MichaelChang

<p>If you're on a budget, I'd suggest buying a used DSLR, something like a Nikon D5100 which is now quite inexpensive and widely available, for instance a number of them at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=D5100&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&usedSearch=1&Top+Nav-Search=">B&H's used department</a>. </p> <p>There are several reasons why this is advantageous: </p> <ol> <li>You can shoot video and stills while tethered to the computer and see its "Live View" either on the computer screen via USB or an external monitor via its HDMI output port. </li> <li>It can capture video at 1920x1080 (1080p) which is considerably higher resolution than the 640x480 of your current cameras. </li> <li>You can (optionally) use a third party firmware from <a href="https://nikonhacker.com/">https://nikonhacker.com/</a> to extend/enhance its video and stills performance.</li> <li>Freeware tethering software is available from <a href="http://digicamcontrol.com/">http://digicamcontrol.com/</a> which means no need to buy Nikon's software. </li> <li>You can record/shoot to the camera's SD card, computer, or both.</li> </ol> <p>There must be a Canon equivalent as well but you'll have to research that yourself as I'm a Nikon user. </p> <p>I bought a used D5100 for similar reasons - to use as a second video camera for microscopy, astronomy, and general video work with a long list of available accessories. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Old thread; nonetheless:</p> <p>The NikonHacker firmware facilitates clean HDMI out on the 5100. </p> <p>eBay offers a number of portable (1080) HDMI recorders for under $100 using an external USB devices for storage which can make a good backup for a DSLR/video rig. Just do a search for "Digital HDMI DVI Component Video MP4 Recorder With HDMI Output".</p>

<p>Hi Ed, I don't know what you have in mind for your DSLR-wedding use, but it might prove quite problematic. </p> <p>Battery life, maximum file size, subject tracking, zoom/focus, A/V monitoring while you shoot, and general mobility will all be quite challenging if you're operating the rig alone.</p> <p>If you can describe in a bit more detail on how you imagine using such a rig, others might be able to chime in with more useful suggestions. </p>

<p>Satellites are pretty high up in the sky so aircraft flying at much lower altitudes are imaged the same as ground level objects.</p> <p>The slight blur or lack of detail (see the partially obscured wing) might be due to thin high altitude clouds obscuring the satellite's view.</p> <p>The plane appears it might be a <a href="http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/1/2/1007211.jpg">Fokker 100</a> or a much smaller corporate jet.</p> <p><strong>[Edit]</strong><br> The photo posted with the question seems to have been removed. </p>

<p>Hi Henry, I have nothing but good things to say about my shopping experience with B&H from Canada, and happy to give this unsolicited endorsement. </p>

<p>Thanks for that, Arthur. </p> <p>I called them just now; it's apparently a computer glitch which happens sometimes for online orders, and they do offer Purolator Shipping which includes all applicable taxes, duties, and brokerage fees on all Canadian orders. <br> <br> Anyone experiencing this online can call their toll-free number 1.800.606.6969 to place an order. </p>

<p>It's not free shipping I'm after. It's the all-inclusive shipping. </p> <p>I'll call them tomorrow - thought some Canadians might have experienced this previously, and of not, the information will benefit Canadian PN members. </p>

<p>I tried ordering a used camera from B&H online and the inclusive shipping option was unavailable - Purolator Shipping which includes all applicable taxes, duties, and brokerage fees. </p> <p>It's an attractive way to shop as all fees are included so customers won't need to deal with import hassles and surprises.</p> <p>Anyone know why B&H didn't offer this as an option? I've bought a couple of things before and it was always available. </p>

<p>I don't know if Airsoft regulations have been effective or remains controversial in the U.S.; its misuse can be as dangerous as RC things but I haven't heard much about it. </p>

<p>I wonder if the regulation will include traditional RC planes, gliders, helicopters and jets. </p>

<p>At the border crossing of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4_Beijing%E2%80%93Hong_Kong%E2%80%93Macau_Expressway">G4 Beijing–Hong Kong–Macau Expressway</a>. <br> Photos: <a href="http://news.qq.com/a/20151006/028341.htm#p=1">http://news.qq.com/a/20151006/028341.htm#p=1</a></p> <p>I've honestly never seen that kind of traffic congestion before. </p>

<p>Thanks for your explanation, Glenn. Much appreciated. <br> The new site is without a doubt a massive undertaking and there's simply no pleasing everyone, so I do understand the value judgments you and the team must make in order to arrive at an acceptable compromise.<br> I hope I wasn't overly blunt and will be looking forward to further enhancements. </p>

<p>This version appears to load a little faster than the previous one from about a year ago which was excruciatingly slow; or is it simply due to Windows 10.<br> I have found the site to be more cluttered with superfluous information and text I don't want to see, and more difficult to construct a mental map of the site so that I can always know where I am. <br> I can browse for an hour and still not feel like I've gotten a sense of what Photo.net is about, and part of this is because I have no means of quickly seeing members associated with content - it takes effort, and one has to deal with the slow loading. <br> To be honest, if I was a new user, I'd probably give up pretty quickly because the site isn't offering me any sense of affinity toward it, and at today's fast pace everyone expects, I suspect few are going to have the patience to develop the affinity on their own over days.</p> <p>What I'd like to see is something more streamlined and compacted so I can see more in less time, and experience a painless process in exploring the thousands of users and their content.<br> Oddly enough, the new site has made me appreciate the site we're currently on even more because I can access content quickly, so in my view, maybe a marriage of the old site with a "prettied up" interface is all that's required, or even preferred. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Sean, YouTube has a number of tutorials on "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=equatorial+mount+setup">equatorial mount setup</a>" to get you started. </p> <p>You won't need a motor drive to start; you can use its manual control. </p>

<p>I'll be upgrading a cheap ($100) Windows 8.1 tablet to Windows 10.</p> <p>There is inadequate internal drive space remaining to accommodate the windows.old folder (which it will need to roll back to 8.1 if desired), so I'll be using a USB key tethered with an OTG (on-the-go) cable. Not expecting any problems, but we'll see. </p>

<p>I have used both the EQ1 and 2 mounts for visual observation but not astrophotography; they are low cost mounts adequate for the most basic wide angle shots of the sky. </p> <p>Generally, the more you pay, the higher the tracking precision, but also the more demanding it will be on your skill and patience starting with polar alignment and elements of the entire process. It all depends on your budget and what you want to achieve. </p>

<p>Sean, what you're referring to is called field rotation. <br> Specialized (and expensive) software can take care of that, but the usual approach is to avoid trailing altogether by using a tracking mount - the camera-head rotates to track the stars - which can be manually controlled or automated.<br> Using a tracking mount also has the advantage of allowing longer exposure times before tracking error produces trailing.<br> Inexpensive equatorial mounts such as the EQ1 or EQ2 can produce pretty decent results for wide angle shots. These are manual mounts but accessory motors are available to semi-automate the tracking. <br> </p>

<p>Trailing in long exposure will depend on the focal length of your camera or telescope lens, so you will empirically choose the longest possible exposure time without noticeable trailing (or elongation of stars) - the stacking program does not (and can not) correct this. </p> <p>Flat frames should be taken at the end (or beginning) of your shoot because its purpose is to cancel, in stacking, lens artifacts such as smudges and vignetting. <br> <br> Regarding number of dark, flat and bias frames and their respective importance: </p> <ul> <li>Dark frames are the most important, and temperature dependent, but the only time multiples are necessary is when you do automatic subtraction in software - only one will suffice if you subtract manually through opacity adjustment. This is because random noise in your light frames are averaged while the signal (stars) is additive, and a single dark frame will contain all the fixed-noise artifacts for the purposes of subtraction and removal, and its random noise component will also be averaged. The manual method will save a bunch of time.</li> <li>Only one flat frame, for the same reasons as above will be necessary.</li> <li>I've found that bias frames are only necessary for the most exacting and critical astrophotography as its components are already included in dark frames; really not necessary for wide angle or less critical shots. </li> </ul> <p>A lot of this stuff really comes down to what works for you either derived experimentally or doing it strictly by the book. In the end it's still about the picture's composition and aesthetic merit, and only geeks such as ourselves will be bothered by those slightly imperfect, albeit identifiable artifacts, if the photo contains technical flaws. </p> <p>Here's a picture I made that's filled with flaws, no bias frame or flat frame, but I like it anyway - it adds "character".</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2617978-lg.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="532" /></p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>"Anyone found a reason yet to upgrade to windows 10? It appears that it doesn't add much, if anything at all"</p> </blockquote> <p>I have 5 systems to upgrade and just finished the first one. It was a bit complicated because I wanted it to dual-boot with 8.1 or 7. There were a couple of glitches that were easily fixed by rolling back to older drivers but the upgrade went smoothly otherwise. <br> I imagine most of the improvements are hidden from the user. I do like the new browser and its enhanced features and how Cortana and understand natural language to control computer functions. <br> The new Maps function appears to be a re-skinned version of Nokia's HERE maps; it allows offline navigation via downloadable maps. This will be really handy with tablets. <br> Still exploring, but so far everything seems to work just fine. <br> I'm looking forward to Android-apps compatibility but haven't heard anything more than preliminary announcements. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"It's running fine on my five-year-old Thinkpad x201 (i5, 8GB RAM)"</em></p> </blockquote> <p>Paul, do you have the tablet version? I have an X201 multitouch tablet with pen input and not sure if it will work properly under Windows 10. It's now running Windows 7 Pro. </p>

<p>Thanks, Eric! </p>

<p>Much obliged again, Adriano. </p>

<p>Thank you, Adriano. That was very helpful. </p>

<p>Can you perform an upgrade with the downloaded ISO? or is the ISO for clean installs only? </p> <p>Also, if you perform a clean install, will any valid product key from Windows 7 or 8/8.1 work? </p>