Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?

  • 39 Replies
  • 11608 Views
where the heck are all these TRILLIONS OF STARS? We can see a certain amount from Earth right ABOVE US.. because they adorn the lower heaven as lamps and for guarding the lower heavens against Jinns or Demons as mentioned in the Quran. That is their purpose... But once you start going HORIZONTALLY ON THE SUPPOSED ecliptic plane.. There seem to be ZERO STARS....

I thought according to Round Earthers the Universe is FULL OF TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF RANDOM STARS OVER BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS!!??
Yet in none of these fake pictures of the Planets and their supposed Moons.. do we ever see even the slightest hint of these stars......But again from Earth if we stare STRAIGHT UP can we ONLY see the true stars..

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2015, 02:01:37 AM »
Read up about photographic exposure.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2015, 11:23:36 AM »
Yet in none of these fake pictures of the Planets and their supposed Moons.. do we ever see even the slightest hint of these stars......But again from Earth if we stare STRAIGHT UP can we ONLY see the true stars..

Try to take a picture of the Moon on a clear night with your camera (a phone can do as well). Post your result here. We want to see the Moon and the stars at the same time. No photoshop please.
I think, therefore I am

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2015, 11:29:17 AM »
where the heck are all these TRILLIONS OF STARS? We can see a certain amount from Earth right ABOVE US.. because they adorn the lower heaven as lamps and for guarding the lower heavens against Jinns or Demons as mentioned in the Quran. That is their purpose... But once you start going HORIZONTALLY ON THE SUPPOSED ecliptic plane.. There seem to be ZERO STARS....

I thought according to Round Earthers the Universe is FULL OF TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF RANDOM STARS OVER BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS!!??
Yet in none of these fake pictures of the Planets and their supposed Moons.. do we ever see even the slightest hint of these stars......But again from Earth if we stare STRAIGHT UP can we ONLY see the true stars..

Way to expose the great conspiracy of... exposure lengths!
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2015, 02:23:30 PM »
where the heck are all these TRILLIONS OF STARS? We can see a certain amount from Earth right ABOVE US.. because they adorn the lower heaven as lamps and for guarding the lower heavens against Jinns or Demons as mentioned in the Quran. That is their purpose... But once you start going HORIZONTALLY ON THE SUPPOSED ecliptic plane.. There seem to be ZERO STARS....

I thought according to Round Earthers the Universe is FULL OF TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF RANDOM STARS OVER BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS!!??
Yet in none of these fake pictures of the Planets and their supposed Moons.. do we ever see even the slightest hint of these stars......But again from Earth if we stare STRAIGHT UP can we ONLY see the true stars..

Way to expose the great conspiracy of... exposure lengths!

Indeed.

Here is an example of the effects of differing exposure length. FYI I usually use exposure lengths of 1/30th second on planets. I don't see stars until I ramp the exposure length up to at least 1/2 a second.


Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2015, 02:39:26 PM »
The photographer has spoken. Case close!
I think, therefore I am

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2015, 03:05:56 PM »
The guy is right! You cannot see many stars even from an airplane. The Moon doesn't appear very big either. I am not talking about taking photos, but observing the stars and the Moon with the naked eye from high altitudes. Also, if they were visible from space we would definitely have nice videos by now, not just CGI.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2015, 03:10:50 PM »
The guy is right! You cannot see many stars even from an airplane. The Moon doesn't appear very big either. I am not talking about taking photos, but observing the stars and the Moon with the naked eye from high altitudes. Also, if they were visible from space we would definitely have nice videos by now, not just CGI.

Have you been on an airplane? I can see stars from an airplane.
I think, therefore I am

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2015, 11:23:01 PM »

Indeed.

Here is an example of the effects of differing exposure length. FYI I usually use exposure lengths of 1/30th second on planets. I don't see stars until I ramp the exposure length up to at least 1/2 a second.


Are you using a tracking mount? I'm beginning to get the hang of using mine & integrating the stacks, and it's just remarkable what can be seen even only with camera lenses. :)

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2015, 11:34:01 PM »
The guy is right! You cannot see many stars even from an airplane. The Moon doesn't appear very big either. I am not talking about taking photos, but observing the stars and the Moon with the naked eye from high altitudes. Also, if they were visible from space we would definitely have nice videos by now, not just CGI.

Have you been on an airplane? I can see stars from an airplane.

I have seen stars but very few. Totally inconsistent with the idea that with less atmosphere you should see the stars brighter. I have never seen the milky way from a plane the way I have from the ground. In fact from planes you see almost nothing, even if you stare for 12 hours as I have.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2015, 12:15:16 AM »
where the heck are all these TRILLIONS OF STARS? We can see a certain amount from Earth right ABOVE US.. because they adorn the lower heaven as lamps and for guarding the lower heavens against Jinns or Demons as mentioned in the Quran. That is their purpose... But once you start going HORIZONTALLY ON THE SUPPOSED ecliptic plane.. There seem to be ZERO STARS....

I thought according to Round Earthers the Universe is FULL OF TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS OF RANDOM STARS OVER BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF LIGHT YEARS!!??
Yet in none of these fake pictures of the Planets and their supposed Moons.. do we ever see even the slightest hint of these stars......But again from Earth if we stare STRAIGHT UP can we ONLY see the true stars..

Way to expose the great conspiracy of... exposure lengths!

Indeed.

Here is an example of the effects of differing exposure length. FYI I usually use exposure lengths of 1/30th second on planets. I don't see stars until I ramp the exposure length up to at least 1/2 a second.



Nice work!

Here's my efforts so far....

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2015, 02:38:24 AM »
Are you using a tracking mount? I'm beginning to get the hang of using mine & integrating the stacks, and it's just remarkable what can be seen even only with camera lenses. :)

I am, I bought a second-hand Skywatcher EQ5 Pro which I control with my PC.

Nice work!

Here's my efforts so far....



Thanks, but I'm not responsible for that image! I have plenty of comparisons of long exposure images with and without a light-pollution filter, but have never used my own footage to make a generic exposure example!

That's a great shot of M42.

This is the first one I've taken and been happy with, mainly because of London's light pollution. In now using an UHC-E filter, it leaves a blueish cast to the stars that I haven't been able to correct yet but allows me to get more detail.


Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2015, 03:00:58 AM »
Nicely done m42, I guess your exposure times are sky limited in your location? I have a shabby eq3-1, took me a while to figure out how to align it but now I can at least expose over a minute with a 200mm camera lens. Which is a nice fl for andromeda it turns out, I had good results stacking 50 frames at f4 iso 1600 :D What software do you align and integrate with?

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2015, 03:43:42 AM »
Nicely done m42, I guess your exposure times are sky limited in your location? I have a shabby eq3-1, took me a while to figure out how to align it but now I can at least expose over a minute with a 200mm camera lens. Which is a nice fl for andromeda it turns out, I had good results stacking 50 frames at f4 iso 1600 :D What software do you align and integrate with?

Thanks.

You could say they are time limited! Top is unfiltered, bottom is with an Astronomik UHC-E EOS clip filter.


Quote
What software do you align and integrate with?

If I've travelled with the mount then I just use the built in polarscope to do a polar align, the software I use for controlling the mount (EQMOD) will automatically align the polarscope and rotate the RA axis so that I don't have to worry about taking my time. I can then get around 90s exposures before I get trailing.

At home, I leave the mount set up and well covered in the garden. I also do a drift align which gets the accuracy up so that I can get up to the mounts limit of 3-5 minute exposures unguided, it's a painful process and takes 1-2 hours so you don't want to be doing it if you're taking the mount down every time.

I use EQMOD and Stellarium for scope control, BackyardEOS for image capture with my EOS 650D and then stack with DeepSkyStacker. Levels and curve adjustments in Photoshop.

My next project is to make a finder-guider for longer subs when I travel out to less light polluted skies.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2015, 04:56:43 AM »
Fantastic images!

Only just starting out myself and learning fast. I think I may have to get my grubby mitts on that clip filter! Whats your experience with it?
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or stupidity.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2015, 05:07:08 AM »
Fantastic images!

Only just starting out myself and learning fast. I think I may have to get my grubby mitts on that clip filter! Whats your experience with it?

Very good! Find it works much better for my London skies than a CLS clip. As your scope is an 8" you might want to consider the UHC clip which is a slightly narrower bandpass.

I'm fortunate to be on good terms with a couple of telescope shops (one run by a friend and the other by the organiser of the AS I go to) so I was able to borrow both the CLS and UHC-E to try before buying.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2015, 08:22:44 AM »
With hard solid and real pictures, I'm not surprised no FE'er even responds to this thread.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2015, 12:00:19 PM »
Nicely done m42, I guess your exposure times are sky limited in your location? I have a shabby eq3-1, took me a while to figure out how to align it but now I can at least expose over a minute with a 200mm camera lens. Which is a nice fl for andromeda it turns out, I had good results stacking 50 frames at f4 iso 1600 :D What software do you align and integrate with?

Thanks.

You could say they are time limited! Top is unfiltered, bottom is with an Astronomik UHC-E EOS clip filter.


Quote
What software do you align and integrate with?

If I've travelled with the mount then I just use the built in polarscope to do a polar align, the software I use for controlling the mount (EQMOD) will automatically align the polarscope and rotate the RA axis so that I don't have to worry about taking my time. I can then get around 90s exposures before I get trailing.

At home, I leave the mount set up and well covered in the garden. I also do a drift align which gets the accuracy up so that I can get up to the mounts limit of 3-5 minute exposures unguided, it's a painful process and takes 1-2 hours so you don't want to be doing it if you're taking the mount down every time.

I use EQMOD and Stellarium for scope control, BackyardEOS for image capture with my EOS 650D and then stack with DeepSkyStacker. Levels and curve adjustments in Photoshop.

My next project is to make a finder-guider for longer subs when I travel out to less light polluted skies.
Wow, you have some serious light pollution. The filter is working really well though!!!

My hardware is limited compared to yours, no computerized mount and shooting only with camera lenses... Still, I've had some results that I'm happy with, here's a crop from an image of Messier 31 & co that I got this season. There's some coma and visible noise in the disc, I had some hardware issues with tracking so could only expose for just over 30 seconds at a time and had to use higher gain/iso. Weather has been poor all winter but hopefully I can try again before spring really kicks in, it doesn't get dark here during summer so next chance will be next fall. Maybe with a h-alpha modified imager... ;)

I've been using free software, regim, dss, hugin tools for alignment and integration, post in gimp beta (stable won't touch >8bit fits or tiffs). Some time ago I had Pixinsight on trial and I think I really want to buy it, it's just so very good - if you haven't tried it, you should :)


Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2015, 02:34:14 PM »
My hardware is limited compared to yours, no computerized mount and shooting only with camera lenses... Still, I've had some results that I'm happy with, here's a crop from an image of Messier 31 & co that I got this season. There's some coma and visible noise in the disc, I had some hardware issues with tracking so could only expose for just over 30 seconds at a time and had to use higher gain/iso. Weather has been poor all winter but hopefully I can try again before spring really kicks in, it doesn't get dark here during summer so next chance will be next fall. Maybe with a h-alpha modified imager... ;)

I've been using free software, regim, dss, hugin tools for alignment and integration, post in gimp beta (stable won't touch >8bit fits or tiffs). Some time ago I had Pixinsight on trial and I think I really want to buy it, it's just so very good - if you haven't tried it, you should :)

M-31

That's a nice image of M-31! How many images stacked? What FL, f/ratio, sensor/camera, and ISO?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2015, 02:49:58 PM »
My hardware is limited compared to yours, no computerized mount and shooting only with camera lenses... Still, I've had some results that I'm happy with, here's a crop from an image of Messier 31 & co that I got this season. There's some coma and visible noise in the disc, I had some hardware issues with tracking so could only expose for just over 30 seconds at a time and had to use higher gain/iso. Weather has been poor all winter but hopefully I can try again before spring really kicks in, it doesn't get dark here during summer so next chance will be next fall. Maybe with a h-alpha modified imager... ;)

I've been using free software, regim, dss, hugin tools for alignment and integration, post in gimp beta (stable won't touch >8bit fits or tiffs). Some time ago I had Pixinsight on trial and I think I really want to buy it, it's just so very good - if you haven't tried it, you should :)

M-31

That's a nice image of M-31! How many images stacked? What FL, f/ratio, sensor/camera, and ISO?
About half an hour's worth of images. 200 millimeters, seems to be about the longest usable if I want the whole of M-31 in the frame with any room for error on the edges, that thing is *huge*.  Shot at F4 iso1600, with one of the earliest sony aps-c cmos sensors from last decade, an ordinary unmodified camera with cfa & ir filter in place. It's very noisy compared to anything current. Coma isn't too bad for my standards and I didn't want to close down since I was not able to get longer subs. Anyway result is better than I expected.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2015, 03:29:37 PM »
My hardware is limited compared to yours, no computerized mount and shooting only with camera lenses... Still, I've had some results that I'm happy with, here's a crop from an image of Messier 31 & co that I got this season. There's some coma and visible noise in the disc, I had some hardware issues with tracking so could only expose for just over 30 seconds at a time and had to use higher gain/iso. Weather has been poor all winter but hopefully I can try again before spring really kicks in, it doesn't get dark here during summer so next chance will be next fall. Maybe with a h-alpha modified imager... ;)

I've been using free software, regim, dss, hugin tools for alignment and integration, post in gimp beta (stable won't touch >8bit fits or tiffs). Some time ago I had Pixinsight on trial and I think I really want to buy it, it's just so very good - if you haven't tried it, you should :)

M-31

That's a nice image of M-31! How many images stacked? What FL, f/ratio, sensor/camera, and ISO?
About half an hour's worth of images. 200 millimeters, seems to be about the longest usable if I want the whole of M-31 in the frame with any room for error on the edges, that thing is *huge*.  Shot at F4 iso1600, with one of the earliest sony aps-c cmos sensors from last decade, an ordinary unmodified camera with cfa & ir filter in place. It's very noisy compared to anything current. Coma isn't too bad for my standards and I didn't want to close down since I was not able to get longer subs. Anyway result is better than I expected.

As A2O has already said, great M31. Wish I could fit the whole thing in my fov, but I'm stuck with a 2/3-pane mosaic instead! Sadly my camera lens has hideous aberrations.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2015, 03:45:21 PM »
Look for old manual camera objectives - I paid 20€ for this one  :)

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2015, 03:51:24 PM »
My hardware is limited compared to yours, no computerized mount and shooting only with camera lenses... Still, I've had some results that I'm happy with, here's a crop from an image of Messier 31 & co that I got this season. There's some coma and visible noise in the disc, I had some hardware issues with tracking so could only expose for just over 30 seconds at a time and had to use higher gain/iso. Weather has been poor all winter but hopefully I can try again before spring really kicks in, it doesn't get dark here during summer so next chance will be next fall. Maybe with a h-alpha modified imager... ;)

I've been using free software, regim, dss, hugin tools for alignment and integration, post in gimp beta (stable won't touch >8bit fits or tiffs). Some time ago I had Pixinsight on trial and I think I really want to buy it, it's just so very good - if you haven't tried it, you should :)

M-31

That's a nice image of M-31! How many images stacked? What FL, f/ratio, sensor/camera, and ISO?
About half an hour's worth of images. 200 millimeters, seems to be about the longest usable if I want the whole of M-31 in the frame with any room for error on the edges, that thing is *huge*.  Shot at F4 iso1600, with one of the earliest sony aps-c cmos sensors from last decade, an ordinary unmodified camera with cfa & ir filter in place. It's very noisy compared to anything current. Coma isn't too bad for my standards and I didn't want to close down since I was not able to get longer subs. Anyway result is better than I expected.

Was the camera piggybacked on a telescope for this?
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2015, 04:19:35 PM »
Look for old manual camera objectives - I paid 20€ for this one  :)

It's an old SLR 28-55mm zoom lens. I can't complain though ... I got it for free, and it works fine for daytime work. :)

About half an hour's worth of images. 200 millimeters, seems to be about the longest usable if I want the whole of M-31 in the frame with any room for error on the edges, that thing is *huge*.  Shot at F4 iso1600, with one of the earliest sony aps-c cmos sensors from last decade, an ordinary unmodified camera with cfa & ir filter in place. It's very noisy compared to anything current. Coma isn't too bad for my standards and I didn't want to close down since I was not able to get longer subs. Anyway result is better than I expected.

Are you taking dark frames to reduce the noise?

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2015, 11:37:31 PM »

It's an old SLR 28-55mm zoom lens. I can't complain though ... I got it for free, and it works fine for daytime work. :)

Are you taking dark frames to reduce the noise?
Neil - no telescope, just the eq mount.

I did not do dark frame subtraction. By my understanding and experience that does not reduce shot noise, which is causing the visible grain and normal cameras don't give a proper dark signal anyway, unless using specific firmware. And I do my imaging on cold nights, imager temp would stay around 0 C or cooler, and I'm not seeing any thermal noise pattern in my images. Hot or stuck pixels are removed when I get dithering due to poor tracking and use median / sigma clip stacking, so no dark frame subtraction :)

I did calibrate with flat field images, I find that's the most meaningful calibration for dslr images.

*

dephelis

  • 479
  • Sine scientia ars nihil est.
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2015, 03:53:25 AM »

It's an old SLR 28-55mm zoom lens. I can't complain though ... I got it for free, and it works fine for daytime work. :)

Are you taking dark frames to reduce the noise?
Neil - no telescope, just the eq mount.

I did not do dark frame subtraction. By my understanding and experience that does not reduce shot noise, which is causing the visible grain and normal cameras don't give a proper dark signal anyway, unless using specific firmware. And I do my imaging on cold nights, imager temp would stay around 0 C or cooler, and I'm not seeing any thermal noise pattern in my images. Hot or stuck pixels are removed when I get dithering due to poor tracking and use median / sigma clip stacking, so no dark frame subtraction :)

I did calibrate with flat field images, I find that's the most meaningful calibration for dslr images.

I've certainly seen a lot of discussion on whether darks are necessary or not for DSLR work, but it seems to be pretty inconclusive. Certainly one comparison I've seen, that used the same processing as you, still had artifacts in it in the non-dark calibrated image that were removed in the dark calibrated one. Oddly though, the overall impression was that no-dark calibrated was less noisy. I guess your colder climes and short exposure length are helping, my camera sensor hasn't gotten below 10°C all winter and darks have made a difference for me.

I take flats also and have started taking bias frames as well, as they seem to be important too.

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2015, 04:30:21 AM »
Dark frame subtraction does not actually reduce noise, it introduces noise in most cases (that is, unless your master dark is a deep stack with virtually zero noise); point is to remove the dark current signal from our light frames, but when the raw from camera does not have a distinct dark current signal due to it's preprocessing, oh well. It's unfortunate that common cameras do not give true raw... custom firmware or dedicated ccd are a different case ofc. Dark calibration can still be useful if there is thermal 'glow ' from uneven sensor heating or faulty pixels that for some reason can't be discarded in the integration process. afaik. :)

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2015, 07:15:02 AM »
Lol 😂

?

LogicalKiller

  • 626
  • Atheist, Re'er and happy doctor of physics
Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2015, 08:05:34 AM »
Lol 😂

Yeah, that's exactly what I've said just after I had read your comment.
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanisław Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

Re: Why are they NO STARS showing in Pictures of the fake Planets/Moons?
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2015, 08:43:53 AM »
Lol 😂
What's funny? Everyone likes a good laugh, so please share.