Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: alberio
Page: <<prev 1 ... 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 next>>
Mar 27, 2018 21:21:57   #
Thank you.
stepping beyond wrote:
Great detail, lovin it .
Go to
Mar 26, 2018 13:56:39   #
I still think a good video cam with Registax or some other software can do so much better, but it was fun seeing how it does perform if your mount is stable and you're careful with your settings.
Go to
Mar 26, 2018 10:20:57   #
I was out night before last learning my polar alignment routine and noticed the moon was in my favorite phase. I only had my cellphone and managed to get these shots. Celestron 11" sct with a 35mm eyepiece.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)
Go to
Mar 26, 2018 10:06:40   #
bwana wrote:
Another night of crappy weather but an interesting Moon Dog. Lemonade from lemons!!

Sony RX10 IV, 24mm, f/2.8, 15 sec. @ ISO100, tripod mounted.

Enjoy!

bwa


Excellent. It was almost a Moonbow. Maybe if it would have been full.
Go to
Mar 26, 2018 10:03:01   #
tony85629 wrote:
Imaged with a Astro-Physics 5 inch refractor AP155SDF and a QSI683WSG CCD camera LRGB and Ha filters


How many seconds exposures, subs and post processing software? This image is what I am trying to perfect in my quest. Excellent
Go to
Mar 24, 2018 10:28:05   #
All are excellent, but I was really drawn to the fourth one. Thinking outside the box.
Go to
Mar 22, 2018 10:12:57   #
Nice shots, I've driven that road many times.
jederick wrote:
Located on the eastern border of the San Rafael Swell, it runs north to south for approximately forty miles. Forming a jagged skyline, it is a geologic uplift of Wingate Sandstone that appears almost vertical in appearance. The best views are heading west from Green River, Utah on I-70 where there is a scenic pullout at the Reef's base. The San Rafael Swell itself is an area approximately 50 miles long and 30 miles wide and contains the greatest display of geologic formations in central Utah...with virtually no paved roads. Numerous old dirt mining/ranching roads criss-cross the area along with the old Spanish Trail...tempting the adventurous!
Located on the eastern border of the San Rafael Sw... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 20, 2018 12:07:53   #
Thank you amfoto1. Very informative and understandable by me. I'm still wondering why in Canons DPP it views the tiff file like a jpeg and I dont have nearly all the settings as I do in RAW.

amfoto1 wrote:
Most cameras shoot RAW as 12-bit or 14-bit... while a TIFF file is typically 16-bit.

16-bit has about 64 times more possible colors and tonalities than 14-bit (4.39 trillion).

16-bit has more than 4000 times more possible colors and tonalities than 12-bit (68.68 billion).

16-bit has more than 16000 times more possible colors and tonalities than 8-bit (16.78 million).

16-bit images have a color palette of 281 trillion possible colors and tonalities!

When you open the image in post-processing software, it interpolates a 12 or 14-bit image as 16-bit. In a sense it "expands" the tonal information to fill the space.

Only a few cameras shoot 16-bit natively (most I'm aware of are medium format digital).

When you "shoot JPEGs", the camera actually takes a RAW image (all do, initially) and then immediately converts it to an 8-bit JPEG "in camera", using the settings of the camera. Whatever the camera deems "extraneous" is thrown away.

Shooting RAW requires you post-process the image later in software, but gives you opportunity to change a lot of the settings that were noted in, but not applied to the RAW file.

In most cases it's best to post-process and "work" your images in 16-bit mode. While it's possible to convert it to 16-bit, it makes little sense to do so if the image has already been "reduced" to an 8-bit JPEG... much of the data need to work the image in 16-bit mode has already been thrown away.

If you've been working on an image in 16-bit mode and need to close the image, but will want to open and work on it further, best to save as 16-bit TIFF (or PSD, etc.)

Once the work on the image is finished, for most purposes it's fine to save the image as 8-bit JPEG. It's a more common and widely viewable format than 16-bit TIFF or PSD (etc.) 8-bit files are much smaller and more practical for most purposes. And you won't see any difference between 8-bit and 16-bit finished images when viewed on computer screen or in prints made with most processes. 16-bit may not be possible with some printers. Or, if possible, may make printing slower and consume more ink, while not improving the result in any way. But check with your printer... some processes can utilize higher bit depth files.

More info here (and a lot of other places online if you Google it):

https://www.diyphotography.net/8-bit-vs-16-bit-color-depth-use-matters/
https://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/bit-depth-explained-in-depth--photo-8514
https://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/
Most cameras shoot RAW as 12-bit or 14-bit... whil... (show quote)
Go to
Mar 19, 2018 12:21:11   #
bsprague wrote:
All that the RAW file has to record is the one-color data from each pixel. The RAW converter program interpolates the one-color per pixel RAW file into the three color per pixel TIFF file.


Thank you, I learn every day from everyone here.
Go to
Mar 19, 2018 12:18:58   #
Rongnongno wrote:
TIFF is a standard

raw data files are specific to camera brands and models so not a standard anyway you look at it.

TIFF is larger because it is usually uncompressed and has 'data raw does not have'. I do not have the specifics, sorry.

Also raw is 10~14 bit (max is 16 is really advanced cameras) when TIFF is 16 bit. THAT is also a cause for the size.


Thank you for your reply. I also notice it doesn't have as many settings in the Canon DPP for tiff as it does for RAW
Go to
Mar 19, 2018 11:35:00   #
I am curious why does converting a 17-27 mb RAW file to 16bit TIFF it ends up 102 mb? I'm still ignorant about raw and tiff.
Go to
Mar 15, 2018 11:59:30   #
Albuqshutterbug wrote:
Thank you,
I mentioned the collimation issue in the post. I have been fighting with this scope to get it properly aligned since I received it.
I will eventually get it sorted out.
Jim


Sorry about that, I didn't see your mention about collimation. Still the images look very good.
Go to
Mar 15, 2018 10:17:20   #
Albuqshutterbug wrote:
I was impatient and only did a double polar alignment and not sure I did that correctly.
I ran the program to completion and disconnected, then redid the alignment with a different star to fine tune.
The Flame I shot at ISO 200 for 105 seconds. I was using my 6" Newtonian on my CGEM mount since I have not been able to use it very much since I bought it in August.
The remaining shots were done at ISO 100 also for 105 seconds.
Better I think and my coma was helped a bit with a laser alignment that I may have done correctly. Looking through the alignment cover before aligning, I tried to adjust my vanes to see all of the tabs you are supposed to see when looking in. I was close but really no cigar so that might be why I have so much coma still.
Anyway it is what it is for now.
Here you go Sonny, Probably not worth the wait but hey.. I was able to image for a bit.
Jim
I was impatient and only did a double polar alignm... (show quote)

It looks pretty good, but wondering if the collimation is slightly off.
Go to
Mar 13, 2018 10:39:37   #
TheDman wrote:
You have to use a paint pen. I've had good luck with these.


I also wanted to know, so thanks for the link.
Go to
Mar 11, 2018 10:49:50   #
wayne-03 wrote:
Its no big deal, just trying to thin out a few things (2 lens, flash and some radio triggers) that I don’t use anymore. They will just go back in the cabinet.


I sold the one I had and would pay your asking price if I had the funds. This is a pretty good lens and wish I had mine back
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.