| Is Starlink affecting your imaging? | |
|---|---|
| Yes | |
| No | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
7.61
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
For those of us that enjoy simply standing under starry skies, while imaging or not, the increasing number of satellites definitely degrades the experience….. For imaging, the trails may not be an issue, but I’ve also heard that the collective reflection from a 100,000 or more satellites (plus their debris) will mean no more bortle 1 sites…..anywhere. Don’t know if that’s true, or the impact to other bortle ratings, but if even astroimagers think why fight it, just accept it, I fear the worst…. Scott |
4.69
#...
·
|
|---|
Short answer, no. I do get them in my frames, sometimes a lot, but the stacking process completely eliminates them, so its a non-issue. This article explains how SpaceX try to minimise the effects of Starlink satellites on astronomy https://web.archive.org/web/20210516183544/https://www.spacex.com/updates/starlink-update-04-28-2020/index.html |
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
masluigi:  You actually saved me  took this one 2 days ago ... not rejected strikes, I'll stack it again with the setting you suggestedGrazie/Thank you CS |
0.00
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Clearly no, First, the rejection does its job, Then, I don't have many satellites on my subs, even on long exposures (5-10-30mins) . I understand the discontent around this subject, but imo, it does not (yet) make a problem for amateur photography |
1.43
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
masluigi: Luigi, you saved me too and also made my initial post moot. I guess my damnation was premature! ;-) I used the pixel rejection settings you identified and this is the raw output of the combined RGB channels with a simple STF stretch applied. No satellite streaks!!! That's despite 95%+ of my subs having satellite streaks in them. Thanks for the tip! Now I'll go back to praising Starlink and Elon Musk for trying to do their best to limit light pollution of our night skies! ;-) Hopefully all of the other companies chasing Starlink do the same. Clear Skies! Norm  |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Norman Tajudin: Happy to have been of help |
5.61
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Jeffery Richards:Bill McLaughlin:You're right, I was simply assuming he's using WBPP. Thank You! I appreciate the comment. Really there is nothing at all wrong with WBPP, it is just my (perhaps silly) desire to see every step, even though the manual steps are close to or exactly the same as what WBPP does.  |
9.24
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
I just wanted to toss this in here for OP and others who may come across this thread. This is a rejection map of a couple nights luminance data. Without pixel rejection, these would all be in my image. Thankfully they are not. Most of it is hot pixels. There are the obvious satellite and plane streaks, but another nice aspect is the ability to remove the asteroids from the image. I knew I had one trailing through this frame, but I didn't realize there were ALOT more until I looked at the rejection map. The gaps in the trails are from multiple nights worth of imaging. |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Is there really no one here that cares for an unpolluted sky for it's own sake, or the needs of others in the larger astronomy community that we're part of? Scott |
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| Starling satellites are a nuisance but not near as bad as light pollution |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
BryanHudson: I'll accept that, but only in the sense that having already lost the night sky to ground based light pollution, most of the general public is almost as apathetic about satellites as we appear to be. Scott |
|
1.20
#...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
I’m not apathetic, I’m just not going to spend two seconds being concerned about it because I can’t do anything about satellites or airplanes flying over my house during an imaging session. They do not affect the outcome of my astrophotography. What is your solution? |
|
7.61
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Speaking out, engaging others on the subject, doing what I can to contact and support those who might be in a better position to effect change, but you're correct, if you choose not to be concerned, or act, than you certainly can't do anything about it. That said, if your only concern is the effect on our amateur astrophotography hobby, then it doesn't really deserve much attention anyhow. Scott |
|
1.20
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
The best thing we can do for our community is share tools and techniques to help mitigate conditions. That’s the nature of photography. Adapt, adjust, and make it work regardless of conditions. https://inspirationimages.zenfolio.com |
|
4.69
#...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
BryanHudson: Agree completely with this. @Scott Badger satellites have been with us since the 1950s and provide countless benefits to mankind. Why waste your energy on a futile campaign to get them banned or restricted when all you need to do is check a box in WBPP! As @BryanHudson says, LP is a far bigger problem than satellites, so you'd do better deploying your campaigning zeal there. |
|
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I don't think our astrophotography hobby will ever take precedence over satellite communications, most of which is essential, and non-essential such as GPS on my phone for finding my dark sky sites and location data for my GoTo mount! :-) |
|
4.69
#...
·
|
|---|
BryanHudson:  |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
You may not care beyond your own personal interests, or find something profound in wild landscapes, and you're right, it's not my place to tell you that you should, but I would have expected something better that strawman arguments here. Scott |
|
1.20
#...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I think you may have missed my earlier response. Photographers need to deal with conditions as it presents itself, not complain about it. That’s not a straw man, that’s a fact. ——— The best thing we can do for our community is share tools and techniques to help mitigate conditions. That’s the nature of photography. Adapt, adjust, and make it work regardless of conditions. https://inspirationimages.zenfolio.com |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Suggesting that I'm advocating a ban on satellites or that astrophotography should take precedent over communications when I'm not are SM arguments. As for put up and shut up......you be you. Scott |
|
1.20
#...
·
|
|---|
Scott Badger: You are confusing me with someone else. I did not suggest that you want to ban satellites. Nor did I write, "Put up and shut up." That would be rude and I don't roll like that. I wrote, "Our hobby will never take precedence over satellite communications." That's a fact. No one can get them banned, so the point is mute....whomever suggested it. |
|
7.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Stuart's argument inferred that taking a stand against a hundred thousand satellites is equivalent to denying the value we get from 5,000 or so. It's not. You say our hobby shouldn't take precedence over communications, who are you replying to? Or do you really think the world today is starved for communication and the only way to solve that is to sacrifice the night sky? Thank god Musk can see beyond our naïve ideals..... Don't do anything because you can't do anything is called a circular argument. Scott |
