cool shot
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Ivan I on 23 May 2010 18:37 "DanP" <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d2d91714-9971-4aa3-a3e3-b83ad9a2b408(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com... > >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1279952/Nasa-shuttle-A... > >> pace-station-seen-passing-Sun.html > > > It is a great shot, but not quite as difficult as it appears. > > > There are databases that will tell you exactly when the satellites will > > pass in front of the sun or moon from your latitude and longitude. > > I would tend to disagree, I think it's an extremely difficult shot. > > However, the published photo doesn't make sense. In the published photo, > they are still both travelling in the wrong direction. > > Initially, I thought that maybe he had the camera in portrait mode, but it > still doesn't make sense. There are only two directions the ISS could have > been travelling in the photo. Heading approx. 7 o'clock, or heading > approx. > 10 o'clock. > > So, the only explanation I can think of is that he deliberately tilted the > camera in order to try and achieve the perfect media shot, but then the > image was rotated afterwards. >>"The Shuttle was in the process of performing a back flip so that >>astronauts on board the orbiter could study the heat shield for any >>damage caused during the launch." >>I do not know which way is the front for the ISS. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't worry me too much, as it's a great photo. However, I'm trying to understand why they appear to be travelling in the wrong direction. In this pic, you can see the path of the ISS in relation to the Earth (currently going 'up' across Madrid in this pic): http://i45.tinypic.com/35c3p7m.jpg In this pic, you can see the two rough directions the ISS travels across Spain depending on what cycle it's on. The white line would have been the approx. direction the photographers lens was pointing (Azimuth just under 160�, Altitude just under 70�): http://i45.tinypic.com/50f9qs.jpg This pic is a rotated version of the previous pic, but rotated to show the two directions the ISS could have been be coming whilst looking down the lens (I don't know where the ISS was when the photo was taken, which is why I've given the two possibilities): http://i46.tinypic.com/2h3boew.jpg This pic shows the two possible directions I would have expected to see the ISS travelling in the photo. But instead it appears to be travelling pretty straight, Even if you flip the image or rotate it, it still doesn't appear to be travelling in the right direction: http://i46.tinypic.com/24ni6hu.jpg These images are only rough, but you get the idea. So, either the photo wasn't taken where the photographer said it was, or the camera was tilted at a strange angle, or the final image was rotated. Unless anyone has any other ideas?
From: Ken Walls on 23 May 2010 19:48 On Sun, 23 May 2010 23:37:12 +0100, "Ivan I" <ivan(a)uptheresomewhere.maybe> wrote: >"DanP" <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:d2d91714-9971-4aa3-a3e3-b83ad9a2b408(a)b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com... > >> >>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1279952/Nasa-shuttle-A... >> >> pace-station-seen-passing-Sun.html >> >> > It is a great shot, but not quite as difficult as it appears. >> >> > There are databases that will tell you exactly when the satellites will >> > pass in front of the sun or moon from your latitude and longitude. >> >> I would tend to disagree, I think it's an extremely difficult shot. >> >> However, the published photo doesn't make sense. In the published photo, >> they are still both travelling in the wrong direction. >> >> Initially, I thought that maybe he had the camera in portrait mode, but it >> still doesn't make sense. There are only two directions the ISS could have >> been travelling in the photo. Heading approx. 7 o'clock, or heading >> approx. >> 10 o'clock. >> >> So, the only explanation I can think of is that he deliberately tilted the >> camera in order to try and achieve the perfect media shot, but then the >> image was rotated afterwards. > > >>>"The Shuttle was in the process of performing a back flip so that >>>astronauts on board the orbiter could study the heat shield for any >>>damage caused during the launch." > >>>I do not know which way is the front for the ISS. > > >Don't get me wrong, it doesn't worry me too much, as it's a great photo. >However, I'm trying to understand why they appear to be travelling in the >wrong direction. > >In this pic, you can see the path of the ISS in relation to the Earth >(currently going 'up' across Madrid in this pic): >http://i45.tinypic.com/35c3p7m.jpg > >In this pic, you can see the two rough directions the ISS travels across >Spain depending on what cycle it's on. The white line would have been the >approx. direction the photographers lens was pointing (Azimuth just under >160�, Altitude just under 70�): >http://i45.tinypic.com/50f9qs.jpg > >This pic is a rotated version of the previous pic, but rotated to show the >two directions the ISS could have been be coming whilst looking down the >lens (I don't know where the ISS was when the photo was taken, which is why >I've given the two possibilities): >http://i46.tinypic.com/2h3boew.jpg > >This pic shows the two possible directions I would have expected to see the >ISS travelling in the photo. But instead it appears to be travelling pretty >straight, Even if you flip the image or rotate it, it still doesn't appear >to be travelling in the right direction: >http://i46.tinypic.com/24ni6hu.jpg > >These images are only rough, but you get the idea. So, either the photo >wasn't taken where the photographer said it was, or the camera was tilted at >a strange angle, or the final image was rotated. Unless anyone has any >other ideas? > Any equatorial mounted telescope and camera will take images at odd angles. Some astrophotographers use a right-angle prism between camera and telescope optics because it's easier to compose through the camera when an object is near the zenith, rather than trying to strain their necks by crouching under the telescope. (This of course is dependent on which telescope design is being used--catadioptric, newtonian, refractor, etc.) This oft-used 90-degree prism further confusing you by flipping images right to left but not reversing up and down. There is no "up is north", "down is south", "left is east", "right is west" in any telescope. Images of stars have to be realigned later to known directions. The images flipped, rotated, or reversed as needed to match the real sky if wanting to add that photograph to a known database of adjoining photographs. Many star-field photographs will have a little arrow added in later by the photographer (or others) pointing to true north to assist the layman viewer. Some lunar maps are even printed rotated 180 degrees and flipped left-to-right to make it easier for equatorial catadioptric telescope users with right-angle prisms visually find their way around lunar features. Perhaps you should visit some fake-moon-landing and other conspiracy websites where you'll get fellow psycho-netizens to agree with you because they are also too ignorant to the workings of the real world. Their only meager glimpses of reality coming from their mommy's basements and now self-crippled minds while their imaginations run rampant. Their minds have found a way to entertain themselves without any input from reality. You should read an old sci-fi book called, "The Terminal Man". His brain was hardware wired to give an intense pleasure response every time he was going to engage in any antisocial activities, thus preventing him from doing so. Eventually his mind found a way to stimulate itself into an infinite feedback loop of electrical impulses, until he was dead, with a smile on his face. This is analogous to those who live their lives at their computer terminals. Finding any words or others equally crippled to support their unfounded theories, all to convince themselves that their psychotic imaginings must be correct. Caught in an infinite loop of psychotic decay while dragging others into their psychoses along with them. But at least they're happy. 100% socially, emotionally, and mentally dead--but happy. The bodies of these new "Terminal People" would cease to function as well but they don't realize they are dead yet. Some even live right here in these newsgroups. You can tell by how their DSLR photographs never match what they are trying to convince everyone else to believe with their words. They're precisely that far out of touch with reality.
From: M-M on 24 May 2010 00:11 In article <4bf92acc$0$26118$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote: > > It is an easy shot with the right equipment since you know exactly when > > the event will happen and your camera is electronically tracking the sun. > > > Uh huh. > Especially when the transit takes about... oh, I'd guess... half a second? More like 7.5 seconds. And you just put your camera on continuous as soon as the transit begins. An orbit of the shuttle takes 90 minutes. 360 degrees in 90 minutes. The sun is 1/2 degree in diameter. That means 1/2 degree in 7.5 seconds. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com
From: Ray Fischer on 24 May 2010 02:30 M-M <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote: > "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote: >> > It is an easy shot with the right equipment since you know exactly when >> > the event will happen and your camera is electronically tracking the sun. >> >> >> Uh huh. >> Especially when the transit takes about... oh, I'd guess... half a second? > >More like 7.5 seconds. And you just put your camera on continuous as >soon as the transit begins. > >An orbit of the shuttle takes 90 minutes. 360 degrees in 90 minutes. The >sun is 1/2 degree in diameter. That means 1/2 degree in 7.5 seconds. That happens to be wrong because you're observing the shuttle not from the center of the Earth, but from a point that is about 7,600 miles closer to the shuttle. 18,000mph and 0.5 degrees seen from a distance of 300 miles. Let's see if I still remember trig. sin 0.5 degrees (the width of the sun) is 0.00873, times the distance to the shuttle (300 miles) is 2.7 miles, longer at higher latitudes. Let's say four miles. The shuttle, travelling at 18,000mph will traverse that 4 miles in, well, not a very large amount of time. Roughly 3/4 second. Doable, but hard. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Jeff R. on 24 May 2010 02:38
"M-M" <nospam.m-m(a)ny.more> wrote in message news:nospam.m-m-090BC5.00114124052010(a)cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com... > In article <4bf92acc$0$26118$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, > "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote: > >> > It is an easy shot with the right equipment since you know exactly when >> > the event will happen and your camera is electronically tracking the >> > sun. >> >> >> Uh huh. >> Especially when the transit takes about... oh, I'd guess... half a >> second? > > > More like 7.5 seconds. And you just put your camera on continuous as > soon as the transit begins. > > An orbit of the shuttle takes 90 minutes. 360 degrees in 90 minutes. The > sun is 1/2 degree in diameter. That means 1/2 degree in 7.5 seconds. From http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/page/3/ "The big yellow thing is the Sun. But look at the upper right section. See those two dark blips? The one on the left is the Shuttle Orbiter Atlantis and on the right is the International Space Station! Incredibly, Thierry caught them as they passed directly in front of the Sun! To give you an idea of how talented Thierry is, the entire transit lasted just over half a second." Sometimes simple maths doesn't quite cut it. But then, it isn't rocket science. ....no, wait... (Thierry Legault is so far beyond the average astrophotographer's abilities that comparisons are pointless) -- Jeff R. (I'll take Phil Plait's estimate, I think) |