de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 9,132 (1.72/day)
- Location
- Internet is borked, please help.
System Name | Monke | Work Thinkpad| J1nnx took Old Monke |
---|---|
Processor | Ryzen 5600X | Ryzen 5500U | FX8320 |
Motherboard | ASRock B550 Extreme4 | ? | Asrock 990FX Extreme 4 |
Cooling | 240mm Rad | Not needed | hyper 212 EVO |
Memory | 2x16GB DDR4 3600 Corsair RGB | 16 GB DDR4 3600 | 16GB DDR3 1600 |
Video Card(s) | Sapphire Pulse RX6700XT 12GB | Vega 8 | Sapphire Pulse RX580 8GB |
Storage | Samsung 980 nvme (Primary) | some samsung SSD |
Display(s) | Dell 2723DS | Some 14" 1080p 98%sRGB IPS | Dell 2240L |
Case | Ant Esports Tempered case | Thinkpad | Antec |
Audio Device(s) | Logitech Z333 | Jabra corpo stuff |
Power Supply | Corsair RM750e | not needed | Corsair GS 600 |
Mouse | Logitech G400 | nipple |
Keyboard | Logitech G213 | stock kb is awesome | Logitech K230 |
VR HMD | ;_; |
Software | Windows 10 Professional x3 |
Benchmark Scores | There are no marks on my bench |
I've found with my RF glass that focusing out of infinity is actually not the best for things like stars. In fact, it's almost like focusing all the way to infinity is like overshooting the right amount of focus. I usually set my camera up for manual focus when doing stars and I'll use the LCD to zoom in to one particularly pronounced star to focus off of and more often than not, focus is close to infinity, but not quite there.
This is an example from last winter, but this is shooting straight up on a clear night at 8s, ƒ4, ISO 1600 scaled down from the max width of 6240 to 5000px. This was with my 24-105mm ƒ4 L series len.
View attachment 363975
That's unprocessed. Now here is where it gets interesting. Using my (arguably,) inferior nifty 50 (50mm ƒ1.8,) I can get something like this at 4s, ƒ2, ISO 800:
View attachment 363976
...and with a little bit of post processing of that same image above, you get something like this:
View attachment 363977
However, if you look at the edges of the frame with the 50mm ƒ1.8, you can clearly see comatic distortion. It looks like this (from the top left corner):
View attachment 363978
Lower quality lenses have this kind of distortion around the edges wide open, but should be pretty sharp near the center of the frame. If you look at the image using the 24-105 ƒ4, you don't have nearly the same level of comatic distortion around the edges. If the center of the frame is blurry, then it's more likely that the subject is out of focus and since stars are so small, even a slight misfocus will make them look blurry. So it's worth taking the time to digitally zoom into a reference star and very slowly adjust focus until it's perfect on the LCD.
If you zoom in and you see something like this, it means your shutter speed is too slow and the stars are moving in the night sky during the shot. (This was at 105mm @ 10s)
View attachment 363980
I don't have an example of misfocus handy, but if they don't look elongated near the center, then it's probably misfocus.
this is a kind of problem on many lenses.
what i figured out is to get masking tape, and focus on infinity at the moon when its bright, and mark it on the focus ring works 100% of the time ninety percent of the time!
and the lens distortion can be fixed with the correct profile
this is with a cheap nikor 50mm 1.8g at full "infinity"