by Chris Peterson » Thu May 07, 2009 5:42 pm
neufer wrote:It's a neat composite photo, isn't it?
Nope, it's a single frame, not composited in any way. The photographer is absolutely clear about this on his website:
"The first image links to the single frame selected as the NASA APOD for April 24, 2009. I picked the sharpest one frame from a pile of many I made intending to stack them for better clarity of the low-contrast Moon in the bright morning sky."
FWIW, I wouldn't necessarily consider a stack of images to be a composite, if it simply expands the dynamic range. Some cameras now do that internally (take two or more images and sum them), producing a single file. I'd usually reserve "composite" for what you get when combining images with different subjects in them, such as putting the Moon and Jupiter into the same image for purposes of scale. Virtually every astronomical image is a composite if that definition applies to a stack of images made at different exposure times and through different filters. It isn't generally considered necessary to identify them as such.
[quote="neufer"]It's a neat [b]composite[/b] photo, isn't it?[/quote]
Nope, it's a single frame, not composited in any way. The photographer is absolutely clear about this on his website:
[i]"The first image links to the single frame selected as the NASA APOD for April 24, 2009. I picked the sharpest one frame from a pile of many I made intending to stack them for better clarity of the low-contrast Moon in the bright morning sky."[/i]
FWIW, I wouldn't necessarily consider a stack of images to be a composite, if it simply expands the dynamic range. Some cameras now do that internally (take two or more images and sum them), producing a single file. I'd usually reserve "composite" for what you get when combining images with different subjects in them, such as putting the Moon and Jupiter into the same image for purposes of scale. Virtually every astronomical image is a composite if that definition applies to a stack of images made at different exposure times and through different filters. It isn't generally considered necessary to identify them as such.