The moon - 24000mm

jgs001

jgs001

Brian Cox
Messages
12,646
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Yes, that's correct, a focal length of 24m (meters)... totally bonkers :wacky::wacky:

Just thought I'd share this little experiment. This is a single image, using the 450d, on my C80ED 600mm scope, with 20x worth of magnifiers. a 2xTC, a 2x barlow and a 5x barlow stacked together. Horror to use, murder to focus (as you can see I didn't manage it) without any AF asssit in anyway shape or form. But boy does it get in close... The crater in question is called Clavius and is 225km across, for a sense of scale.

IMG_0631.jpg


Thanks for looking
 
Looks a bit soft to me, maybe a bit of fill flash would have helped :LOL:

But seriously, that is a phenomenal photo considering how you achieved it :clap:
 
Grendel said:
Looks a bit soft to me, maybe a bit of fill flash would have helped :LOL:
Click to expand...

Might cause a brown out across the south east of England to get enough flash power for that :LOL::LOL:
 
fabs said:
:LOL: I'm just thinking what the guide number would have to be on the flashgun! :LOL:
Click to expand...


Guide number of 10089319680 (approx), assuming ISO100 and using f8.

Bored at work.
 
Bazza155 said:
Guide number of 10089319680 (approx), assuming ISO100 and using f8.

Bored at work.
Click to expand...

A couple of megatons then...must pop down to the local Army Surplus and see if the have any 'buckets of instant sunshine' for sale...Anyone know if the trigger voltage would damage my camera?:) Oh and should I use a soft-box or brolly?
 
kiasdad said:
A couple of megatons then...must pop down to the local Army Surplus and see if the have any 'buckets of instant sunshine' for sale...Anyone know if the trigger voltage would damage my camera?:) Oh and should I use a soft-box or brolly?
Click to expand...

Brolly would be best. This Jessops have some 185 mile diameter ones on special offer at the moment! :D
 
That is close, you could nearly touch it, nice one John (y)
 
As an image-it's crap, as an experiment into possibilities-it's brilliant :)

Well done
 
I think you are failing to make photography as difficult for yourself as possible. Why are you not using a 2MB mobile phone camera as the recipient device rather than a DSLR? ;) Be a trooper, go for the impossible rather than the mundanely super difficult. Well done to date, I bet we're going to see something great in the near future. :clap:
 
have you tried something like registax to stack a load of them together and try and build a usable image that way ?
 
What about shooting a different planet you must get a good view of a couple with that focal length
 
Thanks all, twas not a serious attempt, for that I would have used a webcam (crop factor 8.5) to get in good and close without overpowering the scope, then registax the AVI to refine the detail and negate some of the seeing effects. That will come. Just need to work out the correct settings for the webcam. As for the planets... not a lot about at the mo... . Saturn's rings have closed up for the next couple of years, so they look like a thin line and Jupiter is too low in the sky now. But here's a shot of Venus at 12000mm..

IMG_0623.jpg


Russell, you would be surprised what a humble 2Mb webcam can do on the moon, through a decent set of optics afocally (held over the eyepiece can do). I've tried afocal, and it's actually pretty darn hard too.
 
I dont care that its a crap image, its stunning in so much as you actually managed to get a 24m focal length to "nearly" focus.

11.5/10 for effort
 
Hmmm... It would take 2.6 seconds for the light from the flash to reach the moon and back... if I can sort the tracking out, so I can manage to keep the scope pointing at exactly the same spot on the moon for 5 seconds, and drop the ISO to 100.... It might just work.... :D :D....
 
Admirable work spaceman. It makes me wonder why they can't point the Hubble scope at the moon to get some pics of the landers and stuff and put an end to the conspiracy theories.
 
I'm not sure whether the hubble can resolve down to that size. I've seen images from monster scopes here on earth that are resolving craters down to 2 or 3 kilometers across, but compared to the lander module, that's still huge.
 
Nice job :)

The lander is far too small even hubble to pick it up.
 
Perhaps hubble can't focus that close? I don't recall any shots of the earth from hubble either - do we exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top