<p>With lucky imaging, Earth telescopes can achieve a resolution of <a href="https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations-richard-wright/lucky-imaging/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">about 0.1 arcsecond</a> (or about <span class="math-container">$5×10^{-7}$</span>rad) This is limited by the atmosphere, and having a big, professional telescope actually doesn't help much.</p>
<p>A fact of using lucky imaging is that you don't get the same resolution across the area that you are imaging. Some parts may, by luck, achieve higher resolutions than others.</p>
<p>With 0.1 arcsecond resolution at lunar distance is about 200m.  Quite impressive, but a lot larger than a proverbial &quot;tennis ball&quot;.  The VLT will have been using adaptive optics and working in the infrared (where <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14795/7982">the twinkling caused by the atmosphere can be compensated for</a> more easily) It is also doing astrometry rather than imaging. It is possible to get sub-arcsecond astrometry even if the source is not fully resolved.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-01T10:20:17.370Z
2021-09-01T16:48:14.840Z
2021-09-01T16:48:14.840Z
James K
<p>Andrew McCarthy, a Californian stargazer captured a 81-megapixel image (9000px by 9000px) of the Moon <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly_50000_images_of_the_night_sky_to/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">and posted it on Redditt.</a>  The image was captured using an Orion XT10 telescope, a Skywatcher EQ6-R Pro mount and two cameras: a Sony A7II and a ZWO ASI224MC. The bright half of the moon was processed separately with 25 &quot;tiles&quot; that were stitched together using Photoshop. McCarthy told Forbes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each one of these tiles was a 'stack' created using the best 1,000 images taken with the ZWO camera. The stacks were then processed using Autostakkert and the photograph finished on Photoshop.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/6eeq6.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/6eeq6.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><sub>(The image at 4 different magnifications)</sub></p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>References</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><a href="https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/breathtaking-high-resolution-photo-of-the-moon-leaves-reddit-users-crooning-6103661.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/breathtaking-high-resolution-photo-of-the-moon-leaves-reddit-users-crooning-6103661.html</a></li>
<li>Another high res photo of moon on reddit: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5tiojb/high_resolution_picture_of_the_moon/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5tiojb/high_resolution_picture_of_the_moon/</a></li>
<li>100-megapixel photo of moon captured by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: <a href="https://mymodernmet.com/100-megapixel-moon-photograph/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://mymodernmet.com/100-megapixel-moon-photograph/</a></li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-02T05:05:14.933Z
If this is the highest *resolution* image, can you add what the resolution of the image was?
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-02T05:54:20.953Z
@uhoh [According to the image author, the image is 9000 px by 9000 px](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/apy9an/i_created_an_ultrahq_moon_wallpaper_by_combining/). I don't know if this is the *highest* res photo of moon captured from Earth, but it is *one of the* highest res photo captured.
Nilay Ghosh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-02T05:57:43.030Z
That's *size* or perhaps *display resolution* but not necessarily actual photographic resolution. Can they resolve 1 arc second? 10 meters on the surface? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-08-02T03:31:21.100Z
2021-08-02T05:52:06.260Z
2021-08-02T05:52:06.260Z
Nilay Ghosh
<p>According to this article:</p>

<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/26/star-spotted-speeding-near-milky-way-black-hole-for-first-time" rel="noreferrer">https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/26/star-spotted-speeding-near-milky-way-black-hole-for-first-time</a></p>

<p>the Very Large Telescope is "powerful enough to see a tennis ball on the moon from Earth".  I guess that the moon is much to bright and moves too fast for the VLT to take good pictures of it, but it got me wondering: what is the most magnified picture of the moon ever taken from Earth?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T11:11:08.083Z
I assume you mean taken from Earth. Lunar landers will have taken some very close-up photos
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T14:51:24.447Z
One further comment. "Most magnified" is not really a helpful way to think of it. If I took a picture with my phone, but then blew up one pixel of it until it was the size of Manhattan, that photo could be very magnified, but it would contain very little detail. What an astronomer would care about is the "highest resolution" photograph (ie the one where the smallest distances on the moon can be distinguished).
Steve Linton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-31T16:49:39.500Z
However, if you search for "Can we see the Apollo landing sites" then you get the answer no even though many items larger than a tennis ball were left behind.  https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/can-we-use-telescopes-to-see-if-the-moon-landings-were-real.html
badjohn
<the-moon><telescope>
What is the highest resolution image of the moon taken from Earth's surface?
viggo
# What is the highest resolution image of the moon taken from Earth's surface?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-07-27)

According to this article:

<https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/26/star-spotted-speeding-near-milky-way-black-hole-for-first-time>

the Very Large Telescope is "powerful enough to see a tennis ball on the moon from Earth". I guess that the moon is much to bright and moves too fast for the VLT to take good pictures of it, but it got me wondering: what is the most magnified picture of the moon ever taken from Earth?

**Tags:** the-moon, telescope
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I assume you mean taken from Earth. Lunar landers will have taken some very close-up photos  
> **username_1**: One further comment. "Most magnified" is not really a helpful way to think of it. If I took a picture with my phone, but then blew up one pixel of it until it was the size of Manhattan, that photo could be very magnified, but it would contain very little detail. What an astronomer would care about is the "highest resolution" photograph (ie the one where the smallest distances on the moon can be distinguished).  
> **username_2**: However, if you search for "Can we see the Apollo landing sites" then you get the answer no even though many items larger than a tennis ball were left behind.  https://www.scienceabc.com/eyeopeners/can-we-use-telescopes-to-see-if-the-moon-landings-were-real.html  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-09-01. Score: 3

With lucky imaging, Earth telescopes can achieve a resolution of [about 0.1 arcsecond](https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations-richard-wright/lucky-imaging/) (or about $5×10^{-7}$rad) This is limited by the atmosphere, and having a big, professional telescope actually doesn't help much.

A fact of using lucky imaging is that you don't get the same resolution across the area that you are imaging. Some parts may, by luck, achieve higher resolutions than others.

With 0.1 arcsecond resolution at lunar distance is about 200m. Quite impressive, but a lot larger than a proverbial "tennis ball". The VLT will have been using adaptive optics and working in the infrared (where [the twinkling caused by the atmosphere can be compensated for](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/14795/7982) more easily) It is also doing astrometry rather than imaging. It is possible to get sub-arcsecond astrometry even if the source is not fully resolved.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-08-02. Score: 3

Andrew McCarthy, a Californian stargazer captured a 81-megapixel image (9000px by 9000px) of the Moon [and posted it on Redditt.](https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/arer0k/i_took_nearly_50000_images_of_the_night_sky_to/) The image was captured using an Orion XT10 telescope, a Skywatcher EQ6-R Pro mount and two cameras: a Sony A7II and a ZWO ASI224MC. The bright half of the moon was processed separately with 25 "tiles" that were stitched together using Photoshop. McCarthy told Forbes:

> Each one of these tiles was a 'stack' created using the best 1,000 images taken with the ZWO camera. The stacks were then processed using Autostakkert and the photograph finished on Photoshop.
>
> [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/6eeq6.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/6eeq6.jpg)
>
> (The image at 4 different magnifications)

**References**

1. <https://www.firstpost.com/tech/science/breathtaking-high-resolution-photo-of-the-moon-leaves-reddit-users-crooning-6103661.html>
2. Another high res photo of moon on reddit: <https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5tiojb/high_resolution_picture_of_the_moon/>
3. 100-megapixel photo of moon captured by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: <https://mymodernmet.com/100-megapixel-moon-photograph/>

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: If this is the highest *resolution* image, can you add what the resolution of the image was?  
> **username_4**: @uhoh [According to the image author, the image is 9000 px by 9000 px](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/apy9an/i_created_an_ultrahq_moon_wallpaper_by_combining/). I don't know if this is the *highest* res photo of moon captured from Earth, but it is *one of the* highest res photo captured.  
> **username_5**: That's *size* or perhaps *display resolution* but not necessarily actual photographic resolution. Can they resolve 1 arc second? 10 meters on the surface? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution  

---

