Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Moab Man" data-source="post: 210810" data-attributes="member: 11881">OK my friend, I'm going to say your still drinking a few on this one. Distance to the moon is 238,857 miles (384,400 km).Diameter of the moon is 2159 miles (3474km) and we only see half of it so that means only 1079.5 miles (1737 km) would actually be focus stackable. Here is the problem. Using an American football field as a reference, it measures out at 300 feet (91.44 meters), we would be trying to focus stack a 32 inch ball (80 cm) with only 16 inches (40 cm.) of&nbsp; one side being focus stackable. That doesn't even touch on the atmosphere issues, or the fact the optics would fall off at a far greater rate over a quarter million miles than just the 300 (91.44 m) feet of the football field. At any aperture, at this distance, your depth of field is greater than the radius of the moon you would try and focus stack.&nbsp; Back to you my friend, your thoughts on this?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Moab Man, post: 210810, member: 11881"] OK my friend, I'm going to say your still drinking a few on this one. Distance to the moon is 238,857 miles (384,400 km). Diameter of the moon is 2159 miles (3474km) and we only see half of it so that means only 1079.5 miles (1737 km) would actually be focus stackable. Here is the problem. Using an American football field as a reference, it measures out at 300 feet (91.44 meters), we would be trying to focus stack a 32 inch ball (80 cm) with only 16 inches (40 cm.) of one side being focus stackable. That doesn't even touch on the atmosphere issues, or the fact the optics would fall off at a far greater rate over a quarter million miles than just the 300 (91.44 m) feet of the football field. At any aperture, at this distance, your depth of field is greater than the radius of the moon you would try and focus stack. Back to you my friend, your thoughts on this? [/QUOTE]

Verification