A good night for binoculars...

[Deleted member 619]

Lunar perigee tonight. The moon will be at its closest point for almost 20 years.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/16mar_supermoon/

 

[MRaverz]

Had a peek at the full moon last night and saw no noticeable difference.

 

[Laurens]

I noticed it looked big last night, didn't have a chance to get the telescope out though as I wasn't home :cry:

 

[AndromedasWake]

Had a peak at the full moon last night and saw no noticeable difference.

There is no noticeable difference to even the most skilled Lunar observer, but if conditions are clear I'll get an image.

 

[Laurens]

Ok I know I said it looked big last night, and you're all saying that there is no observable difference, but its just amusing that prior to seeing this topic my friend and I went out at about 5pm and we remarked that the moon looked big...

It did okay :lol:

(PS. I would be interested to know what might have caused the moon to look big to my friend and I? I hadn't heard about the moon being closer or anything, it just looked big to me at the time, enough to remark about it to my friend, who said the same. It was still light and the moon was fairly low above the horizon - whether or not that has an affect I don't know. Alternatively I could have just been imagining things...)

 

[Logic-Nanaki]

Ok I know I said it looked big last night, and you're all saying that there is no observable difference, but its just amusing that prior to seeing this topic my friend and I went out at about 5pm and we remarked that the moon looked big...

It did okay :lol:

(PS. I would be interested to know what might have caused the moon to look big to my friend and I? I hadn't heard about the moon being closer or anything, it just looked big to me at the time, enough to remark about it to my friend, who said the same. It was still light and the moon was fairly low above the horizon - whether or not that has an affect I don't know. Alternatively I could have just been imagining things...)

According to the book Bad Astronomy, it's because of the way the human brain percieves the sky that makes an illusion of a bigger moon when it sits low on hte horizon. i dont have the direct lines present atm, but i suppose AndromedasWake is way more knowledgeable than me on the subject

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Indeed. Lacking any significant depth perception, the sky appears to us as a sort of flattened dome. Our brains consider the sky overhead as "near" and the sky over the horizon as "far." This isn't terribly unreasonable, as if you think of a bird flying over, it gets closer, and apparently larger, as it nears the zenith. The brain expects the moon to as well, and the fact that it doesn't tricks the brain. We think the moon is smaller purely because it has failed to get bigger near the zenith.

The sun is handled the same way.

 

[Squawk]

OMG IS HUGE!!

Ok, so I lied, but it is a clear night and it does look crisp through the binos. Just wish I had a 500mm lens to stick on the front of my camera...

 

[AndromedasWake]

Ok I know I said it looked big last night, and you're all saying that there is no observable difference, but its just amusing that prior to seeing this topic my friend and I went out at about 5pm and we remarked that the moon looked big...

It did okay :lol:

(PS. I would be interested to know what might have caused the moon to look big to my friend and I? I hadn't heard about the moon being closer or anything, it just looked big to me at the time, enough to remark about it to my friend, who said the same. It was still light and the moon was fairly low above the horizon - whether or not that has an affect I don't know. Alternatively I could have just been imagining things...)

According to the book Bad Astronomy, it's because of the way the human brain percieves the sky that makes an illusion of a bigger moon when it sits low on hte horizon. i dont have the direct lines present atm, but i suppose AndromedasWake is way more knowledgeable than me on the subject

Essentially, when you observe the Moon close to the horizon (against buildings, trees, mountains and other large objects at a distance) your brain is jolted to realise that the Moon is much further away, behind all of these things. Thus the brain probably rationalises that the Moon must be huge to exhibit such detail even at such a distance, and hence oversizes its appearance in the process. Strange effect, but Patrick once performed an experiment on the Sky at Night to demonstrate by measurement that in fact the Moon is the same apparent size at the horizon as it is at highest altitude!

 

[australopithecus]

I managed to get a crappy picture on my iPhone through my telescope. Going to try again later once I've found a real camera.

 

[AndromedasWake]

As promised.....

 

[australopithecus]

Better than my effort. I so need a better set up.

 

[duclicsic]

As promised.....

Can you tell us what kit you used to get this (camera/scope/etc)?

It was too cloudy up in Manchester and I'm still waiting for an eyepiece that will allow me to mount a friends DSLR to mine.

 

[Shaedys]

As is to be expected AndromedasWake takes the cake.

 

[Squawk]

Me thinks AW has been playing around with levels, curves and contrast.

 

[AndromedasWake]

As promised.....

Can you tell us what kit you used to get this (camera/scope/etc)?

It was too cloudy up in Manchester and I'm still waiting for an eyepiece that will allow me to mount a friends DSLR to mine.

In the above photo, I used my 400D (Rebel XTi) with a William Optics Megrez 72 F/6 doublet - probably best described as a semi-apo. I used a 5.0x Powermate and took six frames for a mosaic. You can see how sloppy the stitching is!

I also like to use my F/6.5 65mm Quadruplet, which is certainly performing to a genuine apo standard! Even though the per pixel resolution is lower, I find the natural contrast to be better (although bear in mind you are seeing shadows here (two frame mosaic))

Really loving this new 'scope, although I'm having trouble tracking down who manufactures the lens. Longperng make the 72 doublet, which also appears in the AT72ED and Orions old Eon 72 (still think William Optics have the edge in overal mechanical quality though.)

I also find the coatings on the 65 to be really curious - only see coatings like this on Takahashi 'scopes before...

Yesterday's was shot raw and stretched to exaggerate the contrast, particularly around various midtones which bring out the streaks of material deposited after massive collisions. Contrast at full phase is very low in general.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Better than my effort. I so need a better set up.

Try using a lower power eyepiece. It will not only show more of the disc, but also produce a wider exit-pupil making it easier to frame with the camera. Don't lose heart - afocal is the hardest type of astrophotography by far!

 

[Laurens]

These weren't taken recently but I thought I would show them off anyway

I took these just by holding a fairly standard digital camera over the eye piece of a telescope.

 

[australopithecus]

I also imagine Steve Jobs didn't have lunar photography in mind when he made the iPhone. A decent camera would work wonders but mine decided to die on me last night. Bloody typical.

 

[AndromedasWake]

Which 'scope is it? CA looks rather nicely corrected for an achromat.