Its likely the S25 did well because it knows what the moon looks like so it fakes the details.
Since the Galaxy S21 series, Scene Optimiser has had the capacity to recognise the moon as an object. This means that the detail enhancement engine, a key feature of Scene Optimiser, is applied to photos of the moon.
When you take a photo of the moon with your Galaxy device, the camera system uses deep learning-based AI, along with multi-frame processing, to enhance details.
Doesn't Samsung use AI models to fill in images of the moon with higher resolution detail? Not sure if this comparison makes sense given that the astrophotography device almost certainly won't be doing that.
Gonna be some wild conspiracies some day in the future, when humanity has altered the moon visibly but 'good old phones from way back in the day' take photos that "clearly" show no change to the moon.
Slightly off-topic but as a fairly serious backyard astronomer I almost never look at the full moon with my telescope because it's boring. Full moons are like cloudy skies: The viewing will be shitty tonight so best not to even set up the 'scope.
But looking at the terminator during a partial moon -- especially a new moon -- is quite spectacular.
Partial moons are great for viewing. I almost never look at the moon, instead preferring Venus (same crescent as the moon!), Mars (ice caps!) and Saturn (over the course of my life, I've seen the ring system tilt). Not to mention the moons of Jupiter. Or some really bright nebulae.
However, for sharing photos or for people new to astronomy, the full moon is a very good target. Craters and shiny mountaintops are difficult to understand at first, but the large mare and Tycho crater are very prominent. Over the course of an hour, you can show them how the moon moves not only in relation to the Earth (because the telescope needs adjusting) but also relative to the background stars. And lastly, they can look up at the moon after they've pulled their eye away from the eyepiece, and still see detail. For that moment on, they'll look at the moon with a sense of familiarity - not just a disk in the sky but now an intricate object which they had one seen in intimate detail.
I fully agree! But at least this shot with the Seestar 50 motivates me to try to get a more sharp shot on the full moon with my telescope. Just to prove to myself that I can do that.
I get the impression this is not a 'serious' question of what you need but more of a review of both products. I have to say, for such a small telescope, that Seestar S50 is a very attractive little thing. And for that price, I'm really considering getting one.
I have one and also a small dobsonian optical telescope and a larger, heavier astrophotography setup. The Seestar gets the most use out of all of them, mainly because of convenience.
It’s neat being able to set it up in the back yard and let it go for a few hours, unlike my other rig which takes ages to set up and needs a lot of babysitting. It also packs away into a tidy little case that doesn’t take much room in the car.
On the other hand you’re limited by the small aperture lens and the quality of the camera, compared to a larger rig.
There are rumours of a follow-up model to the S50 but no idea when that will be launched.
I briefly debated a telescope and go-to mount to supplement my already existing high end DSLR.
But having tried doing telescope astrophotography briefly before and being discouraged by the hassle of heavy gear and complex setup I decided to go for both convenience and price and bought the S50.
It's compact, it's all in-one, Inclues tripod. It have solar filters as part of the kit. It have an app that works great with go-to functions and so on.
The convenience factor makes it a pleasant breeze to use(astrophotography can be a very inconvenient and fiddly hobby) and the price point is hard to beat. A very pleasant entry point to astrophotography, the dwarf 3 and S20 being the other options and I would advice against spending more before you have 200 hours of observations logged(which if you actually like the hobby will not take particularly much time)
The telescope's result seems poor, especially considering its price tag and limited usability. Perhaps it's the image compression/post-production issue, but you can get much better results with an average DSLR and a budget 250-300 mm lens, which will offer much more for a similar price.
What's the point of taking your own highly detailed photos of the moon? You can find much higher resolution images elsewhere. I usually only want to take a photo of the moon as part of a moonlit scene.
I love observing the moon, whether that's taking a picture with a telephoto or peeping through telescope.
There's something special about seeing the craters with your own eyes and then sharing that with friends. The framing & cropping, zoom, color of the sky are all unique to that experience.
Plus the moon is always looking slightly different each time, with different areas shadowed; fuzzy details one day are sharp the next.
And it's a skill like any other, which feels great to improve day after day.
Most people take photos of DSO's, but while you've got the gear, why not photograph the moon. It's also technically fun. Using a cooled camera, I video the moon/Jupiter at 20fps at 3000x3000. Then using software, I only take the frames where there is minimal atmospheric distortion. With the remaining frames, you stack them to get a very detailed image of the moon/planets.
Look up the other gear from ZWO the maker of the seestar.
They have active Peltier coolers and you use mains power, a portable battery box, or the 12V output from your car. You also need to power a computer or laptop to capture the images.
Roboscopes like the Seestar are an all-in-one kit and have internal batteries that last about 3-4 hours (although for the moon you don't need more than a minute or so). The S50 can take uncompressed video, which you can then process as GP describes but, compared to a more powerful setup, the camera is 1920x1080 and uncooled, the framerate is limited to 30fps, and it only has a 50mm aperture.
To expand on that a bit, the moon is directly lit by the sun. A proper exposure for the moon is not different from any other scene brightly lit by the sun.
We often associate moon with night, and night with needing high ISO, long exposure and wide open aperture. And when you use the auto mode on camera's, that is indeed what you will get because even with telephoto lenses the moon is only a small part of the field of view, so the camera will base its exposure on the dark sky around the moon. That will case an overexposed moon, with a lack of contrast.
(Another issue you'll encounter trying the view or photograph the moon is that when viewed with large amplification, the moon is actually pretty fast and you're going to have to re-aim your camera regularly.)
Its likely the S25 did well because it knows what the moon looks like so it fakes the details.
Since the Galaxy S21 series, Scene Optimiser has had the capacity to recognise the moon as an object. This means that the detail enhancement engine, a key feature of Scene Optimiser, is applied to photos of the moon.
When you take a photo of the moon with your Galaxy device, the camera system uses deep learning-based AI, along with multi-frame processing, to enhance details.
https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-galaxy...
The OP has not said anything about turning the relevant options off.
Doesn't Samsung use AI models to fill in images of the moon with higher resolution detail? Not sure if this comparison makes sense given that the astrophotography device almost certainly won't be doing that.
Some technical detail from an older thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35172190
Or just generate the thing with AI in the first place. Almost as romantic and you don't get cold.
You can stop that by turning scene optimiser off.
https://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-galaxy...
Gonna be some wild conspiracies some day in the future, when humanity has altered the moon visibly but 'good old phones from way back in the day' take photos that "clearly" show no change to the moon.
Those phones will be long dead at that point, as well as the cloud services they depend on.
Slightly off-topic but as a fairly serious backyard astronomer I almost never look at the full moon with my telescope because it's boring. Full moons are like cloudy skies: The viewing will be shitty tonight so best not to even set up the 'scope.
But looking at the terminator during a partial moon -- especially a new moon -- is quite spectacular.
Partial moons are great for viewing. I almost never look at the moon, instead preferring Venus (same crescent as the moon!), Mars (ice caps!) and Saturn (over the course of my life, I've seen the ring system tilt). Not to mention the moons of Jupiter. Or some really bright nebulae.
However, for sharing photos or for people new to astronomy, the full moon is a very good target. Craters and shiny mountaintops are difficult to understand at first, but the large mare and Tycho crater are very prominent. Over the course of an hour, you can show them how the moon moves not only in relation to the Earth (because the telescope needs adjusting) but also relative to the background stars. And lastly, they can look up at the moon after they've pulled their eye away from the eyepiece, and still see detail. For that moment on, they'll look at the moon with a sense of familiarity - not just a disk in the sky but now an intricate object which they had one seen in intimate detail.
I fully agree! But at least this shot with the Seestar 50 motivates me to try to get a more sharp shot on the full moon with my telescope. Just to prove to myself that I can do that.
Well, the moon is just beautiful
I get the impression this is not a 'serious' question of what you need but more of a review of both products. I have to say, for such a small telescope, that Seestar S50 is a very attractive little thing. And for that price, I'm really considering getting one.
I have one and also a small dobsonian optical telescope and a larger, heavier astrophotography setup. The Seestar gets the most use out of all of them, mainly because of convenience.
It’s neat being able to set it up in the back yard and let it go for a few hours, unlike my other rig which takes ages to set up and needs a lot of babysitting. It also packs away into a tidy little case that doesn’t take much room in the car.
On the other hand you’re limited by the small aperture lens and the quality of the camera, compared to a larger rig.
There are rumours of a follow-up model to the S50 but no idea when that will be launched.
I briefly debated a telescope and go-to mount to supplement my already existing high end DSLR.
But having tried doing telescope astrophotography briefly before and being discouraged by the hassle of heavy gear and complex setup I decided to go for both convenience and price and bought the S50.
It's compact, it's all in-one, Inclues tripod. It have solar filters as part of the kit. It have an app that works great with go-to functions and so on.
The convenience factor makes it a pleasant breeze to use(astrophotography can be a very inconvenient and fiddly hobby) and the price point is hard to beat. A very pleasant entry point to astrophotography, the dwarf 3 and S20 being the other options and I would advice against spending more before you have 200 hours of observations logged(which if you actually like the hobby will not take particularly much time)
Pointless article really.
Casual shots of the moon, a phone is fine (duh). High quality shots of the moon you need a telescope (duh).
The telescope's result seems poor, especially considering its price tag and limited usability. Perhaps it's the image compression/post-production issue, but you can get much better results with an average DSLR and a budget 250-300 mm lens, which will offer much more for a similar price.
So many comments about scene optimizer replacing the moon. It's a feature that's off by default atleast in my s24.
What's the point of taking your own highly detailed photos of the moon? You can find much higher resolution images elsewhere. I usually only want to take a photo of the moon as part of a moonlit scene.
I love observing the moon, whether that's taking a picture with a telephoto or peeping through telescope.
There's something special about seeing the craters with your own eyes and then sharing that with friends. The framing & cropping, zoom, color of the sky are all unique to that experience.
Plus the moon is always looking slightly different each time, with different areas shadowed; fuzzy details one day are sharp the next.
And it's a skill like any other, which feels great to improve day after day.
Whats the point of taking photos of nature, when there are much better ones out there?
Its about having a hobby. Let us all be frivolous.
Most people take photos of DSO's, but while you've got the gear, why not photograph the moon. It's also technically fun. Using a cooled camera, I video the moon/Jupiter at 20fps at 3000x3000. Then using software, I only take the frames where there is minimal atmospheric distortion. With the remaining frames, you stack them to get a very detailed image of the moon/planets.
Look up the other gear from ZWO the maker of the seestar.
Could you explain the stacking process or put up a link explaining it?
How do you cool them? Dry ice?
Also how do the batteries hold up, or are you powering it off a cable then?
They have active Peltier coolers and you use mains power, a portable battery box, or the 12V output from your car. You also need to power a computer or laptop to capture the images.
Roboscopes like the Seestar are an all-in-one kit and have internal batteries that last about 3-4 hours (although for the moon you don't need more than a minute or so). The S50 can take uncompressed video, which you can then process as GP describes but, compared to a more powerful setup, the camera is 1920x1080 and uncooled, the framerate is limited to 30fps, and it only has a 50mm aperture.
You can also find much higher resolution images in the phone's generative AI "image enhancement" model.
What's the point of taking a photo of Big Ben? I can get much better photos elsewhere.
The author asks, "So... do you need a telescope?" then politely and politically answers the question.
I, however, looking at the side-by-side comparison, would answer, "hell yes."
NASA PDF guide to create good photos with smartphones:
https://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/SMBooks/AstrophotographyV1.p...
Incidentaly, the S25 has an astrophotography mode which can be used to take a picture of Milky Way and such (in a low light-pollution zone).
Samsung phones use pre baked images of the moon. This is not a great test.
They do, but not in Pro mode: (S23U) https://ibb.co/B2hN7jwZ
Does the Samsung have night mode?
Yes, but it's irrelevant here.
To expand on that a bit, the moon is directly lit by the sun. A proper exposure for the moon is not different from any other scene brightly lit by the sun.
We often associate moon with night, and night with needing high ISO, long exposure and wide open aperture. And when you use the auto mode on camera's, that is indeed what you will get because even with telephoto lenses the moon is only a small part of the field of view, so the camera will base its exposure on the dark sky around the moon. That will case an overexposed moon, with a lack of contrast.
(Another issue you'll encounter trying the view or photograph the moon is that when viewed with large amplification, the moon is actually pretty fast and you're going to have to re-aim your camera regularly.)
Night mode uses image stacking, denoising, and HDRI to improve the image quality. It should make a difference here?
Honestly the main thing I notice is how awful the color balance is on the telescope.
[dead]