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_celestial_motion.thumb.jpg.a9e9349c45f96ed7928eb32f1baf76ed.jpg

wallis23

Members
  • Content Count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by wallis23

  1. I was just wondering, what would capture the best image - a 10 minute single exposure photo, say, or 10 1 minute exposures stacked together? Or would they both give the same results? Also, is there any point in doing a 1 hour single exposure photo? (if it's possible.) Is there a usable limit of exposure time? Questions apply to planetary and DSOs so if one is different than the other then please comment... Thank you.
  2. Ok, i might be wrong but i think i read somewhere that because there's such a low demand for telescopes, telescope shops tend to sell their 'scopes for a much higher price than what you can find them for on the 'net for the same model. Your best bet would be to go to a shop to look at a 'scope then buy the one you want online. But again, i might be wrong, but i'm sure i heard that...
  3. I'm REALLY sorry, i've just checked my last post on imaging advice and was reminded of a primer someone helpfull gave me a link to that i forgot to comeback to. This link seems to answer my questions so this topic can be deleted if wished. Sorry. Must pay more attention!! lol.
  4. First off i apoligiza if this has been covered before, or is in the wrong section. Now.... I'm interested in Astrophotography and was wondering what i would need, and how to set it up. I have a digi-cam that has CCD written on it, actually it says "Super CCD" - (ooohhh. lol.) Anyway, i take it this is a camera i need? What else do i need? (Apart from a motor drive.) This is a bit of a noob question, but when i'm taking pictures do i need a laptop, and does the image, before taking the 'snap', appear on the laptop's screen? Also, i havn't really checked yet, but i'm assuming i can somehow set up my camera to take 'X' seconds of exposure? Incase it matters, here's some specs of the camera so you knowledgable types can tell me if it's going to be of any use... It's a "Fujifilm FinePix Super Mega Pixlels CCD (F601Zoom)" It has 3X optical zoom, and f=8.3-24.9mm. (I'm assuming that's the focal length?) Sorry for all the questions, but i'm sure they're no match for your big brains! Many thanks in advance for the replies. Shaun.
  5. Yep, that's the exact one i purchased. Believe it or not the bad news is actually good news, because now i know for sure i want a different 'scope. Thanks for all the replies.
  6. Ok confession time. As the heavens opened up the other day i had the pleasure of taking my 'scope out for a short while. And must confess that after viewing Saturn properly, no, i can't make out the gap between the rings and the Planet. (I didn't use the 2x Barlow but had a stepless zoom ep and went from 24mm - 8mm.) The view of the Moon is awesome though! I have taken a few decent pics of the Moon with a digi-cam, just putting it to the ep, but i'm never going to get any decent pics of anything except the Moon, especially DSOs with this 'scope am i?, even with the correct equiptment... As my mirror is concave, does that mean the mirror isn't very good, and not worth saving, as i plan to build my own telescope in a couple of years time. Maybe less, depends how quick i pick everything up... Sorry, i've asked this question before but didn't get the response i was looking for. Are standard length 'scopes generally better than 'short tube' 'scope? Am i to understand that every 'short tube' 'scope has a 'corrector lens'? (Sorry for such noob questions...) (Sorry for the amount of questions aswell...)
  7. Well, they now think the Big Bang, and thus our Universe, came from this 'Multi-verse.' The real question is; Where did the Multi-verse come from? That's what makes my head hurt. And the fact that if there is/ was a creator, where did s/he/ it come from? Sometimes i wonder if we'll ever figure it out. Maybe we're no meant to...
  8. Excellent. Thanks for clearing that up.
  9. Wow, i'll have to try that. Does that apply to Solar System objects aswell? Thanks for your reply, it's really cleared things up. Thanks to everyone else who's replied aswell.
  10. Forgive me for being dumb, but i'm still very new to all of this. I just wondered, these photos, are they what you see through your EPs? Surely the detail isn't this good through the EP? Is the magnification the same though? Thanks for your understanding. P.S. Same goes for DSOs.
  11. Please forgive me for being dumb, but are these true colour photos? Same goes for all the pics on this forum. Do some people add colour in photoshop, or whatever? Thanks.
  12. Hi. I'm not sure if i can request photos here, so if i can't, Mods, please feel free to delete. I know this is a big ask, but i wondered if someone would be kind enough to post a pic of Andromeda and our 2nd closest Galaxy. Incedently, what is the name of our 2nd closest Galaxy? A billion thanks in advance to anyone who is brave enough to try and photograph the 2nd closest galaxy, and indeed even Andromeda. Thanks! P.S. I won't be at all disappointed if no one wants to photograph the targets i've requested, just thought i'd ask... Thanks.
  13. Thanks for that. I'll look it up now. I'd also like to recommend a book called Alpha and Omega - The Search For The Beginning And The End Of The Universe. It's a great book but has to be read twice to fully understand it. Well i did anyway. LOL.
  14. I don't know if any of you guys have this but i thought i'd recommend it. I've had it for a while now and love it. It doesn't tell you the location of planets and stars ect.. but while most planetariums show a view of the heavens from the Earth, this one is like having your own personal spaceship to zoom around the universe. It's great! The basic package offers great Solar System views, and you can download (free) upgrades for diffenent surface maps for the planets and their moons, close encounters, galaxies, ect... You can even view space probes that were sent into space years ago! (Some space probes don't require upgrades.) It's free to download and can be found here. http://www.shatters.net/celestia/ I recommend reading the manual and downloading the add-ons to get the best out of this software. Although you can simply download and use it right away, by reading the manual after you've had a little play you will find helpful shortcuts ect... And the add-ons are great! Hope you like it!
  15. Thanks for all the replies, i'm truely grateful! I've just looked at the images some members have taken with the mobile phones an WOW! I can't believe how good they are! I think i'll start with a mobile or digi cam and work my way up from there. Thanks again.
  16. Gaz, thanks for your post. I'm very happy now you've reminded me of the other settings. Yea, i heard about the quantum mechanics theory of parallel Universes too, and i used paralelle universes to explain 'other' universes. Maybe that was a mistake and i should have just said other Universes. LOL. Does the quantum mechanics theory of Parallel Universes have something to do with time travel aswell?
  17. I don't know why i'm writing this really. I'm just assuming as we all enjoy looking at the heavens then we all wish to know all we can about it... Some of this is quite old news by now so i bet you all know this by now anyway. but i'll write it anyway. Cosmologists have a theory that there's either mulitple Universes, or there's a God, a Creator. And it's definiatly at least one or the other. They say it's definatily one or the other. But they also say if there are multiple Universes then that doesn't rule out a God, or a Creator. They say this because the parameters, or 'settings' of certain things in our Universe, such as gravity, pressure, and a few other things (which i'm VERY annoyed at my self because i can't remember what they are), are so finely tuned to allow not only for our survival, but also for Planets, Starts, Galaxies, ect... that even if one of these things were as much as half a degree different then everything in our Universe wouldn't have been able to form. Not as wel know them anyway. People have been talking about Parallel Universes for a while now but i think they have it wrong. Some people think that in a Parallel Universe, Bob, a very poor man in our Universe, is a very rich man in a Parallel Universe. I don't think this is remotely true. Bob doesn't exist in a Parallel Universe. None of us do. Parallel Universes are, i think, just other Universes with different parameters of Gravity, Pressure, and those other things i can't remember. Don't get me wrong, i'm no cosmologist, and this is just my opinion, but i thought i'd share it with you. Another thing, which i found extremly exciting, was how our own Universe (and indeed Parallel Universes) came to exist. This is only a Theory, and i can't remember who's it is to be honest, but it is now widely accepted among Cosmologists. We now know that a fraction of a second after the big bang the Universe existed of only particles. From what i remember, even Atoms didn't exist yet. Just Quarks, Gluons and Leptons. Untill about a millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the Universe was a seething soup of primitive matter and radiation. The Quarks condensed in into particles like Protons and Neutrons. Then the Protons and Neutrons coalesce, forming atomic nueclei: Deuterium, helium-3, Helium-4, and other heavier species. Most protons remained unbound, solo, protons, and a lone proton is the core of Hydrogen. All of that isn't really important for what i'm coming to, it just makes it a bit easier to understand (believe it or not.) Anyway, in this theory, and this is the easiest way to describe it, imagine a big bubbling soup (I'll call this a Multi-verse). This soup is filled with sub-atomic particles even more primitive than the quarks, gluons and leptons i've just mentioned. And from what i remember science doesn't now what these particles are. Anyway, these particles are bubbling away, smashing into each other, just as the quarks ect.. were in the very early Universe. Now, due to the imperfect nature of, well, Nature, something went wrong. The best way to describe it is imagine the soup gets too hot and starts to bubble over the pan. This is what happened in the Multi-verse, and this is where the quarks, gluons and leptons came from that formed our Universe. The amount and concentration of particles that 'bubbled out' of the Multi-verse, it is thought, defined the parameters, or 'settings' of Gravity, Pressure, and again, those other things i've forgotten This theory also states that ours is not the only 'bubble' to come from the Multi-verse. However, most would not survive as the matter and anti-matter particles would wipe each other out. Our own Universe is only here because there were more matter particles than anti-mater particles. In some of the other 'bubble' Universes, there were an equal amount of matter and anti-matter particles (the perfect 'bubble') and in other there were more anti-matter particles than matter particles, creating a Universe made entirely of anti-matter. And in other 'bubble' Universes still, when matter won the battle over anti-matter, the parameters or gravity, ect... were vastly different to that of ours. Well, that was longer than i expected it to be. But what was the point of that? Well, nothing really. It just interests me and i thought i'd share it with you like minded folk. I just think it's amazing that in Aristotle's times people thought the earth was the centre of this universe, which consisted of just the Earth, the Moon, the 5 Planets they could see with the naked eye, and the Stars, whatever they thought they were. Then we found out that the stars we see are a tiny collection of the stars in our Galaxy, and there are around 100 billion other galaxies, each containing around 100 billion stars. Now we think there are other Universes. It really does make you realise how insignificant the earth really is in the grand scheme of things.
  18. Probabaly a long way off yet, but i just wondered if someone could let me know what i would need to take pictures of the heavens with my 'scope. It's a 6" reflector incase that matters. I don't have a motor drive so i'm assuming that's the first thing i'll need. Do i need a camera that's specifically for astrophotography? Do i need anything else? Also, i wondered how astrophotography actually works. I mean, you don't just take a snap through the ep do you? So how does it work? Many thanks in advance. (P.S. Sorry for creating so many new topics lately. I definitely have the bug!)
  19. First of all i apoligize if this is in the wrong place, or has already been covered. I was just wondering if anyone on this site is from Northampton and has any recommended observing points, or knows of any high ground in the county? I've just moved to Northampton so don't know of anywhere just yet. If no one is from Northampton, does anyone know if there's a site or something where i can look up recommended observing spots, or where there's high ground in my area? Thanks.
  20. Hi. just thought i'd give you some feedback. I've only been on this forum for a couple of days and already i'm amazed at how good it is. Everyone is so understanding and patient. I can't wait untill you guys teach me enough so i can offer advice of my own in the future! A big thanks to everyone on the forum, and to the mods for upholding such a great forum! Thanks! :hello1: (That's surpose to be a round of applause...)
  21. Saturn's beautiful! I love it! That and the Moon are my favourite objects to view. However, having said that they're the only things i've seen with the 'scope yet. LOL. I enjoyed looking at Jupiter aswell with my old 4.5" but havn't seen it yet in my new 6". It's quite sad but i loved using the slow motion controls with a low power ep and just watch it's Moons move with the Planet. I'm looking foward to going out with my 'scope as my back garden has a very limited view of the sky. I went out once and there was a load of young lads around saying things like "is that a telescope?" "can you see the stars with that?", "why do you want to look at the sky?" "nobody cares about the stars and planets." ect... You can't concentrate with them around. LOL. (A bit of rambling there, but oh well. lol.)
  22. Yeah. Only just though as i only had a 24mm ep and didn't pay too much attention to it as i was just trying to locate objects rather than 'study' them. (I've only used it a couple of times, so i know i am being premature in trying to improve it, i just wondered how i could, if i wanted to...) When i switched to the 6.5mm the image was too blurry to see anything. Even the rings were quite hard to make out. Probabaly not very good eps... That's why i brought the zoom ep, so i can see something inbetween 24mm and 6.5mm...
  23. Ah, maybve i got that the wrong way round then. LOL I don't know who made the 'scope. It doesn't say on the 'scope, the box, in the handbook, or in the Ebay ad. So it must be a very exclusive brand! It's probabaly the cheapest non department store reflector avalible as it only cost £89 new. It's a 6" reflector with a focal length of 750mm & 1400mm with a correcting lens. It has a concave mirror and i've just found out that it's more than likely 'catadioptric'. Thanks for your reply.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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