Good time to capture a large image of the moon

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

1. mianilengGuest

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

2. Paul FurmanGuest

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

3. mianilengGuest

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
4. David J TaylorGuest

David J Taylor, Dec 11, 2008
5. 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
6. Grimly CurmudgeonGuest

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
7. JC DillGuest

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
8. Grimly CurmudgeonGuest

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
9. ASAARGuest

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 make yourselves so much easier to ID.

ASAAR, Dec 11, 2008
10. Paul FurmanGuest

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
11. mianilengGuest

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
>> 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
12. NGuest

"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
13. M-MGuest

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
14. mianilengGuest

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.

dial-up. After having used broadband for almost a year now, times
like this are a real pain).

mianileng, Dec 12, 2008
15. M-MGuest

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
16. mianilengGuest

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
17. Chris MalcolmGuest

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
18. Paul FurmanGuest

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
19. M-MGuest

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
20. Paul FurmanGuest

Paul Furman, Dec 14, 2008