M-M wrote:
> Here is an image I made of last night's Harvest Moon
>
> It is 32.2 Megapixels (5696x5656 pixels) and was constructed from about
> 18 separate images using Photoshop Elements Photomerge.
>
> The left image is reduced to 13% of original; the right image is a 100%
> crop.
>
> I used a Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.1 MP) attached to a Fieldscope 82.
>
> http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/harvestcrop.jpg
>
Great picture of a magnificent full moon. Last night in Austin there was
not a cloud in the sky and apparently no haze when it was perhaps ten
degrees above the horizon. I was driving at the time and couldn't do
anything about photographing it. One of our local TV weather people,
while showing it, said that in 2008 the harvest moon will be in October,
and that also "Shine On, Harvest Moon" will be 100 years old in 2008.
Allen
In article <nospam.m-m-94EA57.09172627092007@cpe-76-190-186-
198.neo.res.rr.com>, M-M says...
> Here is an image I made of last night's Harvest Moon
>
> It is 32.2 Megapixels (5696x5656 pixels) and was constructed from about
> 18 separate images using Photoshop Elements Photomerge.
>
> The left image is reduced to 13% of original; the right image is a 100%
> crop.
>
> I used a Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.1 MP) attached to a Fieldscope 82.
>
> http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/harvestcrop.jpg
Why is there so much colour noise? I assume you shot this at lowest ISO,
didn't you?
--
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
M-M
<nospam.m-m@ny.more>], who wrote in article <nospam.m-m-94EA57.09172627092007@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com>:
> Here is an image I made of last night's Harvest Moon
>
> It is 32.2 Megapixels (5696x5656 pixels) and was constructed from about
> 18 separate images using Photoshop Elements Photomerge.
>
> The left image is reduced to 13% of original; the right image is a 100%
> crop.
>
> I used a Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.1 MP) attached to a Fieldscope 82.
>
> http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/harvestcrop.jpg
Could you enlighten us what is the point? Most pixels are "dead"
(I think scaling it down about 3x would not decrease the amount of
info there...) Should not you better used your Nikon in 640x480 (or
whatever similar it allows) mode?
In article <fdgt3m$2mqp$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org> wrote:
> Could you enlighten us what is the point? Most pixels are "dead"
> (I think scaling it down about 3x would not decrease the amount of
> info there...) Should not you better used your Nikon in 640x480 (or
> whatever similar it allows) mode?
The original composite is made up of 18 full-frame (2038x1536) images
merged together- each is just a piece of the circle. You can blow this
up to 16" x 16" at 300 dpi.
M-M wrote:
> Here is an image I made of last night's Harvest Moon
>
> It is 32.2 Megapixels (5696x5656 pixels) and was constructed from about
> 18 separate images using Photoshop Elements Photomerge.
>
> The left image is reduced to 13% of original; the right image is a 100%
> crop.
>
> I used a Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.1 MP) attached to a Fieldscope 82.
>
> http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/harvestcrop.jpg
Neat!
Here's one I did last night at 1260mm equivalent & 10MP:
<http://edgehill.net/California/Bay-Area/Marin/9-26-07-kirby-cove/full-set/pg2pc8>
(click for full crop)
On Sep 27, 9:17 am, M-M <nospam....@ny.more> wrote:
> Here is an image I made of last night's Harvest Moon
>
> It is 32.2 Megapixels (5696x5656 pixels) and was constructed from about
> 18 separate images using Photoshop Elements Photomerge.
>
> The left image is reduced to 13% of original; the right image is a 100%
> crop.
>
> I used a Nikon Coolpix 990 (3.1 MP) attached to a Fieldscope 82.
>
> http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/harvestcrop.jpg
>
> --
> m-mhttp://www.mhmyers.com
Nice work. Reminds me of when digital astronomy was in its infancy and
people used webcams (very narrow fields of view) to create mosaics.
Interesting. The equivalent 35mm focal length for this moon photo is
8625mm (The Coolpix is 115mm and the scope magnification was 75x so
according to Nikon you multiply these 2 numbers together to get the
equivalent focal length.)
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
M-M
<nospam.m-m@ny.more>], who wrote in article <nospam.m-m-633CFE.20154127092007@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com>:
> > What was the point of the exercise?
> To get an image of the full moon that could be enlarged to poster size.
Any image can be enlarged to any size. Your image contains about 3MP
(of usable pixels). It's not going to be impressive at poster size.
[As I said, you might have got better results reducing the resolution
of each element of mosaic to VGA. Maybe not; depends on how noise of
your camera depends on the aggregation of pixels.]
32 Megapixel (!) Harvest Moon Photo 
Linear Mode
