360 Night Sky test

pop out

A 350,000 x 175,000 Panorama of the Night Sky. That's over 100feet at 300dpi

Making a huge Panorama of the night sky as visible to me ie. 20-30*North of Equator so 20-30* of South Polar Region won't b visible(that's OK, I'll need to go to South America or Australia)

So a 350,000 Pixel wide Panorama will print at 300dpi photo of more than 1000 inches! Over 100Feet.

Woppy.

Using PTGUI Photo Stitching app, Canon 650D many lens..

1. Canon EF 90-300mm will give a field of view of 12-14 degrees(the long side of 4:3) at 90mm and just 5degrees FoV at full Zoom 300mm (effective zoom is 480mm x1.6 camera)

2. 18-55mm Canon gives an FoV of 72 at 18mm on my camera and 20-24 degrees at 55mm 

3. 10-24mm Tamaron (3.5-4.5) Ultra wide distorts too much but I can shoot the entire night sky in just 1-2 frames/setups. I will do one when I am at. Dark place, I think I have shot some with 10mm (16mm on my camera). At 24mm I get an FoV of  30 degrees. Which is I think the ideal for a High Resolution Panorama thats more than a GigaPixel of useable image!

An early example of ultra Wide 10mm (16mm) photographs and the Bootes is 24mm (35mm)

New way to show the Sphere of Stars.

After looking for a "nice" 360degree projection of the night sky, I realised none look like. What you will actually see in real life, as the distortions at the Poles or Equator region is too severe, depending on the projection of your choice.

The nearest is a EquiRectangluar Spherical Projection (at least I know this from 360x180 panoramic photography.

I somehow feel in the Deep Sky Stacker method of AstroPhotography, Image distortion because of Lens is not being taken into account as much it is being taken in Panoramic Photography.

When I over lay a photograph of a Constellation on an IAU constellation map, and match the FoV/size of both the map and the photo, the stars at the edges are "way off" the Map marker, ultimately I use a "wrap" in photoshop to make them fit "better". 

In wrap, I find it better to start at the corner stars and move the edges to try to get as many inner- stars align with the map, do this for all corners and try to get a. "better fit" but as you move one edge it will effect the entire image, so once u do a basic corner correction warp, move to the Center and start to better fit the star-photo to the Star Map.

Bayer Pattern Optical of Sensors

On the iPad.

Aquila tail side and Scotum above Sagi-Sothrn-cross-10f

Northern-Hemisphere R.A. 10h-Ursa-Leo-Coma , 70 TO 10 Degrees Declination

Colour in AstroPhotography

All photo-sensors are basically Black or White.
What you see in the Hubble Photographs too is Assigned Colour or False Colour.
Blue is Oxygen
Green Hydrogen 
Red is Sulphur

Blue Added

Red (Blue and Green )

See this NGC Video from 11min 15sec ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=WL&v=qcfN_HN4TVg#t=668 )
Hubble Docu

from 11mins or 668 seconds in the film Colour has a totally different use in Astronomy ie. Spectroscopy, which is putting a Prism, that Splits the light into in component colours of the Rainbow or VIBGYOR, in front of a "Camera Lens" (Camera-Lens here means any Photo sensitive material,  more like Xray than Polaroid) The Split Colours in the Rainbow Pattern is called SPECTRUM or SPECTRA(singular) that come out from the prism are recorded in Bar Code like Stripes (I think to remove any ambiguity about people perceiving colours differently). Using this we can find out what Element-chemical is emitting the light or aptly Radiating "Light"