See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258456934

Using Smartphone Camera Technology to Explore Stellar Parallax: Method,

Results, and Reactions

Article  in  Astronomy Education Review · December 2011

DOI: 10.3847/AER2011028

CITATIONS READS

2 714

4 authors, including:

Michael Fitzgerald David Mckinnon

Edith Cowan University Charles Sturt University
33 PUBLICATIONS   178 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   406 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lena Danaia
Charles Sturt University
27 PUBLICATIONS   164 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Towards ensuring a STEM workforce: Engaging industry to inspire and foster real world STEM teacher learning. View project

PILBARA REHABILITATION EDUCATION PROJECT (PREP): EXPLORING REAL SCIENCE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Fitzgerald on 07 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A L I V E LY E L E C T R O N I C C O M P E N D I U M O F R E S E A R C H , N E W S , R E S O U R C E S, A N D O P I N I O N

Astronomy Education Review

2011, AER, 10, 010108-1, 10.3847/AER2011028

Using Smartphone Camera Technology to Explore Stellar

Parallax: Method, Results, and Reactions
Michael T. Fitzgerald
Macquarie University Research Centre in Astronomy, Astrophysics and Astrophotonics, Department of Physics
and Astronomy, Macquarie University, Australia
David H. McKinnon
School of Teacher Education,
Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia
Lena Danaia
School of Teacher Education,
Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia
Sandra Woodward
Oakhill College, Castle Hill, Australia
Received: 09/14/11, Accepted: 12/5/11, Published: 12/22/11

C 2011 The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.

V

Abstract
The use of a smartphone, with both still and video capabilities, to develop the concepts surrounding stellar
parallax is described. The hands-on activities generate useful discussion amongst high school students. Reactions
of both students and teachers are presented.

1. INTRODUCTION
Stellar parallax is a concept that is dealt with infrequently in the high school classroom other than by qualitative
consideration of stereoscopic parallax and argument by analogy, such as that outlined in Zeilik (1998). The most
common approach involves students being asked to view their finger held at arm’s length and first viewing it
from one eye and then the other. They “see” their finger’s apparent movement against the background of the
room. Following this qualitative approach, the unit of distance used in astronomy is introduced from a
definitional point of view: “The parsec is the distance of an object at which the angle subtended by a baseline
equal to the distance between the Earth and the Sun is one second of arc.” This description is quite abstract,
however, and it is unlikely that students will really get a conceptual feel for the idea of a parsec as a distance
measure from an abstract mathematical statement. As the parsec is the fundamental unit of distance in
astronomy, it is important that students have some strong insight to what this unit actually means (Marin 2010).

We assessed a sample of diagrams available on the internet using a Google Image search. The first 50 diagrams
presented from the search term “Stellar Parallax” were examined. Out of the 50 diagrams, 18 showed the
alternative conception that all stars in the night sky “wobble” in a straight line, a further 20 showed the special
case, where the star is on the ecliptic equator where they actually do wobble in a straight line, and a further 7 had
major faults. Only five out of the 50 diagrams accurately represented the relationship between the Earth–Sun
orbit and the parallactic ellipse in the sky. That is to say, of this sample of 50 diagrams, only 10% could be
considered to be scientifically accurate and a complete conceptual representation of stellar parallax.

The experimental determination of stellar parallax is seldom dealt with in the science classroom because the
parallactic angle is so small. Students have little, if any, idea of how astronomers collect their data because they
do not normally conduct the experiment first successfully executed by Bessel in 1838 in measuring the parallax
of 61 Cygni. Hirshfeld (2001) presents a good summary of this discovery. That is to say, they cannot hold a
protractor up to measure the parallax angle. Consequently, use of stellar parallax for distance determination can
be difficult for students to understand without some type of hands-on experience to explore the concept. While
students could undertake this project with a relatively small telescope and CCD camera setup such as that out-
lined in Ratcliffe et al. (1993), the time to acquire the observations (at the very least, six months) and the general
availability of this equipment to the average classroom make this approach problematic.

Thus, the purpose of this paper is first to describe a practical, guided inquiry-based approach that uses smart-
phone camera technology to introduce stellar parallax to students in high school physics, and which is similar to
the procedure suggested by De Jong (1972) using a Polaroid camera. This leads both students and teachers to
understand the concept and, in the process, engages them actively in science. Second, we briefly present students’
and their teachers’ reactions to the laboratory exercise that indicate both a high level of engagement and a deep
understanding of the methods used by astronomers.

2. THE APPROACH
2.1. Outline
Using a smartphone camera, or indeed a digital camera, the method for using parallax to determine distance can
be introduced to the students. The method is relatively simple and uses the student’s own camera, or their
smartphone, a tool with which they are probably already very familiar and comfortable. Indeed, a smartphone
with its megapixel camera and large screen is ideal because it allows measurements to be made directly on the
camera screen. If an ordinary cell phone camera is used, or a digital camera, then the images have to be
transferred to a computer and measurements made on the monitor. Thus, using a smartphone allows the practical
to be completed in one class of approximately 40 min duration. Hereafter, only a reference will be made to the
“smartphone.”

The method simulates what actually occurs in astronomical research, albeit without complications such as the
proper motion of the star or the parallactic ellipse (although we do provide a qualitative extension to demonstrate
this.) The measurements yield student-friendly numbers, e.g., a baseline of a few tens of centimeters rather than
149.5  106 km, angles of degrees and minutes of arc rather than less than 1 arc sec, and an investigation lasting
approximately one school science period rather than one that takes at least six months. Students can thus under-
stand how astronomers measure the parallax angle and arrive at an understanding of the errors involved. Indeed,
they can even understand the mathematics involved and appreciate the application of simple trigonometry. A
major intent of this laboratory project is to equip the students with the conceptual knowledge and later to execute
the method using real astronomical data.

2.2. Procedure
Students are introduced to the general idea of parallax through the classic method of holding a single finger out in
front of their face and closing one eye and then the other. Students see that the difference in the position of the
finger when viewed from each eye, as viewed against the background of the classroom, is larger when their finger
is closer to their face. Students thus get a qualitative feel for how the angle of parallax depends on the distance
between the baseline (distance between their eyes) and the object whose distance is to be measured (their finger).
Indeed, there are quantitative methods that can be employed in the science laboratory that involve making
measurements of the distance between the eyes or viewing objects from different ends of a known baseline against
a measurement scale drawn on the chalkboard. For example, in previous years, one teacher explained that students
had performed a quantitative version of this activity using a protractor and pencil. Students had lined the pencil up
with the object they were viewing and then recorded the angle it had made on the protractor. They then moved the
protractor along the baseline provided by a meter ruler and remeasured the angle.

The trouble with these sorts of activities is that it is hard to point out what they should actually be seeing. The
expected view can be explained verbally, but students may not actually see what the teacher wishes them to see.
Thus, a smartphone camera gives them a pair of images that all can see and which can be measured.

To introduce the experiment, the astronomical method of parallax determination is explained and the parallels
drawn with what they will do. That is to say, instead of using their eyes, astronomers use the changing position
of the Earth itself as it travels about the Sun, a distance of some hundreds of millions of kilometers rather than a
few centimetres. In addition, instead of using their finger, astronomers use a nearby star, some light years away,
viewed against the fainter, and assumed to be further, background of stars. They will later learn that the nearest
star (Proxima Centauri) is so far away that its parallax angle is a tiny fraction of a degree.

2.3. Calibration of the Camera

The first thing that the students do is calibrate their measurement device so that they can measure the parallax
angle in degrees. Each smartphone will have a different field of view and a different image size. The field of
view is first determined by placing the camera perpendicular to the base of a protractor; a pencil (or other thin
object) is moved along the curved edge of the protractor until it can only just be seen at the edge of the screen
(see Figure 1). The angles at the two extremes are noted, and the total angle yields a measurement of the field of
view of the camera in degrees. The error in this measurement will be relatively large and of the order of þ/ 2 .
They then measure as accurately as possible the linear width of the screen of the smartphone with a ruler. The
error will be of the order of þ/ 1 mm.

The angle they have measured using the pencil and the protractor can then be divided by the linear dimension of
an image displayed on the smartphone screen to yield a figure, whose units are degrees per centimeter or similar.
They have thus measured the plate scale in degrees per centimeter. (Historical note: The term “plate” is from
when astronomical imaging was undertaken with photographic “glass plates.” We still use the term plate to refer
to the image even though now we generally work with CCD cameras and digital photographs.)

Once students have measured the field of view of their smartphone, they can then use the following diagram
printed out on a sheet of paper as their Earth–Sun system (see Figure 2). The two Earths represent the position of
the Earth six months apart from each other. The distance between the two Earths should be 10 cm. Students can
use the radial lines to make sure that their smartphone is pointing in a perpendicular direction to the
Earth–Sun–Earth baseline.

At a distance of approximately 0.5 m directly in front of the mini-Earth–Sun system, a star symbol, such as that
shown in Figure 3, is placed. It could be taped to a pencil and held in position on the bench, or floor, using some
modelling clay or a clamp stand. Students should measure the distance from the baseline to the position of the
star as accurately as possible using a meter stick. This is so that later students can estimate the error in their
observations.

Figure 1. Method to find the field of view of the camera image.

 Figure 2. The mini Earth–Sun system.

Each photograph should be taken by positioning the camera at the extremes of the mini-Earth’s orbit around the
Sun. Care should be taken to center the camera lens on the cross of the mini-Earth before taking each photograph.
Students may be able to position the camera with an error approximating þ/ 2 mm. The results from using the
first author’s smartphone are shown in Figure 4.

From these two images, the parallax angle can be measured using the measured field of view of the camera and
the linear approximation of the “plate scale” from the image size. Now, the student measures the distance in
centimeters and millimeters on the smartphone screen between the “stars” in the two images, and using the plate
scale, the parallax angle in degrees can be calculated.

A simple way to do this is to measure the distance from an object in the background to the point of the star in one
image and then repeat this measurement with the other image. In the above photographs, the left hand side of the
door in the background provides a convenient line from which to measure the change in position. The difference
in the two positions can then easily be measured to an accuracy of þ/ 1 mm.

Using a calculator, students then divide this distance by the plate scale to produce the angle through which the
star appears to have moved in the two images. Halving this angle yields the angle of parallax, i.e., the angle
subtended by the radius of the Earth’s orbit at the distance of the star.

2.4. In Practice
In this example, the field of view is approximately 50 with a full screen width of 7.5 cm. The plate scale is thus
50 /7.5 cm or 6.7 cm1 þ/ 0.4 cm1. The error in the plate scale can be investigated by the students using a
spreadsheet. They simply divide the maximum and minimum fields of view by the maximum and minimum
linear size of the screen to arrive at a figure of þ/ 0.4 cm1.

Figure 3. Star symbol.

 Figure 4. Sample results from an iPhone 3GS.

The distance between the stars in the two images shown in Figure 4 above is 1.7 cm þ/ 0.1 cm. This leads to
the value of the parallax angle of 11.3/2 or 5.7 þ/ 0.5 (or ((17 mm/75 mm)*50 )/2 (Note: the division by 2
is important given the definition of the parsec). Thus, using standard trigonometry

d ¼ r=ðtanhÞ;

where r is the radius of Earth’s orbit (in this case 0.05 m) and h is half the angle measured (in this case 5.7 ).

The distance to the star, d, can thus be calculated. In this case, the result was 0.5009 m, which is very close to the
0.50 m initially measured from the baseline of the mini-Earth’s orbit to the model star using the meter ruler. Mea-
surement error in the distance to the star using the meter ruler would be approximately þ/ 1 mm. The error in
the smartphone method comes primarily from the distance measured on the screen, 0.017 m þ/ 0.001 m. This
leads to an error in the parallax angle of þ/ 0.7 and leads to an error in the distance of þ/ 0.03 m. In conclu-
sion, the results of the experiment are acceptably accurate.

Now that the students understand the fundamental mechanisms and measurement techniques of parallax, they
can be extended by comparing the scale of their measurements to the scale of the measurements used by
astronomers. By using simple scaling mathematics, students can be asked two questions. The first is, “How far
would you have to move the model star until the parallax angle is 1 arc sec?” They will find this to be
approximately 10.26 km. There are 60 arc min in 1 and 60 arc sec in 1 arc min. Thus, to achieve a parallax
angle of 1 arc sec, the star will have to be moved 5.7  60  60 times further away.

Extending this, the second question is, “How far would you have to move the model star away to maintain this 1
arc sec parallax angle if you used the true radius of the orbit of the Earth rather than the 5 cm?” Thus, the paper
star will have to be moved 149.5  106  1000  20 times further away. (The 5 cm original baseline is 1/20 of a
meter.) The alternative question is, “How many times does 5 cm go into 149.5  106 km?” Through simple
scaling mathematics and unit transformations, students arrive at an estimate of the value of a parsec that is
surprisingly accurate. In this case, the answer to the last question is 3.068  1013 km compared with the value
given by Wikipedia of 3.086  1013 km.

2.5. Extension: The Parallactic Ellipse

As mentioned in the introduction, there seems to be a common alternative conception about parallax where all
nearby stars move linearly back and forth against background stars over the course of a year. This is only true,
however, when a star is sitting in the ecliptic plane. The method just described is an example of this. The
possible reason for this common alternative conception, and the format of the method we use above, is that it
makes the conceptual description and mathematical manipulation quite easy. However, in doing so, it has
omitted some vital concepts from the framework. All stars will trace out an ellipse on the sky, and the
eccentricity of this ellipse is related to the nearby stars’ ecliptic latitude. For a star on the ecliptic equator, the
eccentricity will be 1 (i.e., a line); for a star at the ecliptic pole, the eccentricity will be 0 (a circle).

To explore this phenomenon, we can exploit the video (movie) function of the smartphone. Using a clamp stand
to hold the star approximately 50 cm away from the smartphone, and by moving the inclined smartphone camera
 Figure 5. Clamp stand and moving camera setup for a star at the ecliptic pole.

sensor around the orbit of the Earth, we can create a movie of how a nearby star actually moves in the sky.
Figure 5 shows the setup for the example of a star at the ecliptic pole, a video of which will show the star moving
in a near circular path.

To examine the effects of varying the ecliptic latitude, the sheet of the Earth’s orbit remains taped to the table
and a CD case is used with a hole large enough to operate the touch screen of the smartphone cut in the top of the
case. The setup is shown in Figure 6. Wooden or LegoTM blocks can be used hold the top side of the CD case at
an angle, and the camera can be affixed using some sticky tape. A mark can be made on the base of the CD case
that is directly underneath the camera sensor. This mark is then made to move around the orbit of the Earth when
the video is being recorded.

Since students are not actually measuring anything here, they do not need to know the exact angle at which the
camera is sitting with respect to the surface. By making a series of videos from the ecliptic equator to the ecliptic
pole (three or four), the students should find that the eccentricity of the parallactic ellipse decreases from the
equator to the pole, as shown in Figure 6. If desired, measurements can be made of the eccentricity of the ellipse
and related to the angle of the CD case that corresponds with ecliptic latitude. If this is done, then they can be led
to discover that the eccentricity of the parallactic ellipse equates to the cosine of the ecliptic latitude.

3. EDUCATIONAL TRIAL
Students in Grade 11 at two local high schools tried this approach during their physics classes in June 2011.
Students grasped the method rapidly and were able to start work quickly. In taking the photographs, the students
realised that they had to have a background object so they could see their “star” “move.” This opened a
discussion about how far away was “far enough” in order to show movement but still have the background

Figure 6. Example of the CD case setup and the shape of the parallactic ellipse at three ecliptic latitudes.
stationary. One group of students concluded that a larger distance would have been beneficial as it would be
more “spectacular” as well as allowing a look at the error issues raised in the Section 2 in more detail.

So that they could compare the outcomes of their calculations, the actual distance to their object was measured
using a ruler. Most students were able to get reasonable (<2%) accuracies. In one case, their teacher mentioned
that, in previous years when students had conducted the experiment using the metre ruler and protractor referred
to above, any answer within 10% was regarded as “very good.” One group of students, who are very competitive,
got an answer to within 1% of the known value. This led to a discussion about why there was discrepancy in their
measurements, i.e., what could have caused them.

Calculating the plate scale to get their measurements in degrees/centimeters took the greatest amount of time. It
took a few attempts for some of the students to understand what these ratios meant: They had to stop and think
about the content representations, e.g., the scale of model cars. The students did not tend to carry the
mathematical tools from their mathematics classes into the science context with ease. Once the link was made,
however, it became clear to them. The final step was to extrapolate to the stars. Throughout the activity, stellar
observations were linked to their investigation in order to make the connection. In the end, all students
successfully worked through an example of stellar parallax taken from a past examination paper.

3.1. Reflective Comments

The reactions of the teachers who tried this approach can be encapsulated quite simply. One summed it up as “I
have never (emphasis) seen them so engaged so deeply for such a period of time” (SW). A second teacher
described his students’ reactions thusly: “They were deeply engrossed and amazed at their results. They got a
shock at how accurate they were” (DHJ). We presume that the second “they” in this last sentence refers to the
results, though it could refer to themselves.

Students’ reactions were elicited using three open-ended questions. These were:

1. What things did you really like about the smartphone Parallax experiment?
2. What things did you not really like about the smartphone Parallax experiment?
3. What things would you change about the smartphone Parallax experiment to make it more fun and/or to
be able to learn better?

Three categories of response were identified in relation to the first question. An enjoyment aspect was aptly
summed up by one student’s comment that “It was superfun time! Different to other experiments.” A second
category of response was given by the majority of students who commented on various aspects regarding the
application of the method to astronomy, e.g., “[T]hat we could calculate basic parallax on Earth, that the same
type of method is used to calculate distances of stars.” The third category of response related to particular
scientific aspects, such as the accuracy or calibrations that were embedded within the investigation, e.g., “We
could find out the field of view of our camera.”

In responding to what they did not like about the investigation, analysis of students’ comments revealed four
broad categories: the effort involved, a lack of the technology, treatment of errors, and the scale of the
experiment. The category of effort included comments about ensuring that their smartphone was always aligned
correctly, e.g., “It was fiddly because the camera was not central.” Students seemed to get distracted by the need
to ensure that their method was correct. This is interesting to note because it is on their effort to get the method
just right on every occasion that scientists spend a lot of their time. This is an issue that will be addressed in
future developments of the investigation.

A second category of negative comment related to the fact that some did not have a smartphone, e.g., “The
school should supply us all with [smartphones].” A third category mentioned by only a few students related to
the scale of the investigation, e.g., “The scale of the desk is not really impressive.” These students were not
impressed by the fact that they had measured the distance to a paper star on their workbench. For them, that was
not “spectacular enough.”

The final category of response related to the calculation of errors. Five responses were listed in this category.
These comments could be regarded as very useful given that nowadays science courses at the high school level
 in this state (New South Wales) seldom pay much attention to the concept of error. At least one could conclude
that in making comments about error and accuracy, the students had become aware of the need to pay detailed
attention to the method and had arrived at, the very least, a qualitative if not quantitative understanding of error
and error treatment, e.g., “I didn’t like that our error margin was greater than 30%.”

4. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have provided an overview of a practical activity that can be performed within a reasonable
timeframe with familiar equipment for students to understand deeply the concepts underlying parallax and the
parsec based on a hands-on investigation. We have noted, albeit not-conclusively, that there appears to be some
alternative conceptions regarding the ideas behind parallax in general. We have also presented the reactions of
teachers and students with whom the approach has been field-tested.

The next step for students to take is to extend their experience with the concept of parallax using this
methodology to measure the parallactic ellipse of an actual star, and from that, determining its distance. They
will be exposed to the measurement techniques used by astronomers to measure very small angles. To this end,
we have been collecting high quality CCD images of the nearest star to our solar system over the past eleven
months: Proxima Centauri.

The stellar parallax materials are currently being developed for use in the Australia Research Council funded
project Space to Grow: The Faulkes Telescopes and improving science engagement in schools, a collaboration
between Las Cumbres Global Telescope Network, Macquarie University, and Charles Sturt University. The
materials are in the process of being field tested with students and teachers in collaborating schools in the
Catholic Education Dioceses of Parramatta and Bathurst and the Department of Education and Communities in
Western Region New South Wales, Australia.

Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the students and teachers in the various educational jurisdictions who have participated in the
ARC Linkage Grant Space to Grow. Their insightful contributions, both pragmatic and professional, have been
outstanding. We also wish to thank the Australia Research Council for their support in providing the grant and to
the Catholic Schools Offices in Bathurst and Parramatta and the Department of Education and Communities
Western Region, NSW for their participation. Finally, we also wish to thank the anonymous referees for a num-
ber of helpful suggestions to improve the quality of this paper.

References
DeJong, M. 1972, “A Stellar Parallax Exercise for the Introductory Astronomy Course,” American Journal of
Physics, 40, 763.

Hirshfeld, A. 2001, Parallax: The Race to Measure the Cosmos. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.

Marin, E. 2010, “The pc Concept,” Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 4, 303.

Ratcliffe, S., Balonek, T., Marschall, L., DuPuy, D., Pennypacker, C., Verma, R., Alexov, A., and Bonney, V.
1993, “The Measurement of Astronomical Parallaxes with CCD Imaging Cameras on Small Telescopes,”
American Journal of Physics, 61, 208.

Zeilik, M. 1998, Interactive Lesson Guide for Astronomy, New Mexico: The Learning Zone, 63.

ÆR
010108-1–010108-8

View publication stats