Comet McNaught Over New Zealand (APOD 12 Feb 2007)
- orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
Comet McNaught Over New Zealand (APOD 12 Feb 2007)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070212.html
Is that one of the Magellanic Clouds above the comets tail?
Orin
Is that one of the Magellanic Clouds above the comets tail?
Orin
Orin
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
Comet McNaught Over New Zealand
I, too, am curious. I suspect the lower smudge is the SMC and the smudge at the edge of the photo is the LMC.
- orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
After I started this post I downloaded the picture on my desktop and then I also noticed what looked like what may be another cloud like glow at the edge of the top. My bet is that we have no only the Milky Way; Comet McNaught; and a meteor: but also the LMC and SMC.
Orin
Orin
Orin
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
ISS
Wolf Kotenberg
Ah, but which is which? Would not the larger (and lower one) of the two smudges be the LMC?orin stepanek wrote:... My bet is that we have no only the Milky Way; Comet McNaught; and a meteor: but also the LMC and SMC.
Orin
FWIW, according to Wikipedia, the LMC is 168,000 ly away, and the SMC is 197,000 ly away. I seem to recall the opposite case -- the larger is farther, etc.
RJ Emery
We can't see all of the one at the upper edge of the photo. I believe that one is the LMC. The one in full view is the SMC. IMHORJ Emery wrote:Ah, but which is which? Would not the larger (and lower one) of the two smudges be the LMC?
also see
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060809.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060806.html
-
- Asternaut
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:29 pm
McNaught from New Zealand (12 Feb 2007 APOD)
I am having a problem with the McNaught image from New Zealand (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070212.html). As an amatuer astronomer, and a better photographer, I can not resolve how this image was taken. The ground and background lights appear to be the result of camera shake. More than that, the angles of the obvious ground lights on the right appear to be a mirror to the angles on the left. I would expect with camera shake, that all ground lights would follow the same track.
More importantly, the star fields, comet and other celestial objects in this photo are perfectly imaged. Why would such a perfect looking astrophotograph have such imperfect ground focus and obvious camera shake? Any camera shake at all would effect the lights in the sky as well, wouldn't it? Especially the comet, the brightest object in the sky. But it is razor sharp...
kbmcdowell
More importantly, the star fields, comet and other celestial objects in this photo are perfectly imaged. Why would such a perfect looking astrophotograph have such imperfect ground focus and obvious camera shake? Any camera shake at all would effect the lights in the sky as well, wouldn't it? Especially the comet, the brightest object in the sky. But it is razor sharp...
kbmcdowell
Just went and looked at Minoru Yoneto's other photo's. There are several with both Magellanic Clouds visible. Lot's of nice photos.
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mkyoneto/star/mcnaught.htm
Spectacular image link from apod/ap070212
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mkyoneto/star/mcnaught.htm
Spectacular image link from apod/ap070212
-
- Ensign
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:29 pm
The night sky turns. This exposure was time lapse and the camera took that turning into account. Thus from the perspective of the camera, the sky stayed perfectly still, but the ground turned... causing ground lights to move but sky lights to be perfectly still.
Takes some skill and patience, but that's how people are able to image deep sky objects.
Alternately, if you didn't move your camera, you end up with perfectly sharp ground lights and startrails in the sky.
Takes some skill and patience, but that's how people are able to image deep sky objects.
Alternately, if you didn't move your camera, you end up with perfectly sharp ground lights and startrails in the sky.
-
- Asternaut
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:29 pm
Ahh, yes, I see that now, and it must be a very wide angle lens. I see that the lights on the left and the lights on the right appear to have a very slight concave trail, and would be along the same circle, if you connected them, which makes sense, especially for a wide angle lens. Thanks for the reply!FreebirdsWB wrote:The night sky turns. This exposure was time lapse and the camera took that turning into account. Thus from the perspective of the camera, the sky stayed perfectly still, but the ground turned... causing ground lights to move but sky lights to be perfectly still.