Quote:
On 2002-06-13 23:30, Joe Durnavich wrote:
Craig, I think that works out pretty consistent with those Apollo photos from the CM showing stars I posted (on the previous page).
The Apollo 35 mm camera was f/1.2, or almost 3 stops wider than yours. Their film ASA was 6000, or almost 5 stops more, for a total of 7 to 8 stops more than yours.
The Apollo shutter time was 2 seconds, but yours was 240, so that's the equivalent of about 7 stops more for you.
If I figured that right, then your exposure was almost equivalent to the Apollo one (not factoring in reciprocity failure). It looks to me like the star images are similar in terms of brightness. It would help, though, if you could get up to orbit to get away from all that sky brightness.
|
Joe,
I figured the same thing. I would guess 1 stop loss for reciprocity failure but I didnt check my references for the exact amount. If I read your other post right they used filters on the camera and a red or blue filter depending on the density would cause perhaps another stop of light loss give or take.
The sky glow stinks. My friend lives about 10 miles from town but its still glows like crazy. We were out on a Friday night so the bulk of the city lights stay on pretty late. That shot was taken around 12:30pm and the glow was down a bit. A big part of it was from porch lights in his addition. Thats why we built those big black panels. they help a lot. BTW the camera was pointed almost due south.
And if you guys can raise the 20 million bucks for me I'm a go for the ISS!