Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Messier 51 | Newton 305/1500 - ASI290MM-C

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1 GA-HAMAL

GA-HAMAL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 28 April 2018 - 08:51 AM

The latest production from my photon processing plant smile.png  galaxy M51

Equipment - ASI290MM-C - Newton 305/1500 - Home made Yoke mount

200x20s

http://indexhamal.pl...1_ASI290MMC.png

M51_ASI290MMC.png


Edited by GA-HAMAL, 28 April 2018 - 09:06 AM.

  • bill w, ManuelJ, AndreyYa and 54 others like this

#2 MikeTahtib

MikeTahtib

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 648
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2016

Posted 28 April 2018 - 09:20 AM

Bardzo Dobje!  Incredible detail!


  • AndreyYa and GA-HAMAL like this

#3 petert913

petert913

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2562
  • Joined: 27 May 2013
  • Loc: Portland, OR

Posted 28 April 2018 - 09:51 AM

Nice, nice, nice !!  Pro-quality resolution and detail.


  • GA-HAMAL likes this

#4 Allanbarth1

Allanbarth1

    Soyuz

  • -----
  • Posts: 3951
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2016
  • Loc: Central New Jersey

Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:14 AM

The detail is great in your image. The full resolution image is jaw dropping. jawdrop.gif  Bravo, very well done.  applause.gif 

 

I also have to say I love that yoke mount. The simplicity of it as a thing of beauty. I really like the way that you designed the drive with that long arm. It fits with how your mount looks and adds to its beauty in my opinion. What jumps out at me about the entire design is how simple and bare bones it looks. The Plexiglas solution for correction for the error of a bent threaded rod is ingenious. Awesome mount and images you have made.  


  • GA-HAMAL likes this

#5 GA-HAMAL

GA-HAMAL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 28 April 2018 - 10:58 AM

Thank you all smile.png

 

The prototype had a bent threaded rod, but it did not work properly, so I used a friction drive. Currently, the friction drive looks a little less trivially, it was a prototype.
But generally, when constructing the device, its simplicity was a major goal for me. smile.png

 

Poor photo from my old phone.http://indexhamal.pl...torialMount.jpg


  • SvartSork and Allanbarth1 like this

#6 BenKolt

BenKolt

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013

Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:00 PM

That's an amazingly clear image!  Very well done.



#7 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:01 PM

That is some serious detail! Loving those dust lanes and blue giant clusters. 

 

You should try to do some HDR on this one. Looks like the cores are clipped a bit. Maybe acquire some half-length exposures for the cores, and use HDRComposition in PI to merge the two sets of data together to expand the DR and bring out core details. 


  • GA-HAMAL and AstroCatinfo like this

#8 Mert

Mert

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5733
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Spain, Pamplona

Posted 28 April 2018 - 12:58 PM

Wow, this image shows a great amount of fine detail!

Well done :waytogo:


  • GA-HAMAL likes this

#9 Walter Martins Astrofotogr

Walter Martins Astrofotogr

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 67
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2018
  • Loc: Brazil - São Paulo

Posted 28 April 2018 - 01:22 PM

The latest production from my photon processing plant smile.png  galaxy M51

Equipment - ASI290MM-C - Newton 305/1500 - Home made Yoke mount

200x20s

http://indexhamal.pl...1_ASI290MMC.png

M51_ASI290MMC.png

Sensacional !!!


  • GA-HAMAL likes this

#10 GA-HAMAL

GA-HAMAL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 28 April 2018 - 01:39 PM

You should try to do some HDR on this one. Looks like the cores are clipped a bit. Maybe acquire some half-length exposures for the cores, and use HDRComposition in PI to merge the two sets of data together to expand the DR and bring out core details. 

I worked on the depth of 8 bit, I had to choose, either a nice background, or a nice center, I chose the background, I will make a center on a separate photographic session smile.png


  • calypsob likes this

#11 schmeah

schmeah

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 28 April 2018 - 05:31 PM

Holy Smokes, wonderful detail!

 

Derek



#12 lambermo

lambermo

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 16 Jul 2007
  • Loc: .nl

Posted 28 April 2018 - 06:10 PM

Hat off to you sir. That is awesome work what you accomplish with that mount. bow.gif



#13 jhayes_tucson

jhayes_tucson

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6698
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Bend, OR

Posted 28 April 2018 - 06:57 PM

That was done with some seriously good seeing!!  Very nice.

 

 

John

 

 

 

BTW, this reminds me of my observation a while back that you can indeed see individual stars in other galaxies with small telescopes.


Edited by jhayes_tucson, 28 April 2018 - 07:18 PM.


#14 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 28 April 2018 - 07:55 PM

BTW, this reminds me of my observation a while back that you can indeed see individual stars in other galaxies with small telescopes.

Where was this? To my knowledge, no small earth-based telescope could separate individual stars in another galaxy (well, maybe excepting the Magellanic clouds, I guess...) You can resolve blue giant clusters in some cases, as with M51, but to resolve individual stars you would either need beyond phenomenal seeing and a massive aperture...or you would need to be in space. I believe Hubble has resolved stars in M51, and a few other galaxies (i.e. Andromeda), bit it has no atmosphere to contend with. One of the massive professional telescopes with active optics could probably resolve stars in other galaxies as well (but we are talking truly massive apertures).  To my knowledge most of the little blue spots amateurs resolve in galaxies like M51 are actually clusters of stars, not individual stars. At distances of millions of light years, individual stars are just too small...



#15 schmeah

schmeah

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 28 April 2018 - 08:29 PM

Seriously, has anyone seen more detail in an amateur image of this target than this shot? If so, I’d like to see it. This is remarkable.

 

Derek



#16 ChrisWhite

ChrisWhite

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4010
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Colchester, VT

Posted 28 April 2018 - 08:32 PM

Seriously, has anyone seen more detail in an amateur image of this target than this shot? If so, I’d like to see it. This is remarkable.

 

Derek

 

Seriously, this is freakin amazing.  Plus the ingenuity of that mount, I'm so impressed with everything about this image from capture to data to processing. 



#17 GA-HAMAL

GA-HAMAL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 29 April 2018 - 01:37 AM

smile.png

 

I devote a lot of attention to ensuring optimal conditions for telescope optics, all my efforts are heading in this direction. The main mirror is 305/1500 Sky-Watcher.



#18 schmeah

schmeah

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2005
  • Loc: Morristown, NJ

Posted 29 April 2018 - 07:52 AM

Seriously, this is freakin amazing.  Plus the ingenuity of that mount, I'm so impressed with everything about this image from capture to data to processing. 

When you compare the fine detail and resolution of this shot with the Hubble Remix shot processed by Robert Gendler here:

https://www.nasa.gov...dlerMr_full.jpg

 

Other than the brighter foreground stars and the cores, I would have thought that this was the luminance layer for that shot! And done with a Dob on a home made mount that looks like a playground gym set (only the greatest admiration intended)... And this isn’t quite lucky imaging. What kind of seeing do you have?

 

Are you planning on adding color?

 

Derek



#19 chrysalis

chrysalis

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3447
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2013
  • Loc: North Central NC

Posted 29 April 2018 - 08:01 AM

Great detail!



#20 GA-HAMAL

GA-HAMAL

    Messenger

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 422
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Poland

Posted 29 April 2018 - 08:24 AM

 

Czy planujesz dodać kolor?

 

I have no knowledge about taking nice pictures in color, maybe I'll try, we'll see. I made such an ugly test, it promises to be interesting, the color was borrowed from ASI224MC, but it is of very low quality.

 

https://astropolis.p...4ea94fa3a1d.png

 

The most important thing in this case is to determine the optimal exposure time for a given camera, for me it is 20 seconds, shorter times do not like, longer ones do not need, I determined this value experimentally.

I have a diversified visibility, on good still. I am hunting.


Edited by GA-HAMAL, 29 April 2018 - 08:51 AM.

  • schmeah, Jon Rista and SvartSork like this

#21 jhayes_tucson

jhayes_tucson

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6698
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2012
  • Loc: Bend, OR

Posted 29 April 2018 - 09:19 AM

Where was this? To my knowledge, no small earth-based telescope could separate individual stars in another galaxy (well, maybe excepting the Magellanic clouds, I guess...) You can resolve blue giant clusters in some cases, as with M51, but to resolve individual stars you would either need beyond phenomenal seeing and a massive aperture...or you would need to be in space. I believe Hubble has resolved stars in M51, and a few other galaxies (i.e. Andromeda), bit it has no atmosphere to contend with. One of the massive professional telescopes with active optics could probably resolve stars in other galaxies as well (but we are talking truly massive apertures).  To my knowledge most of the little blue spots amateurs resolve in galaxies like M51 are actually clusters of stars, not individual stars. At distances of millions of light years, individual stars are just too small...

 

Jon,

That's a common, long held belief (that seems to generate a lot of controversy around here) but I believe that there are a number of close galaxies such as M51 (M33 being another example) where it may be possible to pull out individual stars with a relatively small telescope.  I'm not going to rehash it again here but you can look at the evidence that I posted in #29 of this thread:

 

https://www.cloudyni...e-of-m51/page-2

 

GA-HAMAL's image is really sharp and it is a good one to use to further investigate this possibility.  Look closely at the full resolution Hubble data of the same regions and you'll find multiple asterisms showing individual stars that are very likely in the spiral arms.  It is important to understand that I'm not saying that a small telescope has sufficient resolution to resolve the star-fields in galaxies at this distance.  What I am saying is that many of the bright stars in the spiral arms that appear in images this sharp are very likely in the galaxy itself.  I would agree that some may actually be clusters; but, not all of them.  So, the common belief that the only way to see an individual star in a distant galaxy is to catch a nova (or supernova) is not necessarily true.

 

John



#22 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 29 April 2018 - 10:57 AM

I actually have been processing Hubble data lately (it's been so cloudy!) M51 was one of the data sets, which is why I think what we are resolving is clusters, rather than individual stars. The image scale of the Hubble data below is 0.05"/px, and the resolved stars are usually giants. You can see where they cluster...and it is the clusters that we seem to resolve with our amateur scopes. I had to manually align here, but I think it's close enough to demonstrate:

 

3j5rAwf.gif

 

If you get in close, you'll find that the brightest spots are not individual stars, but groups of stars themselves, sometimes a few big stars, more often they actually look like globs given the fuzzy nature of them (kind of tough to see here, I should try to get some individual channel data). You can also see that in the amateur data, the true individual stars resolved by Hubble are just a part of the background smear. Even those that appear to be single stars, if you get in close with the individual channels, usually with at least one of the original hubble channels, you can see that there are multiple stars, not even fully resolved even with Hubble. Either small open clusters of blue giants, or a "fuzzy" glob with another star or two resolved at the edge of it. I measured the FWHM of the hubble data, which came out to 2.148px measured from 18061 stars. With an image scale of 0.05"/px, that would make the FWHM of the resolved stars in the hubble data ~0.1074". Assuming some of the "stars" used to measure FWHM were in fact clusters, the individual stellar FWHM is likely even smaller than that... Considering the image scale of even your 14" SCT with 9 micron pixels is over 0.4"/px, and seeing larger than that (even if it was excellent seeing), I honestly think it is safe to say that it is doubtful that amateurs could resolve individual stars in M51.

 

The image from the OP is indeed very impressive, and certainly seems to resolve a lot of detail! For modest amateur equipment, it is definitely pushing the envelope, no question. I just think we are still pretty far off from resolving individual stars in other galaxies, save our closest two neighbors. ;)


  • R Botero likes this

#23 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 29 April 2018 - 11:03 AM

I have no knowledge about taking nice pictures in color, maybe I'll try, we'll see. I made such an ugly test, it promises to be interesting, the color was borrowed from ASI224MC, but it is of very low quality.

 

https://astropolis.p...4ea94fa3a1d.png

 

The most important thing in this case is to determine the optimal exposure time for a given camera, for me it is 20 seconds, shorter times do not like, longer ones do not need, I determined this value experimentally.

I have a diversified visibility, on good still. I am hunting.

Very nice! I'd toss in some color NR on there to clean up the color noise, and I think you have it.


  • GA-HAMAL likes this

#24 Bart Declercq

Bart Declercq

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Joined: 21 Jan 2007
  • Loc: Haaltert, Belgium

Posted 29 April 2018 - 11:51 AM

 

Where was this? To my knowledge, no small earth-based telescope could separate individual stars in another galaxy (well, maybe excepting the Magellanic clouds, I guess...) You can resolve blue giant clusters in some cases, as with M51, but to resolve individual stars you would either need beyond phenomenal seeing and a massive aperture...or you would need to be in space. I believe Hubble has resolved stars in M51, and a few other galaxies (i.e. Andromeda), bit it has no atmosphere to contend with. One of the massive professional telescopes with active optics could probably resolve stars in other galaxies as well (but we are talking truly massive apertures).  To my knowledge most of the little blue spots amateurs resolve in galaxies like M51 are actually clusters of stars, not individual stars. At distances of millions of light years, individual stars are just too small...

You're right and wrong :)

 

It can be done with amateur telescopes beyond the LMC/SMC - in M31 and its satellite galaxies and in M33 - I do agree that M51 is probably too far away (at 23M ly it's 10x farther than M31) - though Cepheid variables would be an "interesting" thing to check for, they're quite bright and "known" in many of the closer galaxies, as well as occuring outside of obvious star clusters) - "resolving" is, I think, the wrong term- no telescope on or near earth can "resolve" individual stars in any galaxy, including the LMC/SMC, heck, we can only "resolve" a handful of gigantic stars within our own galaxy, like Betelgeuze - we can "detect" individual stars in other galaxies, in the sense that we can register a point source who's light is contributed predominantly from a single stellar object. "resolving" technically would require the star's disc to be measurable :)

 

Check out this picture by Karel Teuwen : http://karelteuwen.b...mg=317&album=14 - look at the full resolution shot, especially on M110 you can clearly see the individual brighter stars and that's not even a shot attempting to get true "high resolution" - it's certainly not as sharp as the topic's M51 in terms of FWHM, so I suspect there's quite a bit of room beyond M31 before it becomes truly impossible (very good seeing + lucky imaging + a 16-20" class scope *might* do it for objects like M81/82 at ~11 M ly, would be an interesting test certainly)

 

A little further away - NGC2403 at ~8 M ly : http://bf-astro.com/...403/ngc2403.jpg (http://bf-astro.com/ngc2403/ngc2403.htm - 0.64"/pixel) certainly appears to register individual stars in that galaxy.

 

And a little closer than M31n ngc6822 is at 1.5M ly : http://bf-astro.com/...822/ngc6822.jpg

 

And these images, awesome as they are, IMHO do not represent the limit of the possible (for one thing, it's 'only' a 12.5" telescope - many amateurs have bigger scopes)

 

 

 

 



#25 Jon Rista

Jon Rista

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2014
  • Loc: Colorado

Posted 29 April 2018 - 12:05 PM

 

 

You're right and wrong smile.gif

 

It can be done with amateur telescopes beyond the LMC/SMC - in M31 and its satellite galaxies and in M33 - I do agree that M51 is probably too far away (at 23M ly it's 10x farther than M31) - though Cepheid variables would be an "interesting" thing to check for, they're quite bright and "known" in many of the closer galaxies, as well as occuring outside of obvious star clusters) - "resolving" is, I think, the wrong term- no telescope on or near earth can "resolve" individual stars in any galaxy, including the LMC/SMC, heck, we can only "resolve" a handful of gigantic stars within our own galaxy, like Betelgeuze - we can "detect" individual stars in other galaxies, in the sense that we can register a point source who's light is contributed predominantly from a single stellar object. "resolving" technically would require the star's disc to be measurable smile.gif

 

Check out this picture by Karel Teuwen : http://karelteuwen.b...mg=317&album=14 - look at the full resolution shot, especially on M110 you can clearly see the individual brighter stars and that's not even a shot attempting to get true "high resolution" - it's certainly not as sharp as the topic's M51 in terms of FWHM, so I suspect there's quite a bit of room beyond M31 before it becomes truly impossible (very good seeing + lucky imaging + a 16-20" class scope *might* do it for objects like M81/82 at ~11 M ly, would be an interesting test certainly)

 

A little further away - NGC2403 at ~8 M ly : http://bf-astro.com/...403/ngc2403.jpg (http://bf-astro.com/ngc2403/ngc2403.htm - 0.64"/pixel) certainly appears to register individual stars in that galaxy.

 

And a little closer than M31n ngc6822 is at 1.5M ly : http://bf-astro.com/...822/ngc6822.jpg

 

And these images, awesome as they are, IMHO do not represent the limit of the possible (for one thing, it's 'only' a 12.5" telescope - many amateurs have bigger scopes)

 

 

 

 

 

I would question whether what is being resolved even in M31 are actual stars, vs. clusters of stars. But, this is probably more a discussion for a separate thread. It is an interesting discussion, for sure, but we need to bring in Hubble data to compare it's stars to what we resolve with amateur telescopes.




CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics