Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2_winners.thumb.jpg.b5430b40547c40d344fd4493776ab99f.jpg

Godders84

New Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Godders84

  • Rank
    Vacuum
  1. Hi all, After getting a DSLR for hols last year, and finding the astroimaging section on here, it was going to be a downward spiral from the other half's point of view! Just before Christmas, I got myself a 70-300mm lens, and decided to try it out on the Orion Nebula a few weeks ago. Living in Surrey, about 30 mins outside of London, I was half expecting light pollution to be a massive issue, so you can imagine my excitement when I saw it on the screen in front of me. "That's amazing!" I thought to myself, "I wonder how I can become better at this", so I bought Steve Richards excellent book, which arrived today. Flicking straight to the post-processing section, I figured I'd give it a go on the subs I got of the Nebula. Well, I don't think the missus was too happy when I called her to say that I've managed to make it look even better than it was!! I've shared it here for critiquing - please go easy, It's my first attempt! It's only 42 1 sec subs at ISO 3200 (I have no mount, so 1 sec is about my limit, and it was more about giving it a go rather than getting anything magazine worthy) at 300mm focal length. ISO was too high, hence the noise and I believe the markings around the edge are vignetting? The one problem I have is that while I was able to pull out some of the extra data that I couldn't see initially easily enough, I'm struggling with the colours - anything I do seems to give it too much of hue in a different colour. Are there any tips for getting the colours right? Guess I can always practice while waiting for the skys to clear!
  2. Hi all, I'm trying my hand at imaging for the first time since getting a decent camera - starting off with widefield. I've followed the very good instructional post on here, but I've got problems when it comes to Deep Sky Stacker. The first couple of times it would only stack one image, but that was because it wasn't recognising any stars, which I fixed and got an OK image out of it eventually. I'm totally stumped on this one though - DSS seems to recognising stars OK in all 10 of the light images I've got from about a week ago, but it still wants to only stack one image. I'm at a loss as to why it's not working - the images are better than my previous attempt so I wouldn't have thought that there would be any problems like there were previously. I've attached one of the images below (the other 9 are exactly the same). Can you let me know what is wrong with it and why DSS would only be stacking one of the images please?? Could it be that they seem slightly out of focus? Is there any way to fix this in post processing to get it to work in DSS?? Thanks Jim
  3. Hi all, I'm looking to take the plunge and buy my first bins to indulge my love for the night sky. I've (tried!) doing a fair amount of research into which one's would suit best, but there's an awful lot to get your head round!!! I've found the Celestron Nature 10x50's at Amazon which I think would suit for the following reasons: 1. Given I'd like to use them to try and get a bit more detail on the things I can see with the naked eye, I'm thinking 10 x 50's are probably the best (I like the 'grab and go' aspect, so not really looking at anything bigger/scope just yet) 2. I've got a slight astigmatism in one of my eyes, corrected by glasses, and this leads me to believe the 20mm eye relief on these would suit well 3. They're less than £100, so within my budget! Has anyone else tried these? Would appreciate any thoughts/experiences from you more experienced folk before I part with the hard-earned!
  4. I agree it would be very freaky! Although, if we have already been hit, then what is all that matter doing? If it is occupying the same point in space and time as us, I would like to think we'd notice (although probably as we're all blown apart)!
  5. I would say at the same time it hits us, assuming it's travelling at the speed of light
  6. I agree that it could have come closer to us already in the 2.2m years, but I still disagree that it would have hit us. If Andromeda emitted a photon when it was 2.2m light years away, that photon would take 2.2m light years to reach us. If (worst case scenario) Andromeda was hurtling towards Earth at the speed of light, it would reach us at the same time as the photon it emitted 2.2m years ago, not before, as I've understood you to mean. I agree it would be correct to say that Andromeda may not exist anymore, and we don't know about it, but I think we'd know about it if Andromeda were to hit us. Correct me if I'm wrong though!
  7. Really? Surely that would mean that Andromeda itself is travelling faster than the light it's emitting?
  8. Hi all, my first post! An interesting discussion forming here I think, so I'd like to throw my 2 cents in! My understanding is that we "see" things because a wave of light (or stream of photons) hits our retina. The optic nerve carries this information to the brain, which then interprets this information and tells us that we've seen something, it's colour, size, texture etc. The light that enters our eyes will either be from a chemical reaction that emits 'visible' light (such as nuclear fusion, which is why we see the sun and stars), or by reflection of this light by light-reflecting matter (the planets and moons reflect the sun's light which is why we see them - they do not emit visible light of their own). Empty space (i.e. space that is not made up of stars, planets etc.) is a vacuum, and so by definition is empty. As it's empty, there is nothing to emit light, and nothing to reflect light, which is why it appears dark. Darkness is not a tangible 'thing' that is moving through space, it is simply an absence of any light-reflecting matter (note it's an absence of light-reflecting matter. It may be filled with a currently misunderstood form of matter that does not reflect light, such as 'dark-matter') With regards to the black hole Spaceboy, you are right in that it is not a hole, but a singularity. Bizarrely, you will never be able to see anything 'fall' into a black hole - gravitational time dilation means that, to an observer outside the event horizon, anything falling into the black hole will take an infinite amount of time to reach it. Imagine that!!!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.