Deep field using amateur setup?

[feras281]

Hello I was wondering if anyone has attempted to take a deep field image similar to the hubble space telescope by pointing at the empty area of space near big dipper for 11 day exposure. 

I think it would be really fantastic if it was possible to do so from amateur equipment, what I was thinking was if anyone left mulitple long exposures running again and again on many nights and adding the images on top of each other with a stacking programme

[kalasinman]

I doubt possible for technical reasons, However a similar effect can be had by imaging one of several galaxy clusters. It is possible without wide field to have 1,000 galaxies in a single frame.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/242206-abell-1656-massive-galaxy-cluster-in-coma-berencies/?hl=%2Babell#entry2630003

[davew]

Yes someone has

Try here - http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/149898-kielder-deep-field-final-part-of-kielder-star-party-spring-2012-part-4/

Dave.

[dph1nm]

In principle there is nothing to stop you stacking an endless number of subs night after night - and you will gradually get deeper and deeper.  The trouble is that you really need a large aperture scope or you are going to be imaging for your whole life! I seem to remember that something like 10hrs on a 4m ground-based scope gets to about the same s/n as the original HDF (ignoring the fact that the HDF has much better resolution). So that's 160 hrs on a 1m, or 16,000 hours on a 4"!

NigelM

[kalasinman]

In principle there is nothing to stop you stacking an endless number of subs night after night - and you will gradually get deeper and deeper.  The trouble is that you really need a large aperture scope or you are going to be imaging for your whole life! I seem to remember that something like 10hrs on a 4m ground-based scope gets to about the same s/n as the original HDF (ignoring the fact that the HDF has much better resolution). So that's 160 hrs on a 1m, or 16,000 hours on a 4"!

NigelM

of course adaptive optics would be required as well. Certainly not an easy task.

[Thalestris24]

Perhaps one could combine the efforts of many amateurs who have similar setups and have imaged the same area of sky?? I don't suppose it would be an easy task...

Following that idea, I wonder what, say, the Orion neb would be like if all the good quality amateur raw data of it were combined.

Louise

[Freddie]

Definitely possible as a few of us had a go here

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/241588-so-whos-up-for-the-challenge/

[laser_jock99]

Definitely possible as a few of us had a go here

 

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/241588-so-whos-up-for-the-challenge/

Yep - it's possible to pick up the four 'bright' magnitude 20 galaxies fairly quickly. The hardest part was locating the right spot to image.

I used a 12" F4 Newtonian, Lodestar X2 camera and just 180 seconds (unguided).

[dph1nm]

of course adaptive optics would be required as well. Certainly not an easy task.

Hubble is near diffraction limited, so you would be a similar sized telescope on the ground even with adaptive optics!

I reckon 100 people with 14" Meades  could probably do a good job in about 12hrs each. Mind you, that only gets you a single band - if you want a colour shot you need to multiply by 3!

NigelM

[kalasinman]

Besides the effect of poor seeing, which AO would  help, there is the contribution of miles of atmosphere degrading transparency, so maybe 100+ 14" on impeccable mounts at the top of Mauna Kea.....

[Essex nightsky]

Besides the effect of poor seeing, which AO would help, there is the contribution of miles of atmosphere degrading transparency, so maybe 100+ 14" on impeccable mounts at the top of Mauna Kea.....

Still be cheaper then Hubble surely... Lol

[kalasinman]

In a way, it's too bad the James Web will not be visual, but the science is appropriate.

[MattJenko]

Perhaps one could combine the efforts of many amateurs who have similar setups and have imaged the same area of sky?? I don't suppose it would be an easy task...

Following that idea, I wonder what, say, the Orion neb would be like if all the good quality amateur raw data of it were combined.

Louise

Hi Louise,

A user on AstroBin already does this. Morten Balling. He takes all images that are posted with a Creative Commons license and combines them together. The results are staggering. Here is an Orion Nebula effort, of which some of my data is used :

http://www.astrobin.com/153938/

There are a whole host of objects he has worked hard to process.

[MattJenko]

Thought I would show some of them directly in the thread for show. Note these are not mine, they just show what combining end JPGs from lots of amateurs data can actually achieve. Please see above link for the astrobin gallery itself. It also shows that whilst the resolution the space telescopes achieve would not be possible, amateur collaborations could come some way to matching the deep field images.

[kalasinman]

Beautiful, and thanks, but wasn't the OP about producing the Hubble Deep Field from Earth with amateur gear?

[Thalestris24]

Slight digression, I suppose

[kalasinman]

Some wonderful images.

[MattJenko]

sorry, was just trying to show what huge amounts of integration time from amateur setups can actually achieve.

[ollypenrice]

I think you need around 20 hours from a typical amateur setup to match the (truly excellent) images to which Matt links. They don't require unthinkable exposure time unless you are fighting LP. I admire these images hugely but they are not 'deep field,' they are top class amateur DS images.

The Hubble Deep Field was not only deep, it was at a long focal length and that is where we mortals fall over, dammit! To my mind the amateur images which really impress are those of the likes of Nicolas Outters who has made major discoveries like the Squid Nebula which had, quite simply, escaped the professionals.

Olly

[Physopto]

I think Robbie Ince's attempt at deep field was superb. I was there at Kielder when he did it. It took him some time , I kept popping back to see how he was doing. Very interesting for me. Some one here has already pointed to his image on SGL. It was published in Astronomy Now if I remember correctly.

Derek

[laser_jock99]

The Hubble Deep Field was not only deep, it was at a long focal length and that is where we mortals fall over, dammit! .

Olly

Probably a good time to remind ourselves just how small an area the HDF actually is. A mere 2.5 arc minutes across it would take some serious focal length and steady seeing to get anywhere near close.

The image below shows the one degree square of sky the HDF lies in-which is just under  two moons wide.

Now consider that M31 our nearest galaxy is eight moons long (four times the width of the above picture)- you can see how tiny the HDF galaxies are. Very testing for amateur equipment.