So, I've built a barn door tracker:

enter image description here

and I was astonished that pictures just got better:

enter image description here

That's Alcor and Mizar, and in the top right part, the fuzzy thing is the Pinwheel Galaxy (M101). It's a single exposure (30 s, +1.5 EV --> ISO 6400), shot with my Sony Alpha 6000 and a Varexon 135 mm f=2.8 lens.

Though I'm now able to reduce motion blur, the pictures still look... interesting. I made the pictures on a parking lot though, with some street lamps some 150 ft away.

And here are three exposures stacked (same 30 s, same ISO 6400), with a very interesting motion blur.

enter image description here

Are there any suggestions for my next steps? Is there a way to further improve the sharpness of the images? (I guess I have to weigh down the tripod a bit more, even when I'm careful not to shake the contraption.)

My other lenses are:

  • Speedmaster 35 mm f=0.95 (truly great but gets blurry at the edges at wide apertures)
  • Minolta 50 mm f=1.7
  • Osawa MC 28 mm f=2.8
  • a 500 mirror lens, f=8 (talk about dark images...)
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Did you build your barn door to compensate for tangent error (i.e., with a curved drive rod, or micro controller control of the drive motor)? What is your polar alignment technique/process? \$\endgroup\$
    – scottbb
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 18:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ No, it's all manual and I use a straight drive rod - it's the first barn door tracker I've ever built. The camera doesn't allow for more than 30 seconds of exposure, anyway. I just make sure to rewind the drive rod back to avoid that (small) tangent error. \$\endgroup\$
    – user258532
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 23:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ Alignment technique? Uh, I just align the hinge towards Polaris. Manually. \$\endgroup\$
    – user258532
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 23:51

3 Answers 3


Also to reduce blur further dont take images in the wind and use a remote shutter release preferably a wireless one and one other point is if you dont have mirror lock then get a black card place over the lens open the shutter and count to 5 slowly then take the card away. It compensates for the camera movement.

  • \$\begingroup\$ MacGyver Mirror Up mode :) \$\endgroup\$
    – MrUpsidown
    Commented Mar 28, 2020 at 13:56

We can see that the shift between the exposures is only visible at the very left side and in the top right corner, while the rest seems to be ok. This might indicate that something with the alignment of the images before the stacking went wrong and that it probably is not motion blur:

With this setup of a barn door tracker you can probably improve the tracking within a single exposure but not across multiple exposures (such that the same star hits the very same pixel of your sensor in every exposure), so I assume there was a slight shift between the exposures. This means that the distortion due to the wide angle lens was slightly shifted across the exposures.

So my guess is that you did not do any (or not a good enough) correction of the lens distortion before stacking. This is especially important for wide angle lenses as their distortion (usually) varies more across the image.

This is just my guess from my (limited) experience, so maybe it is something else. But in any case, keep trying:)

  • \$\begingroup\$ Mh, does the 135 mm lens create such a distortion? Anyway, I've got to make a lot more pictures to get the hang out of astrophotography. That I managed to capture M101 from a parking lot is already a success in my book. \$\endgroup\$
    – user258532
    Commented Apr 19, 2018 at 23:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ One way to see how much distortion there might be is printing a sheet with a rectangular grid of lines or dots. (Or use an appropriate cutting mat or whatever you can get your hands on.) If you then place your camera on a tripod and take multiple shots with the very same settings but panning slightly from the left to the right (or up and down). Then take them into your favourite image editing software and try to align them with respect to the center of the sheet. By observing how much the lines from the different shots diverge from the center, you can estimate how much distortion you get. \$\endgroup\$
    – flawr
    Commented Apr 20, 2018 at 17:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user258532 Wide aperture 135mm lenses can have a surprising amount of geometric distortion. Sometimes it can be pincushion, rather than barrel distortion like WA lenses, but distortion is distortion. It's usually the result of uncorrected/undercorrected field curvature that is left that way because it helps provide the creamy bokeh such (wide aperture, medium telephoto) lenses are known for when used at wide apertures for taking portraits. Lenses heavily corrected for field curvature also tend to demonstrate 'busy' or even 'harsh' bokeh which makes them less attractive to use for portraits. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Sep 11, 2018 at 19:04

The answer is find a way to a make a lot of money. No, it does not seem very helpful right now. But clearly I can see that one day you will look back on this and find that was really this best answer.

Your photos are fantastic for what you have made. The Earth is spinning. The sky is moving fast. The more you zoom in, the faster it is moving relative to the pixels of your sensor.

Your barndoor tracker is negating some of the motion of the stars. But the axis has to be aligned to the Earth's axis and has to move the camera at the same speed the stars are moving. Any error will leave some star motion.

There are two things you can do to get rid of blur. Your choices are better tracking or shorter exposures. (To a lesser extent a wider field of view will also hide the motion blur too.)

Shorter exposures mean less data, more noise. The goal is usually the longest exposures you can get. That leaves you with better tracking on a better mount. There are a lot of star trackers you can easily look up. But those lead to better photos which leads to bigger heaver telescopes which leads to german equatorial mounts which leads to... needing a bigger income!


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.