Stars and TimeLapse

[Liberalis]

I was just wondering, as some stars are farther away than others, would some seemingly move faster than said others ?

And if so, would using a kind of timelapse method give a very cool 3D effect of the nights sky ?

 

[WeddingHack]

I'm no expert, but I would imagine the star movement that we see in the night sky is due to the rotation of our planet rather than the relative movement or distance of the stars involved.

Surely the distance to any star is so enormous that we wouldn't be able to notice any difference in movement, not with the naked eye anyway. Even comets within our own solar system appear fixed in the sky over the course of a night.

 

[Canon Bob]

Theoretically there would be a parallax shift but so small that it would be indecernable. If something is moving more than that then it's a comet or suchlike. If a comet doesn't appear to be moving then there's a 50% chance that you should prepare to duck!

Bob

 

[DiddyDave]

Anyone got a 'Hits the nail on the head' smilie for WeddingHack?

Imagine this Bonfire night photographing someone holding a sparkler - if the camera was fixed on a tripod on 'B' and the sparkler moved in a circle you'd get a light-trail effect; similarly if the sparkler was stuck in the ground and you moved the camera in a circle you'd see the same effect

What matters is their relative movement to each other

Stars are so far away that effectively they don't move for the length of your photo, but you do as the Earth is spinning (okay it's moving in other directions too, but that's pretty much irrelevant here)

So in the above analogy, the sparkler (star) appears fixed and you (the Earth) is spinning the camera

Clear as mud

 

[DiddyDave]

T If a comet doesn't appear to be moving then there's a 50% chance that you should prepare to duck!

Bob

50% as in if it's getting bigger or smaller?

Smaller = nice comet, wave bye-bye

Bigger = kiss ass bye-bye

 

[Liberalis]

fair enough, just thought I would ask. Thanks for the input guys.