CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby - Creative Uses of CHDK - CHDK Forum
« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby

  • 9 Replies
  • 4802 Views
*

Offline Davo

  • ***
  • 189
CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« on: 06 / May / 2013, 14:08:43 »
Advertisements
I used chdkptp to record a series of lunar videos thru my scope and used them to create a large lunar image. Then I added some music to create a lunar flyby movie.

Not a valid vimeo URL
All made possible with chdkptp  :D

enjoy, Dave
Logged
*

Offline ahull

  • *****
  • 634
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #1 on: 06 / May / 2013, 15:21:24 »
 :D Loving your work (btw any signs of the LEM descent stages or ascent stage  debris in the video, or is the scale still a bit on the small side?)
Logged
*

Offline Davo

  • ***
  • 189
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #2 on: 07 / May / 2013, 05:06:28 »
Interesting question  :)

Each pixel in that video is 580m square. If I switched from a 2.5x barlow (magnifying lens) to a 5x then each pixel would be 280m square. If we could work out how to record video using just the central 1280x720 cells on the CCD (like on the EOS 600D) then each pixel would be 77m square.

I used a Nexstar 4SE scope which has a focal length of 1325mm. Switching to a Celestron C14 with a 3910mm FL would take the pixel side dimension down to 26m.

My A810 only zooms to 5x. Switching to a SX240 with 20x zoom would bring the 26m down to 6.5m

The LM's body was about 4m square. That means it would take up 38% of the pixel so I guess it would show up.

If someone wants to spring for a C14 I am willing to give it a go  :D

Dave
Logged
*

Offline waterwingz

  • ******
  • 12140
    • Waterwingz
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #3 on: 07 / May / 2013, 08:55:32 »
Quote from: Davo on 07 / May / 2013, 05:06:28
If someone wants to spring for a C14 I am willing to give it a go  :D
I realize your response was somewhat "tongue in cheek" but are there not optical limits on what you can resolve when looking out through the earth's atmosphere - regardless of the magnification?  (or the use of statistical techniques)
Logged
Ported :   A1200    SD940   G10    Powershot N    G16
*

Offline ahull

  • *****
  • 634
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #4 on: 07 / May / 2013, 09:23:51 »
Quote from: waterwingz on 07 / May / 2013, 08:55:32
Quote from: Davo on 07 / May / 2013, 05:06:28
If someone wants to spring for a C14 I am willing to give it a go  :D
I realize your response was somewhat "tongue in cheek" but are there not optical limits on what you can resolve when looking out through the earth's atmosphere - regardless of the magnification?  (or the use of statistical techniques)

It might be an interesting exercise to work out exactly what the best earth bound observation resolution could be, taking in to account atmospheric distortions and so forth. I suspect that the use of statistical techniques might be enhanced by the ability which CHDK gives us, namely to take many different images from slightly different locations, so we might actually be able to do better using just the equipment Davo is using, and perhaps a little cunning. I'm not saying we will be able to see the tread pattern in the foot prints , just that it might be possible build on Davo's remarkable results.
« Last Edit: 07 / May / 2013, 09:28:36 by ahull »
Logged
*

Offline blackhole

  • *****
  • 947
  • A590IS 101b
    • Planetary astrophotography
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #5 on: 07 / May / 2013, 15:28:30 »
Quote
Each pixel in that video is 580m square. If I switched from a 2.5x barlow (magnifying lens) to a 5x then each pixel would be 280m square. If we could work out how to record video using just the central 1280x720 cells on the CCD (like on the EOS 600D) then each pixel would be 77m square.

I used a Nexstar 4SE scope which has a focal length of 1325mm. Switching to a Celestron C14 with a 3910mm FL would take the pixel side dimension down to 26m.

My A810 only zooms to 5x. Switching to a SX240 with 20x zoom would bring the 26m down to 6.5m

The LM's body was about 4m square. That means it would take up 38% of the pixel so I guess it would show up.
I hope you're kidding.
The resolution of your telescope is 1.14 arc seconds, the crater labeled on the picture is 4 km wide and he is at the edge of resolution.
Anything less than 2 km away is theoretically invisible for your telescope, in practice I think you can't see an object the size of 2 km.
Using a large magnification can't replace the optical  limitations of resolution of your telescope.
Otherwise, the video looks good
« Last Edit: 07 / May / 2013, 15:42:08 by blackhole »
Logged
*

Offline ahull

  • *****
  • 634
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #6 on: 07 / May / 2013, 17:19:03 »
I was thinking more of synthesizing an array of telescopes by moving a single telescope and attempting to compensate for any errors introduced by the process.

I suspect this may be slightly more difficult than it sounds, however the idea still intrigues me.
« Last Edit: 07 / May / 2013, 17:21:36 by ahull »
Logged
*

Offline Davo

  • ***
  • 189
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #7 on: 08 / May / 2013, 04:23:59 »
I forgot to alter the eyepiece focal length in my 6.5m calc above. The image used a 25mm eyepiece but I could swap that for a 5mm which would bring each pixel down to 1.3m. You might even see the LM feet  :P

One good thing that came out of my blethering is that I realised that I can test my ROI recording theory using the setup as is. Each part of the image was made from 750 stacked video frames. I can simulate ROI by taking 750 stills with the intervalometer and see how the stacked resolution compares with the video result.

I like the optical interferometer idea. I can imagine a bunch of amateurs video recording the same crater from different worldwide locations. Then some super stacking software would magic all theose photons into a high rez image.

ps I heard of a guy from France who was looking for a Canadian amateur to try taking 3D photos of the Moon. He was using the Atlantic as a baseline.
Logged
*

Offline blackhole

  • *****
  • 947
  • A590IS 101b
    • Planetary astrophotography
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #8 on: 08 / May / 2013, 05:28:08 »
Quote
I forgot to alter the eyepiece focal length in my 6.5m calc above. The image used a 25mm eyepiece but I could swap that for a 5mm which would bring each pixel down to 1.3m. You might even see the LM feet  :P
How you could forget? :xmas
Too bad you do not have a 2 mm eyepiece, you could see if someone forgot the keys in the Lunar rover.
I hope you accept the joke.
Logged
*

Offline Davo

  • ***
  • 189
Re: CHDKPTP Lunar Flyby
« Reply #9 on: 10 / May / 2013, 06:17:37 »
The yolk's on me.

It's an interesting question though. Do modern data processing techniques help you to get near the classical optical resolution or to actually exceed it?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
 

Related Topics


SimplePortal © 2008-2014, SimplePortal