Night Milky Way Landscapes with the P$P?

[RickCo]

I consider myself to be a very experienced (if not great) photographer, and a moderately decent 3DR Solo and DJI Mavic Pro pilot. I simply cannot stand the poor still image quality of the GoPro Hero 4 black, and of the only slightly better Mavic Pro camera.

So, I have seen some moderately aggressive pricing on the Phantom 4 Pro, and almost ready to shell out the cash. But, can I do what I want to do?

I like to produce night landscapes, where the SKY portion of a final image might contain a stack 16 images, each of 15-29 second exposures, composited with foreground images. The smallest camera that can do this is my Sony A7S with appropriate lens. I would like to loft that camera, but cannot even come close to affording that platform.

The sensor in the P4P appears to be the same one in the Sony RX100M3. I have done some night work with that camera, and it is not too bad. I understand that there is some funny stuff going on in the P4P cameras to primarily compensate for the poor lens.

So, what if I lofted the P4P, put it into position and started taking a long run of, what 1sec, maybe 2 or 3 sec exposures at around ISO400. Say I take 200 exposures. Then, hand sort them to select only those that are sharp and vibration free. Then take that subset, and stack them for a relatively low-noise, long exposure sky image.

Would that work?

Has anyone here tried it?

-- Rick

 

[sar104]

I consider myself to be a very experienced (if not great) photographer, and a moderately decent 3DR Solo and DJI Mavic Pro pilot. I simply cannot stand the poor still image quality of the GoPro Hero 4 black, and of the only slightly better Mavic Pro camera.

So, I have seen some moderately aggressive pricing on the Phantom 4 Pro, and almost ready to shell out the cash. But, can I do what I want to do?

I like to produce night landscapes, where the SKY portion of a final image might contain a stack 16 images, each of 15-29 second exposures, composited with foreground images. The smallest camera that can do this is my Sony A7S with appropriate lens. I would like to loft that camera, but cannot even come close to affording that platform.

The sensor in the P4P appears to be the same one in the Sony RX100M3. I have done some night work with that camera, and it is not too bad. I understand that there is some funny stuff going on in the P4P cameras to primarily compensate for the poor lens.

So, what if I lofted the P4P, put it into position and started taking a long run of, what 1sec, maybe 2 or 3 sec exposures at around ISO400. Say I take 200 exposures. Then, hand sort them to select only those that are sharp and vibration free. Then take that subset, and stack them for a relatively low-noise, long exposure sky image.

Would that work?

Has anyone here tried it?

-- Rick

I haven't tried it, but I would be amazed if the gimbal stabilization is good enough for astrophotography, even at quite short exposures (e.g. < 5 s). But, if it is, then your technique should work - I've had remarkably good astro results from the RX100M4 shooting RAW when I haven't had a DSLR handy.

 

[KAOS Imagery]

Hey Rick,

I have not done it, but it might work...

Haven't had my P4P that long, but it is a much better sensor that what's in my P3P. But it's no where close to the image quality of my Canon 5D Mark IV or even the 7D Mark II.

I have seen some nice long aerial exposures from the P4P in the 1-3 second range. If the aircraft was stable enough, you could do a large number of exposures and blend them. Might not work with moving items like cars because even when taking consecutive exposures, there is a little lag between shots - figure on a second at least maybe even two. That would leave gaps in the light trails. And even iso 100 can be grainy when underexposed...so not much light getting in at iso 400 2-3 second exposures in a dark environment like a landscape.

I usually bracket my aerial shots (3-5) to cover the dynamic range. Recovering shadows in a single image tends to cause lots of noise, bracketing helps in that regard. So for night shots, you'd probably want to ETTR pretty heavily.

 

[Chrislaf]

There are some threads on here were people have got some pretty good night shots with a P4P mostly of city skylines but capturing the Milky Way I would think would be quite difficult. The P4P camera is limited in how far it can tilt up and with the movement of the craft in the air it would be hard to get sharp pinpoint stars. Even with a DSLR, to get sharp images of stars usually requires expensive glass, a tripod, a remote shutter release, a full frame sensor and lots of trial and error. Not saying it can’t be done but I wonder about the quality of the resulting image. Might be worth a try if you already have a P4P but I wouldn’t go out and buy one for this type of photography.

Chris

 

[RickCo]

That is an interesting note about pointing the gimbal. Can the P4P fly upside-down? (I can, sometimes, but it takes an excessive amount of alcohol, or similar ...)

 

[With The Birds]

This is a big ask- you will be probably 5 stops under exposed at your proposed settings.

You would need a TV of 20sec @ 1600 ISO so your finding the limits of the camera here, not to mention the stabilisation won’t get you to 20s and the camera can’t point up far enough (as has been mentioned).

I’m with you on how nice this capability would be on the phantom however, 15mm on full frame.

 

[sar104]

This is a big ask- you will be probably 5 stops under exposed at your proposed settings.

You would need a TV of 20sec @ 1600 ISO so your finding the limits of the camera here, not to mention the stabilisation won’t get you to 20s and the camera can’t point up far enough (as has been mentioned).

I’m with you on how nice this capability would be on the phantom however, 15mm on full frame.

View attachment 92371

The underexposure could be dealt with by stacking, aligning and summing, provided that there is enough resolved detail in each frame to align, but I doubt the stabilization is good enough even for a few seconds.

 

[With The Birds]

The underexposure could be dealt with by stacking, aligning and summing, provided that there is enough resolved detail in each frame to align, but I doubt the stabilization is good enough even for a few seconds.

To a point yes, I would argue with limited practical success.

The trick is to use the maximum dynamic range of the sensor, if it’s not recorded no amount of processing will retrieve it. The intent of stacking is to remove the random (hopefully it’s random) sensor induced noise.

 

[sar104]

To a point yes, I would argue with limited practical success.

The trick is to use the maximum dynamic range of the sensor, if it’s not recorded no amount of processing will retrieve it. The intent of stacking is to remove the random (hopefully it’s random) sensor induced noise.

Agreed. Since the noise floor is independent of the recorded signal it would require more frames stacked to achieve an acceptable s/n ratio with that level of underexposure.

 

[With The Birds]

Agreed. Since the noise floor is independent of the recorded signal it would require more frames stacked to achieve an acceptable s/n ratio with that level of underexposure.

I don’t know if you have tried your hand at astrophotography, from my experience underexposed frames aren’t worth playing with- the detail you want can’t be satisfactorily recovered even with the benefit of dark frame subtraction. Been there, done that.

 

[sar104]

I don’t know if you have tried your hand at astrophotography, from my experience underexposed frames aren’t worth playing with- the detail you want can’t be satisfactorily recovered even with the benefit of dark frame subtraction. Been there, done that.

Yes - but only with a stable platform and much longer exposures. I typically shoot at f 1.8, 15 - 30 seconds at ISO 400 on an equatorial tracking mount, so I'm using the full dynamic range of the sensor and signal-to-noise is not a big issue. I've never tried to recover detail from underexposed frames.

 

[John Locke]

On super calm nights I've taken 2 second exposures with fairly good luck. I get about 20% yield with no blur. 3 second exposures the yield goes down to about 5% (1 in 20 is good), but again, it's got to be a calm night. It's really amazing how well it does, given the challenge.

 

[With The Birds]

Yes - but only with a stable platform and much longer exposures. I typically shoot at f 1.8, 15 - 30 seconds at ISO 400 on an equatorial tracking mount, so I'm using the full dynamic range of the sensor and signal-to-noise is not a big issue. I've never tried to recover detail from underexposed frames.

Ok, you must have very clear skies where you are. For a wide field shot I find 1600 ISO at f1.4 20 seconds is ok. Just.

 

[sar104]

Ok, you must have very clear skies where you are. For a wide field shot I find 1600 ISO at f1.4 20 seconds is ok. Just.

10,000 ft MSL and single-digit humidity helps a lot.

 

[With The Birds]

10,000 ft MSL and single-digit humidity helps a lot.

Yep- no doubt. We do have some of the clearest viewing on the planet in Australia though (once you get out in the bush or desert). I’m almost certain you will benefit from winding the wick up a little on your ISO. Show us one of your images, I’m curious.

 

[sar104]

Yep- no doubt. We do have some of the clearest viewing on the planet in Australia though (once you get out in the bush or desert). I’m almost certain you will benefit from winding the wick up a little on your ISO. Show us one of your images, I’m curious.

Looking back at some of my favorites I guess you are correct - for the dark sky images I have mostly shot at ISO 1600. More recently I've been doing more moonlit landscape shots, with lower ISOs. Two examples, the first at ISO 1600, 15 s, and the second at ISO 800, 5 s.

 

[With The Birds]

Looking back at some of my favorites I guess you are correct - for the dark sky images I have mostly shot at ISO 1600. More recently I've been doing more moonlit landscape shots, with lower ISOs. Two examples, the first at ISO 1600, 15 s, and the second at ISO 800, 5 s.

Very nice Sar, thank you for sharing.

 

[sar104]

Very nice Sar, thank you for sharing.

Thanks. Thinking more about the Milky Way image though, that was ISO 1600, f 2.8, 15 s, which should be equivalent to ISO 400, f 1.8, 30 s, which I'm pretty sure I switched to later - hence my comment above. I should have others taken at that setting - I'll see what I can dig up.

 

[Chrislaf]

I have often wondered what kind of image I could get out of my P3S if I sent it up on a dark calm clear night with the milky way in full view. I wouldn't expect it to be anything useable, but it would be interesting to try to see what kind of image I could squeeze out of it. The quality of some of the daytime images when conditions are right have surprised me.

Here's an image made up of about 70 stacked photos I took this past Saturday.
Nikon D750 + 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 14mm, ISO 500, 25s

 

[sar104]

I have often wondered what kind of image I could get out of my P3S if I sent it up on a dark calm clear night with the milky way in full view. I wouldn't expect it to be anything useable, but it would be interesting to try to see what kind of image I could squeeze out of it. The quality of some of the daytime images when conditions are right have surprised me.

Here's an image made up of about 70 stacked photos I took this past Saturday.
Nikon D750 + 14-24mm f/2.8 @ 14mm, ISO 500, 25s

Very nice.