by Guest » Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:25 pm
Hey, Indigo_Sunrise, sorry I didn't notice this on the internet until just now. Net time feel free to email me from my blog.
The images of the meteors are enhanced in both brightness and contrast. I would say the most enhancement would be about 15-20% bighter than they appeared in the RAW images. As NONE were just drawn in. I will say that all were "Cut" from there original image (overlaying them would have made a mess of the stars, leaving the stars in about 14 different locations due to field rotation.) The easiest and best way I've found to deal with that is to select just the meteor, then cut and past it in proper orientation to the main image.
Some of the abrupt stops or starts are likely due to the camera using 20 second exposures. 20 seconds can sometimes see the start, or the end of a streak.
I actually had about 10 other meteor streaks from that night that, once oriented would be outside the framing of the original photo, or behind the tree. Therefore I didn't use them as I try to keep it as "true to life" as I possibly can (if that's even possible considering it's a composite)
If there is any other questions feel free to email me
dvgzx2@gmail.com
Indigo_Sunrise wrote:>snip<
Guest wrote:but the galaxies are just distractive.
Yeah, because there are just so many of them in the image.....
This is a really nice image, but I'm wondering about the meteors in the image - how enhanced are they? I ask because there are several that look like they were just sort of drawn in. For instance, at about one or two o'clock above the Andromeda Galaxy, and then the one directly to the left: to me, both of those look like lines that were drawn in, as they don't appear to have tapered ends or one end larger than the other, as many meteors show when imaged. Were they so faint that 'extra enhancement' was needed?
I do understand the need for some image manipulation or enhancement, but how much was done on the meteors? I did poke around on the imager's site, but under the section
'Photo Details', there isn't a lot of information.
It's a great image, though - especially for those of us that have been clouded out this year!
![thumb up :thumb_up:](./images/smilies/thumb_up.gif)
Hey, Indigo_Sunrise, sorry I didn't notice this on the internet until just now. Net time feel free to email me from my blog.
The images of the meteors are enhanced in both brightness and contrast. I would say the most enhancement would be about 15-20% bighter than they appeared in the RAW images. As NONE were just drawn in. I will say that all were "Cut" from there original image (overlaying them would have made a mess of the stars, leaving the stars in about 14 different locations due to field rotation.) The easiest and best way I've found to deal with that is to select just the meteor, then cut and past it in proper orientation to the main image.
Some of the abrupt stops or starts are likely due to the camera using 20 second exposures. 20 seconds can sometimes see the start, or the end of a streak.
I actually had about 10 other meteor streaks from that night that, once oriented would be outside the framing of the original photo, or behind the tree. Therefore I didn't use them as I try to keep it as "true to life" as I possibly can (if that's even possible considering it's a composite)
If there is any other questions feel free to email me
dvgzx2@gmail.com
[quote="Indigo_Sunrise"]>snip<
[quote="Guest"]but the galaxies are just distractive.[/quote]
Yeah, because there are just so many of them in the image..... :roll:
This is a really nice image, but I'm wondering about the meteors in the image - how enhanced are they? I ask because there are several that look like they were just sort of drawn in. For instance, at about one or two o'clock above the Andromeda Galaxy, and then the one directly to the left: to me, both of those look like lines that were drawn in, as they don't appear to have tapered ends or one end larger than the other, as many meteors show when imaged. Were they so faint that 'extra enhancement' was needed?
I do understand the need for some image manipulation or enhancement, but how much was done on the meteors? I did poke around on the imager's site, but under the section [url=https://plus.google.com/115831773236070302803#115831773236070302803/posts]'Photo Details'[/url], there isn't a lot of information.
It's a great image, though - especially for those of us that have been clouded out this year!
:thumb_up:[/quote]