Added: 10 months ago
From: denpeg68
Views: 40,639
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (41)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • parece la misma imagen de un simple telescopio newton....y talvez gravo la imagen con 600D a travez del lente del telescopio...verdad???

  • 800mm cost around 13000$....... amazing :)

  • thats incrapdible!

  • I have a T3i or 600D with a 18-135mm and I can't take a video like that (that close) oven using the digital zoom. The moon had to be gigantic in order to have a video like that. Or is all BULL

  • @juandiegopr1

    Perhaps you didn't notice the description beneath the video... It says: "Digital zoom @ 10x with 800mm+1.4tc". But feel free to consider it BULL if you like.

  • @juandiegopr1 I guess you failed at reading. Description said digital zoom on 800mm lens + 1.4 teleconverter. A lot more reach than your 135mm kit lens.

  • @juandiegopr1 Heh, if you calculate the focal length of the equipment used it's 17920mm, it's 8.2 times more than your 135mm incl sensor crop and digital zoom.

  • Digital zoom feature only available on T3i as far I am aware. For sure not available on the 7D or 5DMKII.

  • Hey, just curious - how did you record the 10x digital zoom. Is that possible on a 7d or 5d2?

  • @captainjman1976 i know the 600d and 60d has the zoom cant tell you about the higher end models, although you'd think they would have it.

  • what is the brand of the lens and what is +1.4tc?

  • I can tell you shoot the moon from an opposite hemisphere than me - your moon goes in a different direction than in my vids.

    I really enjoyed this. I wish I could see your technique - keep posting

  • what lens did you use and how much was it?

  • Men never went to the moon.

  • @yongodharma Never say never... 24 men went to the moon!

  • no 1080p?

  • it boils!

  • I swear i saw Michael Jackson @ 0:55

  • @KillerLeftHook You must be on something

  • How come the general public can get better coverage of the moon with digital SLRs than NASA can with their millions of dollars worth of equipment lol.... It's really easy to be swayed into thinking by conspiracy theorists that maybe there is more than meets the eye about the moon

  • @SpunkeyMonkey Its a scam, with the resolution of our spy satellites, if one were pointed at the moon we could see all the equipment where they "landed"

  • @BeckTechnologies In the same way that you can't see anything man-made from the moon..? (Apart from lights at night)

  • @BeckTechnologies - you think you could see the tiny parts left behind? I hope you are kidding. If you're not maybe you should do a little research at just how big the moon actually is, and then realize this video, although fantastic is deceiving. The sea of tranquility for instance only shows as a couple of inches on your screen, but in reality is 532 miles in diameter. Thats like looking down on iowa from space and trying to find a car. + how do you explain the laser reflector left behind?

  • @captainjman1976 Think he meant with a satellite such a Hubble you could see all the "tiny parts left behind" just like you can read a news paper from orbit with Hubble and other satellites ..... Not agreeing about it being a scam though, but he is correct about having the resolution to be able too see what ever was left behind.

  • @thickascowshit - When I was younger I thought that would be a good solution too, but then I did some research on the HST (Hubble Space Telescope) and these are my conclusions.

    1. There is a long line of scientists waiting in line for YEARS for HST time, obviously serious science should take precedence over something as trivial as looking for small parts left behind by lunar landings

  • 2. Retasking a satellite is not a simple procedure. Also, with every movement the risk for loss of control increases significantly. - furthermore, there is a finite amount of propellant on board, so they maximize utility of every move so that it isn't moved big distances for each task.

    3. Even if they would retask the HST and took extremely high resolution images- non believers will say those photos are hoaxes. In fact, just doing the observation would add credibility to their claims.

  • @thickascowshit

    4. Resolution may not be what you would think. The HST might be able to see a resolution of 6 inches from earth orbit, but from 1/4 million miles away the resolution will not be the same. Research the rule of squares and you will understand.

  • @captainjman1976 yeah your dead right about the non believers saying those photos would be hoaxes lol and yeah why do the observation when we know its real, it would be just backing up the thought in there head saying see they had to falsify images to prove it, and yeah i researched the rule of squares and it doesn't scale with distance. Fully understand the re tasking issues i bet that's stressful for the people in charge of that and wanting to make the most with each position

  • @SpunkeyMonkey I take it from your lol that you don't really believe what you are saying. While the digital revolution has made lunar imaging more accessible than ever to the general public, spacecraft like LRO and Grail are mapping the moon with unprecedented detail. And all the data is available to you and I the public.

  • @SpunkeyMonkey

    NASA has cameras that make our consumer grade DSLR look like junk disposable $5 box film camera They'll be launching a camera with 1 trillion frame per second rates that capture the speed of light traveling that's mind blowing seeing a laser beam travel in slow motion as its activated. Go here to see to see a breathtaking incredible resolution HD vid of the moon and other NASA incredible pics flickr com photos gsfc

  • very cool, saw some ISS fly over stuff when googling that lens, mind blowing.

  • did u also use the digital zoom or was it just with the Lense?

  • @DoublePlatinum313

    Digital zoom @ 10x with 800mm+1.4tc

  • @denpeg68 mine has 36x zoom.

  • @denpeg68 do u use tripod?

  • @denpeg68 This is the authentic look through the telescope?

  • @denpeg68 and 1,6 crop :)

  • @DoublePlatinum313 There is no such thing as a lense. It's called a lens.

  • Cool !!!

  • Incredible video. Good luck

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more