General and closeup view of the camera with tilt-shift adapter on the telescope used for making the image The 3D printing material was soft enough so that I did not need to tap the holes, I just screwed the minute fixations screws in needle holes of the printed part. I used a hot needle to pierce small holes for the minute screws of the bayonet. I used the bayonet of a cheap extension ring for Sony E mount. A DSLR bayonet must be attached to the flat, tilted surface. Here is a link to download the STL file i used for you to get 3D printed. If you want to try, below are some advises from my (limited) experience on hardware tilt-shift astrophotography. I have much more motivation for working on specific objectives, for which no equivalent exist than to redo what has been done thousands of times by others. Personally, this is just my case, I have tens and tens of gigabytes of unprocessed, regular acquisition on my hard drives, which I will never process as I know they will just be giving the usual, expected results. If you want to experiment, and are not really motivated in spending time redoing what other people have been doing countless times, it is definitely opens possibilities that have not been explored. If you want your pictures to reveal the smallest details of a galaxy, or are looking for the outer extensions of nebulas, it is not for you, and you might just stop reading here. Trying hardware tilt-shift depends on your goal. To me, although the image is sharper with software tilt-shift, it does not give any closeness impression, while the hardware tilt-shift, with defocused stars a the acquisition gives the feeling of the galaxy floating among stars. On top, a software tilt-shift applied to one of my standard Andromeda image. Software vs hardware tilt-shift comparison. I had already this point in mind before doing the image, and this is what pushed me to try hardware tilt-shift, to see what the effect would be on the image by doing it for real. The difference between hardware and software tilt-shift effect is, to me, the same as between a portrait taken with a fast lens with a real bokeh, and a background blur filter (like the one you might have on your smartphone camera): although they can look similar a first glance, the software filter is just a pale imitation of the actual effect obtained with hardware tilt-shift, especially for astrophotos (software tilt shift can be doing very well with images with small dynamic range for miniature faking). The hardware tilt-shift naturally avoid these effects, as the defocused stars are not saturated on the sensor, keeping their color, and brightness. These effects can be seen easily by applying available digital tilt-shift filters to your astrophotos. Also, the defocused stars lose their colors as they are saturated on the sensor, giving only white stars. This is because of the preliminary enhancement applied to the image, which in all the case reduces the actual strength of the surrounding stars (via actual saturation of the sensor by the focused stars as well as non-linear stretching of the histograms). But, software tilt-shift effect give somehow the weird effects, like having the stars disappear farther from the object, which (to me) totally ruins the closeness impression. Software tilt-shift seems like the easiest way to create the miniature effect on astrophotos, with ready to use digital filter that can be used on any astrophoto.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |