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.

Herzy

Members
  • Content Count

    375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Herzy

  1. I've had a lot of trouble getting this data to work. It can't ever keep the core under control. It would be really helpful if someone with good processing skills could give this a try. Thanks a lot. https://www.dropbox.com/s/40u6zdsqrvwezqu/M42 - Stack (Lynkeos).tiff?dl=0
  2. That is an interesting read. My single frames were already very bright. (2m at ISO 1600). My mount can't do any longer unguided. When I eventually start guiding, I might be able to do 5 minutes at ISO 400. I don't see why that would help though. I might be capturing more signal, but I am also capturing more light pollution. The effects should cancel each-other out?
  3. This is the best I could do. I tried stacking in DSS. The streaks are all gone, but the for some reason I can't pull any data out of that stack. Wim, you managed to make the galaxy very bright, which is great. I can't seem to stretch it much without the noise being overwhelming. M101 Final.tif
  4. I will try these. My first stack was only a weak reject algorithm. I'm a little disappointed because I thought the point of dithering was to remove the diagonal streaks, but I dithered all night and it still didn't work. I took flats, but no darks (my camera battery died the first night. I'll try to stack in DSS this time.
  5. I feel pretty discouraged because I spent 8 hours on this galaxy and the images are all still noisy and ugly. I thought I might be able to pull out some nice detail with 8 hours, but I guess not. It would mean a lot if someone with better processing skills could give this a try. That way, I might know if it's my data that is lacking or if it's my processing ability that's lacking. This was several hundred 2 minute exposures at ISO 1600. The galaxy was just barely visible (only the core) in the single frames. https://www.dropbox.com/s/696q1vophzzj0cg/M101 Combined Stack.tiff?dl=0 Thanks, Hayden
  6. Herzy

    M51 LRGB

    Ok, I figured out the color thing. I'm probably repeating others, but prestretched data is hard to work with. I had to work on taming more than anything else. I also tried to keep a soft feel. A lot of the images in here really bring out the detail, but they look too sharpened. I particularly like wim's attempt. He managed to bring out a lot of detail without over-sharpening.
  7. Herzy

    M51 LRGB

    I've been trying to mess with his data, but I'm not sure how to turn the gray image labeled RGB into an actual color image. They are both just gray. Am I missing something? I'm using photoshop CC.
  8. Would you mind posting the stacked file? I had a similar issue last night on my M51. Big dark spot in the middle.
  9. This is what I've been doing recently. I've been filing through the top t-ring, but i can never get all the way through I without damaging the threads of the adapter underneath.
  10. I have already unscrewed the screws for the top part of the t-ring as suggested. It makes it even harder to get a grip on the metal to turn. It has been taking a WD40 bath for the past 12-ish hours. I'm hoping that might help. I tried the heating thing last night, but I only did it once. I'll try that again if the WD40 doesn't work. I don't think it is a left hand thread. When I get it out of the WD40 I will make sure, but I'm almost 100% sure that it isn't. I'm thinking of taking it to some sort of camera repair shop to see what they can do for me.
  11. I've already tried the WD40, but that oven and freezer thing might be a possibility. I've tried freezing them, but they are both made out of the same metal so they will contract at the same rate. Would that method still work if they are made of the same metal?
  12. I think there may be some confusion. The adapters are not connected to the telescope. The adapters screw in to the telescope extension tube like the picture shows. Could you elaborate? I don't think I fully understand. They screw together, so if anything, that method should make it worse. It could mess the threads up and make it impossible to unscrew. Unless I'm missing something? I hope the pics help. Hayden
  13. Just about a year later and I still haven't got these adapters apart. I've literally turned to the point of bleeding. I've tried the shoes approach as well. Celestron doesn't make the scope anymore, so they can't really help me.
  14. You've far surpassed whatever results I can achieve, but I still like to go back on my alt/az every once in a while for the ease of use even though I have an AVX. Good luck!
  15. *ignore accidently double posted and I'm not sure how to delete posts.
  16. If I want to use this same logic for my previous question: Suppose I am blinded by light from the sun. From the lights perspective, it will reach the Earth instantly and might not even hit my eyes. From my perspective it will take 8 minutes to get here. How do you account for this 8 min disagreement? The difference is accounted for because the light can rightly say that I am moving, so it will see my time as slowed by 8 minutes and the two reference frames will both agree that I'm blinded by the suns light.
  17. Let me get this straight. I did a bunch of reading and I'll offer my explanation based on that reading for you all to correct. If someone is traveling at 90% of c, then I'll see their time as being dilated or slowed. However, there is no absolute motion (meaning it is impossible to experiment whether you are moving or not provided you don't accelerate) in the universe for inertial reference frames. So, the observer we thought was moving will actually see us as the ones moving and will see our times as slowed. So, for example, suppose I travel to a distant galaxy and it takes me 2 million years to get there. Because there is no absolute motion, I could rightly say the Galaxy is moving towards me, and therefor it's time will be slowed. It will appear as if I get there very fast relative to their reference frame (that is why the photon reaches its destination instantly?). This difference in time dilation accounts for the disagreement in timing. If I got anything wrong please point it out.
  18. Suppose I am blinded by light from the sun. From the lights perspective, it will reach the Earth instantly and might not even hit my eyes. From my perspective it will take 8 minutes to get here. How do you account for this 8 min disagreement?
  19. If something is moving at the speed of light relative to me (I know this isn't possible, but for my purposes it doesn't really matter), it will have its time slowed significantly. Since velocity is defined as distance/time, the time will be slowed so the object will appear to travel a farther distance in the same time, correct? That would mean it would have to be going faster than the speed of light... There has to be some gap in my understanding but I'm not sure what.
  20. Has anyone been able to capture the comet out now? It's up in the morning or so I've heard.
  21. Thanks. Ken's images makes the actual nebula look great, and Ian's has great detail in the dust. If I may, I might blend the two together. I did take darks (no bias), but I only took 9 so i thought it wouldn't make a big difference and didn't apply them. Also, I checked out the flats and there is that green gradient in it. I'll try to take another set, although it might be too late.
  22. https://www.dropbox.com/s/30y7o9zhegesrdl/M42 - Stacked (DSS).fts?dl=0 Here is the Stacked fits file. You can layer a stretched version and a less-stretched version to preserve the core. If you want to give it a go, please do.
  23. I think it might be the flats because I took them in a rush (it was freezing out there). I also suspect the masking introduced noise. I will try combining the fully stretched file with one that only stretches the core. That way, there will be less noise.
  24. Don't mind at all! You made the faint dust really pop! It is a little oversaturated, but that's an easy fix. When I get home from school I'll link the full stacked file so you can give it a go. You'll see that the core is way overexposed. The layering helped a lot.
  25. I took this on Saturday with the clubs SE mount and an AT72ED from a dark site. I can't get the core to look right. The nebula was so bright even in 45s subs that it appeared all white. I layered some old pictures I had over it to make it more visible, but it still is blown out. I also don't like the blurred feeling to the image. Seems like the detail is all blurred.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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