Have you ever attempted to capture and edit an image of the moon? How did it go, and what was the most challenging part? Also, you don't need fancy astrophotography equipment to take these types of images. Standard photography gear works great too. Lastly, if you use my files, I would be thrilled to see the unique masterpieces you create with them.
I'm just blown away by your production quality. Thank you for all your effort you put into it. I always eagerly wait for your videos. Please don't rush, take all the time you need.
It means a lot to me that you appreciate production quality. I won't rush the next videos, but I want to find ways to post more often. Thank you for visiting and for your encouraging comment 👍🏻
I just purchased a 10 inch dobsonian a few weeks ago. Haven't done visual astronomy forever. First target a few clear nights back was the MOON! In 60 years of photographing and looking at the moon, I've never seen such amazing detail. Like you said, a partial moon enhances the shadows, but wow, I was blown away. Like you said, moon = light pollution. This view was a treet. I was in awe. Still have to apply some "lucky imaging" SW (autostakkert) to the moon.
A 10 inch Dobsonian is a fantastic telescope to observe and image the Moon. For high-resolution observations and imaging, you really benefit from as much aperture as you can get. Yes, Moonlight is natural light pollution, but it's a great target too. I'm glad that you are enjoying your new scope. And thanks a lot for commenting 🙏🏻 Much appreciated.
I started visual observing a year ago with 10x42 Nikon binoculars. Then I added a tripod. Next I added a 30 year old Nikon ED 78 fieldscope (the moon is wonderful with a 30x eyepiece). Recently I've attempted to capture images through the ED 78 fieldscope with a camera adapter (800mm F8) on a full frame DSLR and FF Mirrorless with decent results but a lot of cropping. I've also attempted it with a 300mm f/2.8 lens and mirrorless ff camera. I think my next step will be with a $200 Pentax Q7, 300mm, 1.4x extender (420mm focal length). The moon should fill most of the camera's sensor. The smaller high pixel density sensor should improve my results (maybe). I will attempt to use the same processing techniques you are using. I'm trying to get the most out of the optics I currently have to learn the process. Great video.
I think using what you already have is a very smart. And there is a lot of used, affordable gear that can is still very capable. Good luck with experimenting :) And thanks for commenting. It means a lot to me :)
Awesome video, awesome story and fantastic images. Thank you so much for sharing your experience and knowledge with all of us. I'll try this here too, although I still have loads to learn. Greetings from Brazil.
As someone as uploads videos to youtube in a more of a showing what a particular scope can produce and what targets look like through my scopes (mostly planetary), your video of story telling and journey are a refreshing change from the norm and you have created a lovely video here that has been superbly produced. Congratulations on the video as i know from experience it probably took 30+ hrs to produce. I predict good things if you can maintain time and motivation to produce more content. I have subscribed and look forward to more. All the best Damo
Hi Damo, Thanks a lot for stopping by. I am glad that you like my storytelling approach. And you are right: The production of this video took a lot of time. I'm happy that you can appreciate that. Most people have no idea how much effort it takes to produce a video like that. I just subscribed to your channel. You have some exciting content, and I am sure I can learn quite a bit from you.
This is amazing! I need to go back to some of my old shots and see if I can make them better by using your methods. Thank you very much for sharing, and for the love you have for this!
Thanks for a great mineral moon video, I don't have a telescope but have a camera with a 70-200 and 1.4x convertor that I use for moon photography. I've tried to do mineral moon photography with this set up but don't have anywhere near the resolution that you have but enjoy nit nevertheless. My method so far has been 30 shots stacked and aligned as a smart object in Photoshop with the median stacking mode. I then sharpen and then add saturation lavers at 12 on the saturation scale until the colours look good which is usually after about 20 such layers. I've been quite happy with my results until I saw your excellent images 😂.I've always wanted to do the composites like you did with the clouds but always been very disappointed with my results so if you take requests I'd love to see how you do it. Great image and video, thanks Phil
Thanks for your kind words, Phil 😃 If you aim for a composite with clouds, your lower moon resolution matters less. It's more about the overall composition, and you will still have plenty of details on your moon. And thanks for "requesting" a moon and cloud compositing video. That's an excellent idea 👍🏻 For now, I have a few other videos planned, but I'll see what I can do in the future. Clear skies!
I have always wondered how the moon is 'colorized' in some of the web images. Thanks for showing the steps to achieve that. Your professorial style delivery was easy to follow and understand even for a novice like me. I read one of the viewer's concerns below about compounding errors through your post-processing method. I understand that most of the deep sky images posted by NASA are enhanced!
I'm happy that my video was helpful. You're correct that NASA's images are also enhanced. The post-processing that I present here aims to enhance subtle colour differences by layering multiple colour adjustments. Regarding the other viewers' concern: It's inaccurate to claim that there is no real colour in the image. With a well-calibrated monitor, I can perceive very subtle hue variances in different areas of the moon. Additionally, it's clear that these colour variations are limited to certain lunar features. Boosted and compounded random errors would create a messy, inconsistent result, which is not the case here. The best way to find out is to try these techniques for yourself. That's why I invite everyone to download the original files. Thanks a lot for watching and commenting 🙏🏻
Amazing photos and produced video. I have a few questions though to ask you if it’s OK. 1: i’m just using a canon R5 and RF 100-500 on a tripod. Being that I cannot track the moon to keep it centered. What did you do to do that when you used your camera set up and not your telescope with the tracking system? 2: how did you go about stacking all these images if you don’t have access to these programs that are only available on windows? I have Mac only and that’s all I can use. I want to try and do this myself, but I’m not sure how to go about doing it, I have tried Photoshop stacking feature, and it just never seems to do a really good job at all with it So I was hoping for some insight. Again thank you for a wonderful video.
Thank you so much for your kind words-I’m glad you enjoyed the video and the photos! I’m happy to help answer your questions. Keeping the Moon Centered: When I shoot the Moon without a tracking mount, I usually rely on a sturdy tripod and adjust manually as needed. Since the Moon moves quite fast, I find it’s best to use a remote shutter release or intervalometer to capture a burst of images quickly before the Moon drifts out of frame. You can also use your camera’s high-speed burst mode to capture many shots in quick succession, which increases your chances of getting sharp images. Image Stacking on a Mac: I totally understand the struggle with stacking software on Mac. While most popular stacking programs like AutoStakkert! are Windows-only, only a few are available for Mac. One of them is Lynkeos. I don't have personal experience with the software, but it could be an option for you. There's also the alternative of installing Windows on your Mac. Hopefully, this is helpful :) Best of luck with your lunar photography, and thank you again for watching the video!
I started with a DSLR, the buffer sucks,, using a Player One Artemis-C Pro, I capture .ser @ 250fps to 300fps. My most high res colour moon shot was made with 4200 frames out of the 7600 in the 1min video I took. Really makes a difference!
You are right. The buffer in DSLR or mirrorless cameras sucks. Taking high-frame-rate videos with an astro camera can give you excellent results. Did you do a mosaic?
@@CosmicCaptures 200mm reflector, fitted in full frame! Wombatzone on face book, I have heaps there and the moon shot. Ended up doing an A3 size print for my mum which came out really nice!
@@CosmicCaptures No problem, It's nice to see new astrophotography youtubers here! Thank you too for making this tutorial. I need this since i'm making a big project this year or next, a big mosaic of the moon that will be some gigabytes. And i'm either using a 16inch dob or my own 6 inch and i want to get these colors:) 😄
The full Moon color image here reminds me of the images people with cheap crap web cams who claim they are imaging lakes, seas grass field areas and so on.
Thanks for your comment! I appreciate your perspective. We all have different tastes and interpretations when it comes to lunar photography. I'm glad to share what I enjoy, and I hope others find it inspiring too.
At a certain point, once you've modified a picture so much it's no longer what it originally was. Completely negating taking the picture to begin with. Nothing wrong with needing a computer program to make images that your camera can't capture because it doesn't truly exist.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. For me, there's a big difference between creating something that doesn't actually exist and emphasizing, and at times even exaggerating, something that does exist. The result of emphasizing and exaggerating can lead to a highly stylized image, which may not be universally appreciated. Nevertheless, the outcome is based on real data without any invented additions.
You're right; the moon doesn't actually look like that. The reason for creating a mineral moon image is to bring out the subtle color variations in the lunar soil. These differences in hue and color are caused by the presence of various minerals that are more common in specific areas of the moon. It's a way to make visible what can't be seen with our eyes.ible what otherwise can not be seen with our eyes.
@@CosmicCaptures Thank you for this clarification Do your results compare with the USGS lunear geology map: www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/usgs-releases-first-ever-comprehensive-geologic-map-moon
@@hangfire6368 Absolutely❤️Never Stated It Wasnt That,And A Great Video..Just Not 100% Of What I Consider Astro,As Far As Processing..Beautiful Work Tho
@@CosmicCaptures ,I Didnt Mean Anything By It,Gorgeous Image,That I Know I Cant Produce,lol..In Fact,I Have Produced Much Over The Last Year,Now That Im Healed…This Weather🤨..Clear Skies To You🙏🏻✨🔭
Thanks for the kind words. I'm curious: What do you consider "Astro", and where does this picture of the Moon not align with your definition of astrophotography?
Your use of the CRF to createcolor and to duplicate the layers is just compounding errors every time you oversaturate the RGB channels in each new layer. You are creating colors that don’t exist by amplifying errors each time you add a new color adjustment layer. There is no color in your image that exists in reality. All you have demonstrated is poor post processing technique. An error compounded 13 times(est.) resulting in color you say exist in the “mineral moon” when in reality they are just a basic error in your post processing technique that you keep repeating multiple times .
Thanks for your detailed feedback! I appreciate you taking the time to watch my video and share your thoughts. I understand your concern about the colors in the images. The technique I used aims to highlight the Moon’s subtle color variations, which can be intensified through post-processing. While it's true that the saturation levels are enhanced, the underlying color differences are based on the Moon's actual mineral content, albeit exaggerated for visual effect. Astrophotography often involves pushing boundaries in post-processing to reveal hidden details, and it's important to avoid introducing artifacts. I’ll definitely take your advice to heart and work on refining my technique to maintain a better balance. Thanks again for your constructive criticism. If you have any specific suggestions, I’d love to hear them!
I agree. I've done the "mineral moon " technique before but I think you have to be careful with how far you push it. Appreciate the effort, but I think it's been pushed too far in this instance. It's feels like an HDR gone awry IMO. It doesn't look like what in real life. How do you find the balance between that and what you see in real life? That's the question for me. Cheers and thanks for sharing!
@NoSpaceSuitRequired Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I believe that Mineral Moon images can be valued for their departure from realism, as they aim to reveal what is often invisible to the naked eye. I have pushed the image to its limits to showcase this effect. The diversity of our tastes and perspectives is what makes astrophotography so rewarding.
Your comment does not make sense at all. If these colours do not exist in the image and have their origin in "errors", how come that all images of the "mineral moon" generated and published by thousands of people all show the same patterns, i.e. red and blue colour hues associated with the same geological features on the surface? Surely, errors in the original image or processing steps are randomly distributed. Of course these colour variations are real and get picked up by camera sensors that are more sensitive to these subtle variations than the human eye is. Post processing allows us to amplify these and make them visible on a screen. The extent of the amplification is a matter of taste, of course.
Have you ever attempted to capture and edit an image of the moon? How did it go, and what was the most challenging part?
Also, you don't need fancy astrophotography equipment to take these types of images. Standard photography gear works great too.
Lastly, if you use my files, I would be thrilled to see the unique masterpieces you create with them.
This is possibly the best mineral moon photo tutorial I've ever seen thank you so much.
Glad it was helpful! 😃
I'm just blown away by your production quality. Thank you for all your effort you put into it. I always eagerly wait for your videos. Please don't rush, take all the time you need.
It means a lot to me that you appreciate production quality. I won't rush the next videos, but I want to find ways to post more often. Thank you for visiting and for your encouraging comment 👍🏻
Yup, this channel is rivalling dedicated video producers channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Truly amazing work.
I’m very glad you see my channel that way. Thank you 🙏🏼
I just purchased a 10 inch dobsonian a few weeks ago. Haven't done visual astronomy forever. First target a few clear nights back was the MOON! In 60 years of photographing and looking at the moon, I've never seen such amazing detail. Like you said, a partial moon enhances the shadows, but wow, I was blown away. Like you said, moon = light pollution. This view was a treet. I was in awe. Still have to apply some "lucky imaging" SW (autostakkert) to the moon.
A 10 inch Dobsonian is a fantastic telescope to observe and image the Moon. For high-resolution observations and imaging, you really benefit from as much aperture as you can get. Yes, Moonlight is natural light pollution, but it's a great target too. I'm glad that you are enjoying your new scope. And thanks a lot for commenting 🙏🏻 Much appreciated.
Thanks so much for sharing all this! Now I know that the colours are just about there if we all just boost the saturation thrice...
Lovely story telling and lovely result. It's rare that we get both in the same video. Great work! ☺️
Thanks 🙏🏻 I'm glad you enjoyed the story aspect of the video 😃
Thank you very much for such a nice story and educational video about the journey to an incredible image. Beautiful image and thanks for sharing.
Thank you for your kind word. I am glad you enjoyed the video and the image. 🙏🏻
I started visual observing a year ago with 10x42 Nikon binoculars. Then I added a tripod. Next I added a 30 year old Nikon ED 78 fieldscope (the moon is wonderful with a 30x eyepiece). Recently I've attempted to capture images through the ED 78 fieldscope with a camera adapter (800mm F8) on a full frame DSLR and FF Mirrorless with decent results but a lot of cropping. I've also attempted it with a 300mm f/2.8 lens and mirrorless ff camera. I think my next step will be with a $200 Pentax Q7, 300mm, 1.4x extender (420mm focal length). The moon should fill most of the camera's sensor. The smaller high pixel density sensor should improve my results (maybe). I will attempt to use the same processing techniques you are using. I'm trying to get the most out of the optics I currently have to learn the process. Great video.
I think using what you already have is a very smart. And there is a lot of used, affordable gear that can is still very capable. Good luck with experimenting :) And thanks for commenting. It means a lot to me :)
many thanks for the files. your explanation and instruction on how to process was amazing.
Glad it was helpful!
A very thoughtful and complete workflow yielding beautiful Mineral Moon images! TY
I'm glad you enjoyed the video and thanks a lot for commenting :)
Awesome video, awesome story and fantastic images.
Thank you so much for sharing your experience and knowledge with all of us.
I'll try this here too, although I still have loads to learn.
Greetings from Brazil.
I'm glad you enjoyed the video. Thanks for commenting and good luck with your own Mineral Moon images 👍🏻
As someone as uploads videos to youtube in a more of a showing what a particular scope can produce and what targets look like through my scopes (mostly planetary), your video of story telling and journey are a refreshing change from the norm and you have created a lovely video here that has been superbly produced.
Congratulations on the video as i know from experience it probably took 30+ hrs to produce.
I predict good things if you can maintain time and motivation to produce more content. I have subscribed and look forward to more.
All the best
Damo
Hi Damo, Thanks a lot for stopping by. I am glad that you like my storytelling approach. And you are right: The production of this video took a lot of time. I'm happy that you can appreciate that. Most people have no idea how much effort it takes to produce a video like that.
I just subscribed to your channel. You have some exciting content, and I am sure I can learn quite a bit from you.
@@CosmicCaptures Thanks for the sub and comment, be sure to ask if you have any questions of any of the stuff I produce👌
Damo
This is amazing! I need to go back to some of my old shots and see if I can make them better by using your methods. Thank you very much for sharing, and for the love you have for this!
You're so welcome! I'd love to hear how that is going for you 👍🏻
Thanks for a great mineral moon video, I don't have a telescope but have a camera with a 70-200 and 1.4x convertor that I use for moon photography. I've tried to do mineral moon photography with this set up but don't have anywhere near the resolution that you have but enjoy nit nevertheless. My method so far has been 30 shots stacked and aligned as a smart object in Photoshop with the median stacking mode. I then sharpen and then add saturation lavers at 12 on the saturation scale until the colours look good which is usually after about 20 such layers. I've been quite happy with my results until I saw your excellent images 😂.I've always wanted to do the composites like you did with the clouds but always been very disappointed with my results so if you take requests I'd love to see how you do it. Great image and video, thanks Phil
Thanks for your kind words, Phil 😃
If you aim for a composite with clouds, your lower moon resolution matters less. It's more about the overall composition, and you will still have plenty of details on your moon.
And thanks for "requesting" a moon and cloud compositing video. That's an excellent idea 👍🏻 For now, I have a few other videos planned, but I'll see what I can do in the future.
Clear skies!
amazing work.
Glad you think so! Thanks for commenting 😃
Great video! Thank you for sahring your knowledge how to create amazing Moon photos.
My pleasure! Thanks for stopping by 😃
I have always wondered how the moon is 'colorized' in some of the web images. Thanks for showing the steps to achieve that. Your professorial style delivery was easy to follow and understand even for a novice like me. I read one of the viewer's concerns below about compounding errors through your post-processing method. I understand that most of the deep sky images posted by NASA are enhanced!
I'm happy that my video was helpful.
You're correct that NASA's images are also enhanced.
The post-processing that I present here aims to enhance subtle colour differences by layering multiple colour adjustments.
Regarding the other viewers' concern: It's inaccurate to claim that there is no real colour in the image. With a well-calibrated monitor, I can perceive very subtle hue variances in different areas of the moon. Additionally, it's clear that these colour variations are limited to certain lunar features. Boosted and compounded random errors would create a messy, inconsistent result, which is not the case here.
The best way to find out is to try these techniques for yourself. That's why I invite everyone to download the original files.
Thanks a lot for watching and commenting 🙏🏻
Amazing photos and produced video. I have a few questions though to ask you if it’s OK.
1: i’m just using a canon R5 and RF 100-500 on a tripod. Being that I cannot track the moon to keep it centered. What did you do to do that when you used your camera set up and not your telescope with the tracking system?
2: how did you go about stacking all these images if you don’t have access to these programs that are only available on windows? I have Mac only and that’s all I can use.
I want to try and do this myself, but I’m not sure how to go about doing it, I have tried Photoshop stacking feature, and it just never seems to do a really good job at all with it
So I was hoping for some insight. Again thank you for a wonderful video.
Thank you so much for your kind words-I’m glad you enjoyed the video and the photos! I’m happy to help answer your questions.
Keeping the Moon Centered: When I shoot the Moon without a tracking mount, I usually rely on a sturdy tripod and adjust manually as needed. Since the Moon moves quite fast, I find it’s best to use a remote shutter release or intervalometer to capture a burst of images quickly before the Moon drifts out of frame. You can also use your camera’s high-speed burst mode to capture many shots in quick succession, which increases your chances of getting sharp images.
Image Stacking on a Mac: I totally understand the struggle with stacking software on Mac. While most popular stacking programs like AutoStakkert! are Windows-only, only a few are available for Mac. One of them is Lynkeos. I don't have personal experience with the software, but it could be an option for you. There's also the alternative of installing Windows on your Mac.
Hopefully, this is helpful :)
Best of luck with your lunar photography, and thank you again for watching the video!
Sir I want to thank you for this video and I am a huge fan of your channel. I have learned so much from you and I can't wait for the next video.
You are most welcome. Thank you for following my astrophotography journey 😃
Well this was lovely thanks, nice final image.
I am glad you enjoyed it 😃
You sir have a very professionally produced channel, as well as interesting videos. Count me in; I subscribed.
Welcome aboard! Thanks for subscribing and your kind words 😃
I started with a DSLR, the buffer sucks,, using a Player One Artemis-C Pro, I capture .ser @ 250fps to 300fps. My most high res colour moon shot was made with 4200 frames out of the 7600 in the 1min video I took. Really makes a difference!
You are right. The buffer in DSLR or mirrorless cameras sucks. Taking high-frame-rate videos with an astro camera can give you excellent results. Did you do a mosaic?
@@CosmicCaptures 200mm reflector, fitted in full frame! Wombatzone on face book, I have heaps there and the moon shot. Ended up doing an A3 size print for my mum which came out really nice!
Great video ! Personnaly I call that a Stop screw but Toe saver is way funnier !
🤣 You are right, that's what it's called. Thanks for pointing that out and enjoying the video.
love the new style with more hands on/follow along storytelling and more tim personality! 🌌😊 super interesting 🌔
I'm glad you like it.
Completely new to here! Amazing video❤
Thank you for your kind words and welcome to Cosmic Captures :)
@@CosmicCaptures No problem, It's nice to see new astrophotography youtubers here! Thank you too for making this tutorial. I need this since i'm making a big project this year or next, a big mosaic of the moon that will be some gigabytes. And i'm either using a 16inch dob or my own 6 inch and i want to get these colors:) 😄
BEAUTIFUL MOVIE
I am glad you enjoyed the video 😃
The full Moon color image here reminds me of the images people with cheap crap web cams who claim they are imaging lakes, seas grass field areas and so on.
Thanks for your comment! I appreciate your perspective. We all have different tastes and interpretations when it comes to lunar photography. I'm glad to share what I enjoy, and I hope others find it inspiring too.
At a certain point, once you've modified a picture so much it's no longer what it originally was. Completely negating taking the picture to begin with. Nothing wrong with needing a computer program to make images that your camera can't capture because it doesn't truly exist.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. For me, there's a big difference between creating something that doesn't actually exist and emphasizing, and at times even exaggerating, something that does exist.
The result of emphasizing and exaggerating can lead to a highly stylized image, which may not be universally appreciated. Nevertheless, the outcome is based on real data without any invented additions.
Nice equipment. Interesting result. But I'm confused. The moon doesn't look that way. Why would anyone want to do this?
You're right; the moon doesn't actually look like that. The reason for creating a mineral moon image is to bring out the subtle color variations in the lunar soil. These differences in hue and color are caused by the presence of various minerals that are more common in specific areas of the moon. It's a way to make visible what can't be seen with our eyes.ible what otherwise can not be seen with our eyes.
@@CosmicCaptures Thank you for this clarification Do your results compare with the USGS lunear geology map: www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/usgs-releases-first-ever-comprehensive-geologic-map-moon
This Is Art..Not Astro In My Opinion
It is fine art. In my opinion.
@@hangfire6368 Absolutely❤️Never Stated It Wasnt That,And A Great Video..Just Not 100% Of What I Consider Astro,As Far As Processing..Beautiful Work Tho
I never considered it to be fine art. It's just an attempt to conserve a moment of my astrophotography journey. Thanks for commenting :)
@@CosmicCaptures ,I Didnt Mean Anything By It,Gorgeous Image,That I Know I Cant Produce,lol..In Fact,I Have Produced Much Over The Last Year,Now That Im Healed…This Weather🤨..Clear Skies To You🙏🏻✨🔭
Thanks for the kind words. I'm curious: What do you consider "Astro", and where does this picture of the Moon not align with your definition of astrophotography?
Your use of the CRF to createcolor and to duplicate the layers is just compounding errors every time you oversaturate the RGB channels in each new layer. You are creating colors that don’t exist by amplifying errors each time you add a new color adjustment layer. There is no color in your image that exists in reality. All you have demonstrated is poor post processing technique. An error compounded 13 times(est.) resulting in color you say exist in the “mineral moon” when in reality they are just a basic error in your post processing technique that you keep repeating multiple times .
Thanks for your detailed feedback! I appreciate you taking the time to watch my video and share your thoughts.
I understand your concern about the colors in the images. The technique I used aims to highlight the Moon’s subtle color variations, which can be intensified through post-processing. While it's true that the saturation levels are enhanced, the underlying color differences are based on the Moon's actual mineral content, albeit exaggerated for visual effect.
Astrophotography often involves pushing boundaries in post-processing to reveal hidden details, and it's important to avoid introducing artifacts. I’ll definitely take your advice to heart and work on refining my technique to maintain a better balance.
Thanks again for your constructive criticism. If you have any specific suggestions, I’d love to hear them!
I agree. I've done the "mineral moon " technique before but I think you have to be careful with how far you push it. Appreciate the effort, but I think it's been pushed too far in this instance. It's feels like an HDR gone awry IMO. It doesn't look like what in real life. How do you find the balance between that and what you see in real life? That's the question for me. Cheers and thanks for sharing!
@NoSpaceSuitRequired Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I believe that Mineral Moon images can be valued for their departure from realism, as they aim to reveal what is often invisible to the naked eye. I have pushed the image to its limits to showcase this effect. The diversity of our tastes and perspectives is what makes astrophotography so rewarding.
Your comment does not make sense at all. If these colours do not exist in the image and have their origin in "errors", how come that all images of the "mineral moon" generated and published by thousands of people all show the same patterns, i.e. red and blue colour hues associated with the same geological features on the surface? Surely, errors in the original image or processing steps are randomly distributed.
Of course these colour variations are real and get picked up by camera sensors that are more sensitive to these subtle variations than the human eye is. Post processing allows us to amplify these and make them visible on a screen. The extent of the amplification is a matter of taste, of course.
Awesome video - thanks!
Glad you liked it! Thanks for commenting 🙏🏻