13 hours ago, JessicaF said:

It is a good joke, btw. I just did not see the connection but did recall you mentioning me stashing magnets. I am more than willing to discuss image editing but do not want to bore people to death. It is a giant topic in landscape photography. In general, the RAW file contains a lot more data than what people realize. I mentioned it here before that I have some images where nothing can be seen at the first glance but the aurora is there. These are not the greatest images, they suck big, but the point is that the phenomenon did get captured. Kind of like when astronomers use all sorts of tricks to squeeze every drop out of the imagery to absurd levels. I am attracted to such techniques because they look like "magic" when something comes out of nothing. But, realistically, most of the time, there is nothing in the image when it looks like there is nothing there. Honestly, I do get quite a kick out of capturing (a necessarily lousy) aurora at 42N when HP is 17 and Bz sustained positive for a long time period because it is a super borderline case. Pushing the limit to absurd levels.

I have been thinking of creating a PDF document with examples that I collected from near borderline auroral displays. Just need to find some time to do this.

I would love to read that document if you make it

7 hours ago, Samrau said:

@JessicaF I think that now is not the time when RAW is so miraculous. JPEG and others do not stand still, they develop by coming up with new compression methods and filters. I always shoot RAW+JPEG, and if on the cheap Canon 2000D the difference in quality between RAW and JPEG is quite noticeable, then in the Canon RP it is not noticeable. I remember I already gave you the frames, but you could not take from there even a weak glow, and I knew it even looking at the picture through the Canon Camera Connect app during shooting.

If I shot RAW + JPEG for my timelapses for a night I think it would entirely fill my 1TB SD card by the end of the night.

4 minutes ago, Samrau said:

@JessicaF Can you tell me which balance I should use?:

1) For weak auroras outside of light pollution/in light pollution conditions

2) For medium auroras outside of light pollution/under light pollution conditions

3) For strong auroras outside of light pollution/in light pollution conditions

4) by moonlight

To get my favorite green/purple colors

Developing auroras is a personal choice. I myself, am quite inconsistent with this, which is not a good thing. This year, however, I converged to a value that I like overall and that needs little or no adjustment in postpro. I now shoot with WB set to 4000K. This way, I do not need to adjust the WB in postpro.

If I am trying to dig out a borderline signal from a light polluted image, I would simply increase the green-magenta slider towards the magentas (and possibly move the blue-yellow slider a little towards the blues as this will suppress the yellows that dominate pollution). If there is a faint glow drowning in a glow of light pollution, it may show up after these.

In general, I cannot advise any specific adjustment values to use in LR as it heavily depends on the starting image, your camera settings, the type of light pollution, etc. Just experiment with those two sliders to see what comes out of it.

25 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

Just to expand a bit on this:

JP2 was for what it's worth a great format and compression algorithm in its time that spanned from lossless(XR was also quite good at this) to a highly efficient lossy compression(XR has minor flaws here). Both JP2 and XR severely lacked application support and has gone the same way as so many great image formats before them, in the bin(except for certain medical imagery, and bizarrely enough JSOCs AIA imagery). JP2 is over 20 years old at this point and not a single browser in the top 10 or most image apps have support for it, same with XR except for the old IE browser.

Instead AVIF(based on the AV1 video codec) won out, a royalty-free format which outperforms JP2 & XR in pretty much every relevant area while supporting modern features like 12-bit colour, transparency, wide-gamut and HDR. If reducing file size with minimal quality loss is the goal I don't think anything currently beats AVIF, however JPEG XL outperforms AVIF for higher quality compression when file size isn't the most important factor(Worth noting that XL currently has very poor application support).

We should already be way past the point of a RAW file being an issue to transfer, but strangely enough we're not. I was very disappointed to see my Z6 only managing 2.3-2.5MB/s or roughly 20mbit wirelessly(this is apparently the norm across several manufacturers), which is equivalent to the WIFI standard available in the year 2003(802.11a/g) - because of this I do occasionally set the camera to also save high quality JPEG for a quicker transfer to my phone when I'm hours away from a computer or USB port. However with a bit of extra gear you can quickly move the memory card into a card-reader and connect it to a phone or tablet to achieve 50-400MB/s speeds, or purchase a ridiculously expensive(800-1400EUR in Norway) wireless transmitter that connects directly to the camera and allows you to transfer images at more acceptable WIFI-5(802.11ac) speeds.

I edited in the part you mentioned about RAW compression, I had forgotten it is an option to do lossy compression.

When I started studying IP video surveillance for my astrocamera project, I noticed that the companies that produce digital cameras are not as developed as the video surveillance market. The former are trying to use the old developments to the last. Even relatively inexpensive solutions in the field of IP video surveillance have more advanced SoC (processors) than they are used in digital cameras. This is probably due to the difference in demand, where there are at least 2-4 cameras per household, and competition with smartphones, which everyone now owns. In addition, they use powerful multi-core processors, and the sensors are slightly smaller than the APS-C. Apparently, in these conditions, it is difficult for manufacturers of digital cameras to develop and apply new technologies.

31 minutes ago, JessicaF said:

Developing auroras is a personal choice. I myself, am quite inconsistent with this, which is not a good thing. This year, however, I converged to a value that I like overall and that needs little or no adjustment in postpro. I now shoot with WB set to 4000K. This way, I do not need to adjust the WB in postpro.

If I am trying to dig out a borderline signal from a light polluted image, I would simply increase the green-magenta slider towards the magentas (and possibly move the blue-yellow slider a little towards the blues as this will suppress the yellows that dominate pollution). If there is a faint glow drowning in a glow of light pollution, it may show up after these.

In general, I cannot advise any specific adjustment values to use in LR as it heavily depends on the starting image, your camera settings, the type of light pollution, etc. Just experiment with those two sliders to see what comes out of it.

OK, I'll try to set 4000, let's see what happens.

13 minutes ago, Samrau said:

When I started studying IP video surveillance for my astrocamera project, I noticed that the companies that produce digital cameras are not as developed as the video surveillance market. The former are trying to use the old developments to the last. Even relatively inexpensive solutions in the field of IP video surveillance have more advanced SoC (processors) than they are used in digital cameras. This is probably due to the difference in demand, where there are at least 2-4 cameras per household, and competition with smartphones, which everyone now owns. In addition, they use powerful multi-core processors, and the sensors are slightly smaller than the APS-C. Apparently, in these conditions, it is difficult for manufacturers of digital cameras to develop and apply new technologies.

OK, I'll try to set 4000, let's see what happens.

1. I would love to pick your brain about IP video surveillance, I want to get cameras setup for my house (that can also be used to monitor auroras and I could put one on top of my house too). Did you look into running your own DVR and that open source software? I got about that far into it before I had to stop.

2. Why do digital camera manufacturers not apply new technologies? Because they have a captive market and it is MUCH cheaper not to innovate.

   PLUS - all the companies (Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon) are owned by the same company at the top (I forget if it is Mistubishi or Hitachi) so they own all the major brands and need each one to be profitable and "compete" with each other, but not really. If one has a huge leap in tech, then the others will suffer and profits suffer. So each camera in the company can't really exceed the others or they will only sell that one camera, then if one brand is leaps and bounds above the other then that brand will kill the other markets.

   So really it is all profit motivated. All the cameras, the bodies, the lenses, etc.... That is why they essentially stay the same year to year with marginal improvements. If they were all actually separate companies with real comepetioin, then innovation would be demanded, but they are not, they are all centrally owned and the tech stays the same.

   @cameraconspiracies did a good video on it last year (2024) - LMK and I'll search his YouTube channel

7 minutes ago, Cations said:

1. I would love to pick your brain about IP video surveillance, I want to get cameras setup for my house (that can also be used to monitor auroras and I could put one on top of my house too). Did you look into running your own DVR and that open source software? I got about that far into it before I had to stop.

2. Why do digital camera manufacturers not apply new technologies? Because they have a captive market and it is MUCH cheaper not to innovate.

   PLUS - all the companies (Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Canon) are owned by the same company at the top (I forget if it is Mistubishi or Hitachi) so they own all the major brands and need each one to be profitable and "compete" with each other, but not really. If one has a huge leap in tech, then the others will suffer and profits suffer. So each camera in the company can't really exceed the others or they will only sell that one camera, then if one brand is leaps and bounds above the other then that brand will kill the other markets.

   So really it is all profit motivated. All the cameras, the bodies, the lenses, etc.... That is why they essentially stay the same year to year with marginal improvements. If they were all actually separate companies with real comepetioin, then innovation would be demanded, but they are not, they are all centrally owned and the tech stays the same.

   @cameraconspiracies did a good video on it last year (2024) - LMK and I'll search his YouTube channel

That's a very good point, had forgotten most of the larger companies producing DSLRs are partly or completely owned by Mitsubishi through various trusts and holdings. Laughed out loud from how often Master Trust Bank of Japan appeared as a majority shareholder when double-checking 😂

5 minutes ago, Rudolph said:

That's a very good point, had forgotten most of the larger companies producing DSLRs are partly or completely owned by Mitsubishi through various trusts and holdings. Laughed out loud from how often Master Trust Bank of Japan appeared as a majority shareholder when double-checking 😂

It BLANKING SUCKS!!!

Rant/

I want to use a great camera and take pictures of the aurora while I work on solving problems which face humanity. Instead I have something, which I like, but should have been innovated away 4 years ago with much newer and better tech because... profits. For people who never needed them since they were born.

We should be innovating and producing the best of the best things possible and improving the human race instead of just "[screwing] each other over for a [blank-blank] percentage" to borrow a quote from Ripley (movie = Aliens). What amazing discoveries and how great would our lives be if we could just get along in peace and harmony instead of being kept in a state of Neo-serfdom while our masters fight each other for essentially "who is the best" in petty squabbles...

/Rant

Thank you to everyone of you amazing and generous people who post here. I'm grateful you all of you and all the help and suggestions you have given me (and everyone else who frequents this board now and in the future) freely and generously. You all are amazing.

On 9/27/2025 at 12:47 PM, Cations said:

I was just reviewing these photos again and thinking about lenses

That Sigma 20mm looks amazing. I can't really detect any distortions in it, which is what my eye tends to prefer. I get distracted by things that don't look "normal".

In a previous post you mentioned that you were tending to prefer shooting the 20mm Sony right now. Is 20mm like a sweet spot where significant distortions start to appear when you drop down to 18mm?

I finally picked up the Sony 16-35mm 2.8 GM and the Sony 24mm 1.4 both from a guy who tests gear then sells it. Both essentially were taken out of the box used for the tests and then boxed back up until he sold them to me. So I got them for about half original price (about a hundred dollars higher than half off, but really the only way I could afford them). So I'll finally be able to evaluate the 16-24mm range to see if I like it or not for my eyes shooting what I want to shoot.

Also FYI @JessicaF I've finished my abstract and grant applications so now it's install Linux, run nnUnet, make the YouTube channel and post some private links for you guys here and I'll find a way to upload some of my photos and get them to you. I know I'm going slow but I'm making progress.

I want to ask our Russian friend about running my own security cameras (via DIY DVR) but that's after all the above.

Question - I've got up to 4 cameras I can use to shoot during auroras now. I was thinking if it might be possible to use up to three of the cameras to take simultaneous photos to make a really wide timelapse of the sky if they are stitched together later.

Could this work?

How would I setup the cameras to get the same height but different shot composition? Would it be with a tripod with a bar and two mounts on it? I guess I would need identical tripod heads too. If so that could work for two cameras, but what about the third? Maybe center and the two ends might work. I guess cheap heads would be the best.

I'm concerned about the composition because I'm not a landscape photographer and I've heard about paralex points and nodal rails but I'm not sure how to deal with any of that, just aware that it's tricky.

Then there's more. What about synchronization? I guess I would have to build a custom intervelometer which isn't quite as tricky as it sounds but also can't be ordered from Amazon because I would have to control all three cameras with it to get identical start times for synchronization. It would have to have three ports and three cables (I can't y use USB-C for this I guess, but it should be available on all cameras).

I guess I'm sounding things out here, but I think I'll need a way to figure out the paralex problem before I build the intervelometer.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how to shoot three (even two) cameras at the same time to stitch them all together without paralex issues?

@Cations Sorry for the delayed response. I mainly like 20mm at my current latitude (41N in Utah) as most displays are only north and rarely reach overhead. I find 20mm gives me a good mix of compositional flexibility while being wide enough to leave a "buffer" around the area to the north since the display can of course be unpredictable. As you go wider stronger foreground elements become more and more important. The Sigma 20 also simply has nice to have features, such as ability to lock out accidental turns of the focus ring. I used the Sigma 20 again last night but haven't had a chance to process the images yet. If I were further north/under the oval and for really strong displays I prefer to go wider like 14mm though.

I've heard the 16-35 is a great performer, and I really like the 24GM for a lot of things (including but not limited to aurora). I think you'll like both of them and just find yourself debating between zoom flexibility vs prime, and/or if 24 is wide enough for you.

I do not know the answer to multiple camera stitching, but it is something that astrophotographers do regularly (for example, it's not uncommon to use an astro modified camera with a longer lens to pick out detail and color of a nebula and combine with a wider image of the sky) so suggest you look into general astrophotography for that question.

For your other post about the a1 vs a7iv. I don't think the a1(ii) would have any advantage over the a7iv for this, beyond higher resolution if you go too wide and need to crop (but I would save money and go with an "r" series body if you felt you needed resolution for aurora).

51 minutes ago, DavidS said:

to multiple camera stitching, but it is something that astrophotographers do regularly (for example, it's not uncommon to use an astro modified camera with a longer lens to pick out detail and color of a nebula and combine with a wider image of the sky) so suggest you look into general astrophotography for that question.

51 minutes ago, DavidS said:

@Cations Sorry for the delayed response. I mainly like 20mm at my current latitude (41N in Utah) as most displays are only north and rarely reach overhead. I find 20mm gives me a good mix of compositional flexibility while being wide enough to leave a "buffer" around the area to the north since the display can of course be unpredictable. As you go wider stronger foreground elements become more and more important. The Sigma 20 also simply has nice to have features, such as ability to lock out accidental turns of the focus ring. I used the Sigma 20 again last night but haven't had a chance to process the images yet. If I were further north/under the oval and for really strong displays I prefer to go wider like 14mm though.

I've heard the 16-35 is a great performer, and I really like the 24GM for a lot of things (including but not limited to aurora). I think you'll like both of them and just find yourself debating between zoom flexibility vs prime, and/or if 24 is wide enough for you.

I do not know the answer to multiple camera stitching, but it is something that astrophotographers do regularly (for example, it's not uncommon to use an astro modified camera with a longer lens to pick out detail and color of a nebula and combine with a wider image of the sky) so suggest you look into general astrophotography for that question.

For your other post about the a1 vs a7iv. I don't think the a1(ii) would have any advantage over the a7iv for this, beyond higher resolution if you go too wide and need to crop (but I would save money and go with an "r" series body if you felt you needed resolution for aurora).

Thank you David!

You are precision accurate about the two lenses, I've got one on each camera and am having those feelings exactly. The only thing I wish the 16-35 had that it does not is a switch to make the zoom smooth vs tight (like the 24-70 has), I like to have it tight so I don't accidentally knock it. Plus I wish it had a focus hold, maybe it does with the two customizable buttons. Otherwise I like it and it is letting me play with the wider angles which seem pretty strange to me with what happens in the image. I will need to shoot a lot with it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I really appreciate it.

And I will check into general Astrophotography for stitching photos together. Thank you for the suggestion.

5 hours ago, Cations said:

I would love to pick your brain about IP video surveillance, I want to get cameras setup for my house (that can also be used to monitor auroras and I could put one on top of my house too). Did you look into running your own DVR and that open source software? I got about that far into it before I had to stop.

If you haven't already looked, we had a thread about this, and Samrau will probably be glad to answer any further questions there -

https://community.spaceweatherlive.com/topic/3519-ip-cameras-for-sky-surveillance

7 hours ago, JessicaF said:

As I said above, most of the time when visual inspection reveals nothing, there indeed is nothing in the image. It is not like the RAW format will always give you a miracle. There simply was nothing in your images.

The JPEG format has stayed pretty much unchanged since 1992 when it was standardized. If the JPEGs from your RP look better than from an older camera, it could simply be because of a better development and post processing pipeline, finer quantization matrices used for luminance and chrominance, and also because the RP is a full frame and thus has better SNR than cropped sensors.

Oh I only noticed this now. The notification in your message for some reason is not "active".

I can give you a snapshot of the adjustment panel in LR of what I usually do. It is nothing special. I start with a Camera landscape profile, then usually bring up the exposure a little and then iteratively, little by little, increase the whites while pulling back on highlights. One needs to be careful not to lose detail in the brighter greens. Then I move on to clarity to increase the contrast in midtones and add little bit of dehazing, depending on the image. Clarity will introduce artifacts around edges if overdone, so one needs to be careful to not overdo it. Clarity and dehazing also have a tendency to make vignetting much more pronounced. Adding a radial filter (inverted) to compensate for the loss of luminance towards the corners can fix this but it can be pain to do it right. Finally, I denoise but usually pull back on what LR does by default as I'd rather have some noise in the images but not lose detail in the texture of the aurora. Oh, and then as the last step, I remove Elon's junk and airplanes.

If I need to dig out something at the threshold of being captured, I will go more heavy handed at clarity and dehazing, sometimes pushing it a lot. That can sometimes bring out a very weak signal that is buried in there. I might also adjust the white balance a bit more aggressively in this case. As I said, these images of something out of nothing are bad, nothing to write home about. The purpose here is to see if the phenomenon got captured. For example, when shooting through haze or light pollution, finding the right WB setting can reveal a faint auroral glow because the spectral characteristics of the aurora are different from light pollution.

Makes sense, thank you for sharing! :)

1 hour ago, NightSky said:

If you haven't already looked, we had a thread about this, and Samrau will probably be glad to answer any further questions there -

https://community.spaceweatherlive.com/topic/3519-ip-cameras-for-sky-surveillance

Thanks! I'll check it out

On 10/2/2025 at 12:11 PM, Cations said:

Thank you David!

You are precision accurate about the two lenses, I've got one on each camera and am having those feelings exactly. The only thing I wish the 16-35 had that it does not is a switch to make the zoom smooth vs tight (like the 24-70 has), I like to have it tight so I don't accidentally knock it. Plus I wish it had a focus hold, maybe it does with the two customizable buttons. Otherwise I like it and it is letting me play with the wider angles which seem pretty strange to me with what happens in the image. I will need to shoot a lot with it.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I really appreciate it.

And I will check into general Astrophotography for stitching photos together. Thank you for the suggestion.

Looking forward to seeing the results!