RJN wrote:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070815.html
(until then http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/fap/ap070815.html )
What are they? Thoughts?
RJN wrote:What are they? Thoughts?
craterchains wrote:Where Chris comes up with the idea of stacking is news to me, and not listed about the image.
Andy Wade wrote:RJN wrote:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070815.html
(until then http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/fap/ap070815.html )
What are they? Thoughts?
Reflections from a satellite/s? Or even aeroplanes?
Could these could be 'glinting' from the reflective surfaces?
Chris Peterson wrote:I surmise that the composite was made from five of these 105-second exposures, but don't know that for sure. There's no indication that a tracker was used, and you can't make a single 40-minute image with a Canon 300D in any case. The image metadata shows that the image was processed with Photoshop 7.
Andy Wade wrote:Could these could be 'glinting' from the reflective surfaces?

-It's a matter of perspective...avicenna wrote:It is just that I did see one of those mysterious streaks too. [...] Then there was this streak coming in from the right (the southeast) and going to the left (east), and perfectly horizontal.
-It's a matter of perspective...Craine wrote:This may sound strange, but I believe the streaks may be a set of electrickery wires running across the field of vision, with the supporting poles out of sight. The light from the bright source near the horizon at the bottom right may be reflecting of the wires.
-It's a matter of perspective...bilious wrote:Chris Peterson wrote:I surmise that the composite was made from five of these 105-second exposures, but don't know that for sure. There's no indication that a tracker was used, and you can't make a single 40-minute image with a Canon 300D in any case. The image metadata shows that the image was processed with Photoshop 7.
Hi guys, just signed up to comment on this.
Firstly, the 300D can do an 'unlimited' length bulb exposure. (The manual actually reads "With a fully charged battery a single bulb exposure can be as long as about 2.5 hours," presumably the limitation is battery capacity.) However, of more salience is the EXIF info pulled out of the photo from the APOD site:
(Cut down for brevity)
Make - Canon
Model - Canon EOS 300D DIGITAL
Software - Adobe Photoshop 7.0
DateTime - 2007:08:13 19:14:11
ExifOffset - 220
ExposureTime - 56 seconds
FNumber - 3.50
ISOSpeedRatings - 1600
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:08:12 04:28:23
ApertureValue - F 3.50
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 10 mm
So it was a photo of about a minute's exposure at ISO 1600. Evidently as the description talks about a 40 minute period, these 5 incidents come from different exposures blended together in Adobe Photoshop.
As to what they are, they are not of complete uniformity either cf one another, but also not across the length of their appearance. The 300D has pretty weak buffer/write so there can be enormous gaps between each exposure (upwards of 30 seconds for some long exposures) which explains why the second from the bottom looks like it simply appears at full intensity.
My guess, meteors, but I'm much more of a camera nut than a space nut.
Return to The Bridge: Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], MSN [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest