sort of. I say with a pretty high degree of confidence that they're using a star tracker and multiple long exposures, all stacked together.]. so you get skies like that, but the camera is picking up much more than your eye ever would and the stacking of many, many images is letting them drop things like skylink satellites and passing aircraft.
[@TacticalNuke] stacking means you take... say 1000 images of the same thing, (for night skies, all somewhat long exposures) and do additive/averaging for the pixels. so if one pixel clocked in a 2% blue for half the frames, it becomes something like a 1% blue color. if something was black for 99% of the frames and red for only about 2, it effectively becomes a 0, all black pixel.
if you play with (at least digital) cameras for long enough, you'll quickly find that their sensors can picj up things your eyes can't. although your eyes can pick up things they can't - mostly in the area of being able to refocus insanely fast. the points of light kinda end up being mangled into a smear of light, not tiny little points. partly because it's such a fair light, but also because you're not keeping your head super still with respect to all motion, including that of the earth.
It's probably heavily processed and most of those pics of northern lights don't look like that to human eyes as well. The camera catches it way better.
It's possible, but you have to go to a dark sky location (dark areas on map below) and you need a camera that can do a long exposure; maybe leave the shutter open for maybe one or two minutes, maybe more.
yep, just need a good camera (not a shitty smart phone camera) and the right settings (wide aperture, high shutter speed, etc.) and be as far away from foreground light/light pollution as possible.
