Thanks for the alternate rendition, Moose. Wish the tiff hadn’t vanished. I
uprezzed the only little jpeg I had with Gigapixel AI and thus some star
artifacts. The monument had a minor alignment issue overlaying the stacked sky
and foreground shots. I was already 3 hours into it. Many use a utility to
eliminate the green cast— typically sky glow from exited oxygen at 558nm.
Sensor is very sensitive there. Back 5 years ago when I started, wide angle
astrolandscape was a very tiny niche. Now there are plug -ins to “make small
stars.” This enhances the prominence of the MW. Accuracy is often not the
goal. If you have time, may ask you to have a look before a print after get
some time for a re-do.
I spotted this patent:
https://tinyurl.com/3mrj59c4
Whether a real product comes to market is an open question and no fast wides or
ultra-wides have IS that makes the new system work. So OM needs a new lens
too.
Curiously the HHHR ("hand-held" high res) on a tripod of course will stack
the sky images as long as the sky is very clear and the sky predominates--else
will stack the foreground. That might be able to be optimized for astro but in
general longer exposure w/o star trails leads to better images than the same
exposure stacked. I am not sure exactly why that is, but perhaps some signals
just don't rise above the noise floor w/o longer exposures. Curiously I
think the IR filter on OM-1 and E-M1 MKiii are essentially opaque for hydrogen
alpha---about 656 nm. Sonnie lets in about 20%.
Overall use of the Sonnnie can result in a much higher quality image as it
captures 4X the photons and lets in some Ha, but practically the OM-1 is MUCH
easier to use in the field with Starry sky AF and Live time for the foreground.
Chasing stars and flutterbys, Mike
|
|
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|