out lens size and focal length in order to resolve pluto. maybe someone else here will do that math, since i am farrrrrr too lazy

2