Good time to capture a large image of the moon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mianileng, Dec 10, 2008.

  1. mianileng

    mianileng Guest

    Someone asked not long ago about the best time for capturing the
    largest possible image of the moon. For a given camera, lens and
    location, the coming full moon on Dec 12 is a good time. This is
    a time when the moon is not only at perigee, but also close to
    the nearest it ever gets to the earth in recent times. The exact
    times of perigee and full moon differ by only 5 hours - full moon
    at 4:39 pm and perigee at 9:38 pm, both UT. Source:
    http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html

    According to this online calculator, the moon will be at less
    than 357000 km at the coming perigee, compared to more than
    370000 km at some perigees and more than 400000 km at apogee.

    Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting
    shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover
    the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and
    full moon is the ideal time.
    mianileng, Dec 10, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. mianileng

    Paul Furman Guest

    mianileng wrote:
    > Someone asked not long ago about the best time for capturing the
    > largest possible image of the moon. For a given camera, lens and
    > location, the coming full moon on Dec 12 is a good time. This is
    > a time when the moon is not only at perigee, but also close to
    > the nearest it ever gets to the earth in recent times. The exact
    > times of perigee and full moon differ by only 5 hours - full moon
    > at 4:39 pm and perigee at 9:38 pm, both UT. Source:
    > http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
    >
    > According to this online calculator, the moon will be at less
    > than 357000 km at the coming perigee, compared to more than
    > 370000 km at some perigees and more than 400000 km at apogee.
    >
    > Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting
    > shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover
    > the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and
    > full moon is the ideal time.


    Any advantage to a day or 2 before & after or is this a brief proximity?
    I'd like to try moon rises & sets. Hmm... sounds like 10% larger than
    the worst case, I suppose that would be 5% larger than average.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. mianileng

    mianileng Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > mianileng wrote:
    >> Someone asked not long ago about the best time for capturing
    >> the
    >> largest possible image of the moon. For a given camera, lens
    >> and
    >> location, the coming full moon on Dec 12 is a good time. This
    >> is
    >> a time when the moon is not only at perigee, but also close to
    >> the nearest it ever gets to the earth in recent times. The
    >> exact
    >> times of perigee and full moon differ by only 5 hours - full
    >> moon
    >> at 4:39 pm and perigee at 9:38 pm, both UT. Source:
    >> http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
    >>
    >> According to this online calculator, the moon will be at less
    >> than 357000 km at the coming perigee, compared to more than
    >> 370000 km at some perigees and more than 400000 km at apogee.
    >>
    >> Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an
    >> interesting
    >> shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to
    >> cover
    >> the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee
    >> and
    >> full moon is the ideal time.

    >
    > Any advantage to a day or 2 before & after or is this a brief
    > proximity? I'd like to try moon rises & sets. Hmm... sounds
    > like 10%
    > larger than the worst case, I suppose that would be 5% larger
    > than
    > average.


    It should still be within 360000 km for a couple of days before
    and after perigee and the difference in image size wouldn't be
    noticeable except by precise measurement of the diameter in
    pixels.
    mianileng, Dec 11, 2008
    #3
  4. David J Taylor, Dec 11, 2008
    #4
  5. mianileng

    Guest

    On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:11:04 +0530, "mianileng"
    <> wrote:

    >Someone asked not long ago about the best time for capturing the
    >largest possible image of the moon. For a given camera, lens and
    >location, the coming full moon on Dec 12 is a good time. This is
    >a time when the moon is not only at perigee, but also close to
    >the nearest it ever gets to the earth in recent times. ..


    Well that is something less that 5% difference. Not really all
    that exciting. Well at least not to me. I would rather have a nice
    cool still night with little air motion that to worry about the
    difference in distance.
    , Dec 11, 2008
    #5
  6. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember "mianileng"
    <> saying something like:

    >Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting
    >shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover
    >the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and
    >full moon is the ideal time.


    On an APS-C sensor, a frame-filling moon for me is with an old Novoflex
    600mm f:8 and 2x telecon. Full moon brightness makes focusing no
    problem, even at f:16, but it moves quicker than you think when it's
    filling the frame.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Dec 11, 2008
    #6
  7. mianileng

    JC Dill Guest

    Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    > We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    > drugs began to take hold. I remember "mianileng"
    > <> saying something like:
    >
    >> Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting
    >> shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover
    >> the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and
    >> full moon is the ideal time.

    >
    > On an APS-C sensor, a frame-filling moon for me is with an old Novoflex
    > 600mm f:8 and 2x telecon. Full moon brightness makes focusing no
    > problem, even at f:16, but it moves quicker than you think when it's
    > filling the frame.


    The moon moves approximately 1 diameter in 2 minutes. At moonrise as
    the moon peaks over the horizon, it will be fully visible in ~2 minutes.
    At moonset, from the time the moon touches the horizon until it
    disappears will also take ~2 minutes. (The same is true of the sun,
    sunrise, sunset.)

    So if you have the moon more-or-less "filling the frame" it will move
    entirely out of the frame in about 2 minutes! If you move the camera
    ahead of the moon's path so that the moon is only 1/2 visible in the
    frame, it will come fully into view in about 1 minute.

    jc
    JC Dill, Dec 11, 2008
    #7
  8. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember JC Dill <>
    saying something like:

    >So if you have the moon more-or-less "filling the frame" it will move
    >entirely out of the frame in about 2 minutes! If you move the camera
    >ahead of the moon's path so that the moon is only 1/2 visible in the
    >frame, it will come fully into view in about 1 minute.


    Much trial and many errors resulted, but it worked eventually, and it
    certainly pointed up the need for rock-steady mounting. I might have
    another go soon, but the weather here looks terrible for moon shots for
    the next few days.
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Dec 11, 2008
    #8
  9. mianileng

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:42:37 -0600, Carl S trilled and trolled :

    >> The moon moves approximately 1 diameter in 2 minutes. At moonrise as
    >> the moon peaks over the horizon, it will be fully visible in ~2 minutes.
    >> At moonset, from the time the moon touches the horizon until it
    >> disappears will also take ~2 minutes. (The same is true of the sun,
    >> sunrise, sunset.)

    >
    > Actually, it takes a bit longer at the horizon, due to refraction of the air at
    > low altitudes. You still see the sun or moon before/after it is well below the
    > horizon. Visually it moves much slower at the horizon that it does in the sky
    > above you. The amount of refraction also changes with the atmospheric pressure
    > in the direction you are looking. Denser air refracts light more.


    Actually, you added nothing of any significant value to the
    thread. As a disturbed sock puppet attempting to appear as an
    omniscient troll you've failed again because you're not as bright as
    you pretend to be. By not replying with something truly *helpful*
    you make yourselves so much easier to ID.
    ASAAR, Dec 11, 2008
    #9
  10. mianileng

    Paul Furman Guest

    Burt Campner wrote:
    > JC Dill wrote:
    >> Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    >>> mianileng saying something like:
    >>>
    >>>> Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting
    >>>> shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover
    >>>> the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and
    >>>> full moon is the ideal time.
    >>> On an APS-C sensor, a frame-filling moon for me is with an old Novoflex
    >>> 600mm f:8 and 2x telecon. Full moon brightness makes focusing no
    >>> problem, even at f:16, but it moves quicker than you think when it's
    >>> filling the frame.

    >> The moon moves approximately 1 diameter in 2 minutes. At moonrise as
    >> the moon peaks over the horizon, it will be fully visible in ~2 minutes.
    >> At moonset, from the time the moon touches the horizon until it
    >> disappears will also take ~2 minutes. (The same is true of the sun,
    >> sunrise, sunset.)
    >>
    >> So if you have the moon more-or-less "filling the frame" it will move
    >> entirely out of the frame in about 2 minutes! If you move the camera
    >> ahead of the moon's path so that the moon is only 1/2 visible in the
    >> frame, it will come fully into view in about 1 minute.

    >
    > Keep in mind too that when the moon is near the horizon you'll be about 3,958
    > miles (6,370 km) further from the moon than when it is overhead. Overhead won't
    > provide for as interesting a photo as when it's near the horizon, but if you're
    > going for the largest number of pixels illuminated by the moon then it'll help a
    > bit.


    Yeah I thought of that but it's more interesting near the horizon, and
    it'll be nearer for that position so most dramatic then, presumably.
    Also looks like we're in for cloudy weather though.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 11, 2008
    #10
  11. mianileng

    mianileng Guest

    Paul Furman wrote:
    > Burt Campner wrote:
    >>
    >> Keep in mind too that when the moon is near the horizon you'll
    >> be
    >> about 3,958 miles (6,370 km) further from the moon than when
    >> it is
    >> overhead. Overhead won't provide for as interesting a photo as
    >> when
    >> it's near the horizon, but if you're going for the largest
    >> number of
    >> pixels illuminated by the moon then it'll help a bit.

    >
    > Yeah I thought of that but it's more interesting near the
    > horizon, and
    > it'll be nearer for that position so most dramatic then,
    > presumably.
    > Also looks like we're in for cloudy weather though.


    Same here.
    mianileng, Dec 12, 2008
    #11
  12. mianileng

    N Guest

    "mianileng" <> wrote in message
    news:ghouvo$u1g$...
    > Someone asked not long ago about the best time for capturing the largest
    > possible image of the moon. For a given camera, lens and location, the
    > coming full moon on Dec 12 is a good time. This is a time when the moon is
    > not only at perigee, but also close to the nearest it ever gets to the
    > earth in recent times. The exact times of perigee and full moon differ by
    > only 5 hours - full moon at 4:39 pm and perigee at 9:38 pm, both UT.
    > Source:
    > http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.html
    >
    > According to this online calculator, the moon will be at less than 357000
    > km at the coming perigee, compared to more than 370000 km at some perigees
    > and more than 400000 km at apogee.
    >
    > Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting shot of
    > the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover the largest
    > number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and full moon is the ideal
    > time.
    >
    >



    Would have been great here if the rain hadn't been around. We've had an
    inch of rain so far today in Sydney.
    N, Dec 12, 2008
    #12
  13. mianileng

    M-M Guest

    In article <nIh0l.6649$>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    > > Keep in mind too that when the moon is near the horizon you'll be about
    > > 3,958
    > > miles (6,370 km) further from the moon than when it is overhead. Overhead
    > > won't
    > > provide for as interesting a photo as when it's near the horizon, but if
    > > you're
    > > going for the largest number of pixels illuminated by the moon then it'll
    > > help a
    > > bit.

    >
    > Yeah I thought of that but it's more interesting near the horizon, and
    > it'll be nearer for that position so most dramatic then, presumably.
    > Also looks like we're in for cloudy weather though.



    I really don't think anyone will be able to tell a difference, even in a
    photograph. It's like shooting something 24 feet away then taking one
    step forward and shooting again.

    Maybe if the clouds break, I'll get a photo and then compare it to one
    taken at a different date. I'll use the same lens and we can compare
    side-by-side.

    Even if the sky is cloudy, the moon will be out all night so if it peeks
    through even for a moment, a photo is possible.

    --
    m-m
    http://www.mhmyers.com/moon.tn.html <--lots of moon photos
    M-M, Dec 12, 2008
    #13
  14. mianileng

    mianileng Guest

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <nIh0l.6649$>,
    >
    > I really don't think anyone will be able to tell a difference,
    > even
    > in a photograph. It's like shooting something 24 feet away then
    > taking one step forward and shooting again.
    >
    > Maybe if the clouds break, I'll get a photo and then compare it
    > to one
    > taken at a different date. I'll use the same lens and we can
    > compare
    > side-by-side.
    >
    > Even if the sky is cloudy, the moon will be out all night so if
    > it
    > peeks through even for a moment, a photo is possible.


    Here's a composite of a shot I took tonight (full at perigee) and
    another shot on the 19th of last May (approx. full at apogee).
    Both shots were taken with the same camera at the same focal
    length - 8 MP, 420mm equiv.
    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/keimah/Moon_perigee_apogee.jpg

    You can judge the difference in apparent sizes yourself.
    Unfortunately, both shots were taken through heavy haze and the
    images are not as sharp as they could be.

    (My broadband is down again and I uploaded the image with
    dial-up. After having used broadband for almost a year now, times
    like this are a real pain).
    mianileng, Dec 12, 2008
    #14
  15. mianileng

    M-M Guest

    In article <ghujl2$9lh$>,
    "mianileng" <> wrote:

    > Here's a composite of a shot I took tonight (full at perigee) and
    > another shot on the 19th of last May (approx. full at apogee).
    > Both shots were taken with the same camera at the same focal
    > length - 8 MP, 420mm equiv.
    > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/keimah/Moon_perigee_apogee.jpg



    And neither are cropped? If these are the relative full-frame sizes, the
    difference is quite remarkable.

    --
    m-m
    http://www.mhmyers.com
    M-M, Dec 12, 2008
    #15
  16. mianileng

    mianileng Guest

    M-M wrote:
    > In article <ghujl2$9lh$>,
    > "mianileng" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Here's a composite of a shot I took tonight (full at perigee)
    >> and
    >> another shot on the 19th of last May (approx. full at apogee).
    >> Both shots were taken with the same camera at the same focal
    >> length - 8 MP, 420mm equiv.
    >> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/keimah/Moon_perigee_apogee.jpg

    >
    >
    > And neither are cropped? If these are the relative full-frame
    > sizes,
    > the difference is quite remarkable.


    By uncropped I assune you mean unresized. Yes, both images are
    unresized 100% crops, pasted together for convenience. The
    difference is more than most people expect without doing some
    arithmetic. The variation in size is what makes it possible to
    have total and annular solar eclipses.
    mianileng, Dec 12, 2008
    #16
  17. JC Dill <> wrote:
    > Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
    >> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    >> drugs began to take hold. I remember "mianileng"
    >> <> saying something like:
    >>
    >>> Full moon may not be the best time for capturing an interesting
    >>> shot of the moon, but for those who want to get the moon to cover
    >>> the largest number of pixels, a coincidence of peak perigee and
    >>> full moon is the ideal time.

    >>
    >> On an APS-C sensor, a frame-filling moon for me is with an old Novoflex
    >> 600mm f:8 and 2x telecon. Full moon brightness makes focusing no
    >> problem, even at f:16, but it moves quicker than you think when it's
    >> filling the frame.


    > The moon moves approximately 1 diameter in 2 minutes. At moonrise as
    > the moon peaks over the horizon, it will be fully visible in ~2 minutes.
    > At moonset, from the time the moon touches the horizon until it
    > disappears will also take ~2 minutes. (The same is true of the sun,
    > sunrise, sunset.)


    > So if you have the moon more-or-less "filling the frame" it will move
    > entirely out of the frame in about 2 minutes! If you move the camera
    > ahead of the moon's path so that the moon is only 1/2 visible in the
    > frame, it will come fully into view in about 1 minute.


    So if you have rock steady tripod and a lens that will give 2000
    pixels across the diameter of the moon it will take about 1/15th sec
    to move one pixel (if I've got the arithmetic right :).

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 13, 2008
    #17
  18. mianileng

    Paul Furman Guest

    mianileng wrote:
    > M-M wrote:
    >> In article <nIh0l.6649$>,
    >>
    >> I really don't think anyone will be able to tell a difference,
    >> even
    >> in a photograph. It's like shooting something 24 feet away then
    >> taking one step forward and shooting again.
    >>
    >> Maybe if the clouds break, I'll get a photo and then compare it
    >> to one
    >> taken at a different date. I'll use the same lens and we can
    >> compare
    >> side-by-side.
    >>
    >> Even if the sky is cloudy, the moon will be out all night so if
    >> it
    >> peeks through even for a moment, a photo is possible.

    >
    > Here's a composite of a shot I took tonight (full at perigee) and
    > another shot on the 19th of last May (approx. full at apogee).
    > Both shots were taken with the same camera at the same focal
    > length - 8 MP, 420mm equiv.
    > http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f223/keimah/Moon_perigee_apogee.jpg
    >
    > You can judge the difference in apparent sizes yourself.
    > Unfortunately, both shots were taken through heavy haze and the
    > images are not as sharp as they could be.


    Wow, big difference.
    There is a break in the clouds with a storm moving in, see if I get a
    chance. I didn't manage any horizon shots.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, Dec 13, 2008
    #18
  19. mianileng

    M-M Guest

    In article <hTG0l.9495$>,
    Paul Furman <> wrote:

    > Wow, big difference.
    > There is a break in the clouds with a storm moving in, see if I get a
    > chance. I didn't manage any horizon shots.



    I got a break in the clouds and made a comparison. One @ 247,797 miles
    from 5/31/07 and the other from last night @ 221,590 miles:

    http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/d80/moondist.jpg

    --
    m-m
    http://www.mhmyers.com
    M-M, Dec 13, 2008
    #19
  20. mianileng

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Dec 14, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. I used to be sober but now I am

    It's full moon time!

    I used to be sober but now I am, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    298
    I used to be sober but now I am
    Nov 9, 2003
  2. Roger Halstead

    Moon image comparrisons D-70 and Scanned

    Roger Halstead, May 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    311
    Roger Halstead
    May 29, 2004
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    570
    Michael Gray
    Sep 15, 2005
  4. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    808
    Denis Loubet
    Jan 12, 2006
  5. hely0123
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,108
    hely0123
    Oct 30, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page