Seahorse in the sky? - DPChallenge Forums

09/03/2005 10:17:04 PM · #1

Hi all.
These are from the days preceeding the perseid meteor shower(8/10, 8/11). I know it's been a while but I had to share these. I honestly didn't see either of the objects I captured that night, in fact I didn't see anything but a couple of stars. I'm guessing these might be meteors, but I guess I didn't expect them to look like a seahorse and a french fry. Does anyone have any idea what these are? Both were long exposures on a tripod with a wireless remote and mirror lockup.

Thanks. -Nick

09/03/2005 10:31:14 PM · #2

Most likely just a star. You didn't mention what lens you were using or how long the exposure was. Without that information it would be hard to tell.

09/03/2005 10:37:42 PM · #3

30 sec. f/8 500mm Quantaray preset lens. Could a star have moved that far in 30 sec? I've seen less drift from the moon with the same settings.

09/03/2005 10:39:35 PM · #4

Actually, The second one (french fry) could be a star, but the first is so wierd.

09/03/2005 10:41:36 PM · #5

Judging from its irregular shape, the first one may be a fireball (meteor) that exploded in the atmosphere. The fainter parallel line to the left shows that you were were not using an equatorial motor drive, so the image is drawn out by the apparent motion of the stars and possibly vibration from an insecure mount. The second image is clearly a star trail or bright satellite... meteors flare in brightness and would not result in a short, evenly lit line like that.

09/03/2005 10:44:03 PM · #6

Originally posted by nickp37:

Could a star have moved that far in 30 sec?

Yes. Without a motor drive to track the stars, you're limited to maybe a few seconds before the stars begin to trail.

CorySmith

09/03/2005 10:44:07 PM · #7

i can make something similar in mspaint :-P

09/03/2005 10:46:11 PM · #8

Originally posted by scalvert:

Thanks,
I know I don't have the right set-up for astrophotography, but I didn't want to pass up the opportunity. The "fireball" is still pretty cool though, IMO.

09/03/2005 10:50:11 PM · #9

Closer crop.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/03/2005 10:53:17 PM · #10

Originally posted by nickp37:

Closer crop.

Unless that fireball was dancing up and down, I would guess that the squiggly line was cause by lens vibration.

ShorterThanJesus

Nikon D300

09/03/2005 10:56:15 PM · #11

I'm going to agree with lens vibration combined with the streaking of the object. 15 seconds on my S1IS can see movement in some sky-borne objects, you certainly would with 30sec at 500mm.

In the closer crop you can see a similar but much more faint version of squiggle at the bottom left quadrant. That would be a much more faint object moving at about the same speed and being altered by the same vibration.

I'm no expert (obviously) but that would be my analysis.

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:02:24.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/03/2005 10:59:21 PM · #12

So would the consensus be a star?

ShorterThanJesus

Nikon D300

09/03/2005 11:05:30 PM · #13

Star, oddly-synchronized satellite, massive peice of space debris, hovering alien death-ship... as long as it was up above the atmosphere and moving at the same speed as the rest of the visible sky, I think it fits the image.

oksamit

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/03/2005 11:09:44 PM · #14

Not a lens vibrations

Message edited by author 2005-09-03 23:17:31.

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

09/03/2005 11:10:13 PM · #15

Originally posted by ShorterThanJesus:

lol. probably a spy satellite. Somebody's wondering who this dork is with the giant lens on the tiny tripod.

longlivenyhc

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/03/2005 11:12:08 PM · #16

Originally posted by oksamit:

Not a lens vibrations

the stars look more like hot pixels to me

09/04/2005 12:01:54 AM · #17

Yeah, those are definitely hot pixels from the long exposure. Stars could not be that sharp on a motionless tripod for 30 seconds. The "fireball" probably IS a star judging from the constant brightness of the object, but the details around the edges leave open the possibility of something else (a large satellite like the ISS could do that).

09/04/2005 12:10:38 AM · #18

Originally posted by scalvert:

but the details around the edges leave open the possibility of something else (a large satellite like the ISS could do that).

Now that would be cool.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/04/2005 01:04:12 AM · #19

If you know where your camera was pointed, you can check the EXIF data against the location of the ISS to see if it was overhead at the time.

David.C

09/04/2005 03:29:00 AM · #20

I don't know ... looks more like lens-flare. The faint echo in the lower left along with the irregular shape leads me to think it's from a passing car or some other moving light source that happened to strike the lens right for brief time -- or many smaller lights following the same path, such as on a free-way or overpass.

With a long exposure the light wouldn't have to be very bright or close to do the job -- and over a period of thirty seconds you probably would never notice any of it, especially if it was several smaller lights.

David

09/04/2005 03:37:48 AM · #21

Originally posted by nickp37:

Originally posted by scalvert:
but the details around the edges leave open the possibility of something else (a large satellite like the ISS could do that).

Now that would be cool.

The lens used was only a 500mm. Not a satelite or a piece of space debris.