Astro Noodles

Sailed across once and rode at anchor for a few days, Don't remember any dark skies, but I do remember a pub. I think it is called The Turk's Head. 🙂

So in answer to my original question: How long to get first decent image?

Answer - Depends on the weather.

I think that with clear nights and some decent budget equipment, the answer would be a few weeks. But not in the UK.

I have been working on M31 and have a total of about 5 hours of subs taken in 4 sessions starting on 8th July. I've actually had about 11 hours on this target but had to discard more than half due to out of focus, poorly framed, too much moonlight. With a few more clear night, it wouldn't be much of an issue, but in the UK image capture time can't be wasted like that.

On 10/09/2021 at 09:45, Iem1 said:

I was around 21 - 22 and working in an opticians in London (around 3-4 years ago). I was bored one day and went into a WHSmiths and was looking for a book to read. I don't often read in all honesty, but on the rare occasions when I do, I usually prefer something factual. I found 'The Human Universe' by Proffesor Brian Cox and Andrew Cohen, later learning (after reading it) that it accompanied a popular TV series too. The book primarily covers topics related to profound questions about the Universe and how we came to understand our place in it.

This book sparked my interest in Astronomy and Science, where there was previously none. From there I went to college to do an access course in science, I dont really have GCSE's, nevermind A-Levels as I mucked around in high-school. I did that access course two days a week whilst working in the opticians the other 5 days a week to pay the rent, attending GCSE Maths and English in the evenings after my actual access to science lessons during the day (Those were long days! Out at 7 am, back at 10 pm!).

After around 4 months or so, and after completing a good few assignments in Maths/Chemistry/Biology/Physics modules at merit/distinction level I was feeling pretty burnt out of the 7 day weeks. I contacted a University enquiring about whether or not I had done enough to earn a place to study with them, and was told to apply and basically keep your fingers crossed! I assumed it was subject to space and availability as technically speaking I still had absolutely no real qualifications.

I am now going into my final year of studying Astrophysics at University, and hopefully obtaining my degree in less than a year from now! During my time at University me and a few friends have often borrowed the telescope from the lab in Uni (Newtonians and the like mostly, they won't let us near the big one up on the roof just yet.. :D) for basic visual and imaging the Sun.

This year I was finally in a position to purchase my first Astrophotography setup. I bought a mobile and lightweight setup owing to travelling around a lot, back and forth Uni and dark sky sites. So I am just learning the basics of the trade with my William Optics Z73, a SGP and an Astro Modded Canon 600D. And thanks to the guidance from SGL members, I have loved every second under the stars with my first AP setup and feel I am able to do basic processing now 

I have future plans to upgrade the mount and establish a guiding system as I now feel comfortable with my current setup, I think I would be ok with adding another layer of complexity. I can't wait for that!

Big thank you to the folks here at SGL, your advice has been invaluable

 

 

Hi Lem.

My route into higher education was through an access course which I did back in about 1990, so it was nice to read your post.

Going to university as a mature student, having had to really work hard to get there gave me more of an appreciation of the privilege of a university education.

I hope you get as much out of the experience it as I did. 

I'm just grateful to see anything at all after the last few weeks. 🙂

2 hours ago, Zermelo said:

What other "superpowers" (those that might feasibly be discovered in at least one person) could be useful in amateur astronomy?

A double-jointed neck would be useful for polar alignment.😄

Its just a wind-up. 😄

You could get a Raspberry Pi instead of the ASIair and save yourself some money. There are plenty of posts on here about using one for guiding.

I have one myself, but like you I need some clear sky to use it.🙂

You will want to get the ASAIR and guide camera/scope at some point but you should be able to get good results with the Star Adventurer. It will need precise polar alignment and balancing. Remember, the longer focal length, the shorter the exposure you will be able to get unguided. As an example, I can get 90 seconds at f5.9 with an iOptron Skyguider Pro.

Hi Rustang. Which star did you use for focusing? It wasn't a double star was it?

8 minutes ago, CraigD1986 said:

Hi All.

I’m trying to get started in astrophotography but have completely confused myself so I’m looking for a little advice.

I already have a Canon 5D Mk IV with a 24-105mm f4 lens and a Sigma 150-600mm f5-6.3 as well as a Manfrotto 055 carbon fibre photo tripod. I think it’s wise to start with what I already have so I’m looking at EQ mounts and star tracking equipment. So my options are:

 

Skywatcher star adventurer 2i WiFi Pro - which can support up to 5kg (The Canon 5D Mk IV and Sigma lens weighs just over 3kg but the lens is very long)

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-star-adventurer-astronomy-bundle.html

Or

SkyWatcher EQ5 Deluxe

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-eq5-deluxe.html

Or

SkyWatcher HEQ5 Pro

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/skywatcher-mounts/skywatcher-heq5-pro-synscan.html

 

I can’t for the life of me figure out why the HEQ5 would cost soooo much more than the EQ5. But Why is the EQ5 a similar price to the Star Adventurer?

 

Then I read that I would need a tracking scope and camera so was intending to purchase the ASiair Pro with mini guide scope and camera (ASiair pro so I can use my iPad rather than a computer)

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/zwo-cameras/zwo-asiair-pro-asi120mm-mini-and-mini-guide-scope-bundle.html

 

If an EQ mount (all of the above mount options) counteracts the rotation of the earth then why would I need a tracking scope/camera/software as well?

 

Thanks in advance.

Hi Craig.

The EQ5 mount isn't motorised. To make it into an EQ star tracker you would need to add motors.

The ASIairpro and guide camera are only necessary if you want to take long exposures or very narrow FOV exposures through a telescope of with a high f number.

For the equipment you have, a Star Adventurer would be a good starting point.

I'm not sure what to do with them. There is definitely a pair of bins in there somewhere but it is beyond my skill to fix them. 

I'm reluctant to bin them, so if anyone would like them, drop me a PM and I'll send them to you. 

I wonder if you could make a pier and artfully disguise it as a bird bath/table or other patio feature.

It's still clear here, but the full moon is killing me.

I'm reluctant to give up a clear night but I can't see Mu Andromedae with the naked eye.

Clear outside is red for me. but it is a clear night at the moment. Just waiting for it to get a little bit darker and then I'm in business. 😁

10 minutes ago, tomato said:

If it is the latter, then there must still be an element of subjective judgment to achieve a balance between the two, and if the assessment is 100% quantitative then why do we need the judges?

Or indeed any human input at all. 

I was reading about the disagreement in cosmology over what came first, the galaxy or the supermassive black hole at the centre of it. It would seem logical to believe that it was the black hole which drew all the matter to it because of the gravity. but this is not certain. My understanding is that there is a limit to the amount of stuff which can go into a black hole in a given timescale. And further to this, that there is not enough time for a stellar mass black hole to accumulate mass. So supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies must have started as supermassive black holes and not grown from stellar mass black holes.

That got me thinking about how black holes consume stuff. They are very messy eaters as far as I can see. Rather than swallow stuff across the event horizon, they reduce their food to an energetic 'soup' through gravity, friction, pressure etc which then spins around the black hole. A good deal of that 'soup' then escapes the black hole in the form of light and other energy. Besides that, we have observed jets of matter and energy hundreds or thousands of light years long shooting out of the poles of feeding supermassive black holes. Not content with stuff in their immediate vicinity, black holes often gravitationally catapult stars off into interstellar space or ricocheting along the plane of the galaxy. The chances of falling into a black hole seem fairly slim. It seems more likely that a body would be torn into it's most basic particular state and most of that would be flung or squirted off back into the universe.

They seem to throw their food around like characters from 'Animal House'.😄

9 minutes ago, Zermelo said:

(though one of those, the discrepancy in the value of the cosmological constant, may not be real, according to one recent paper).

 

Is that the paper which suggests that our methods of measurement based on 'standard candles' may be incorrect or inconsistent ?

9 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Let's not forget those Astro imagers who manage a good few hours under the stars have all that cloudy down time to process data and refine their results.

That's an interesting observation. Although our imaging time is restricted, our processing should be second to none. 😄

I believe that we get about a 10% chance on average of a night which is clear enough for astronomy in the UK for at least part of the night. When you take away full moon nights, lack of darkness in the summer etc, you might expect about 20 or so ideal nights. So think on average 3-4 nights a month when astronomy is possible and 1-2 when conditions are ideal in an average year.

Not really enough to satisfy an obsession. 

I don't think that astronomy in the UK is viable as someone's only hobby. The frustration of fixating on weather forecasts in the hope of a clear night surely will lead to madness.

I am just glad that I didn't rush out and buy thousands of pounds of kit. It just isn't justifiable with our weather. 

Just make the most of the clear nights. 👍🙂

It's showing amber for me now on CO with 14mph wind. There isn't a cloud in the sky or a breath of wind. Always worth taking a look outside.

Here's mine. It just slips over the viewfinder. Should be attached to the strap somewhere.

4 minutes ago, powerlord said:

Hi Alacant,

can you explain that one ? do you mean the optical viewfinder on DSLR ? I'd never though of covering it before for anything. Are you saying that with the mirror up, you've still seen light getting into the sensor ?

cheers

stu

It's true, Vlaiv pointed that out to me. It's especially detrimental to calibration frames if the viewfinder isn't covered. There should be a small rubber or plastic cap attached to the strap somewhere.

I apologise Vlaiv.

I was being deliberately provocative in order to generate a response. I understand why you started this thread and accept the validity of your scientific approach to colour. I also understand why the Hubble image is the way it is.

I just have a different perspective, and presumably different motivation for photographing celestial objects than you appear to have.

It is my opinion that Science and Art both have their place in photography. It is up to the photographer to decide on the balance.

1 minute ago, vlaiv said:

That image is very distinct as color in that case has nothing to do with art.

Color here is used simply to represent certain element. It is purely scientific stuff - Ha is mapped to green, OIII is mapped to blue and SII is mapped to red - SHO == RGB.

If you split channels of that image - you'll get SII, Ha and OIII images without any additional processing (they are stretched individually as mono images).

As such is really does not belong in this discussion as color component here does not relate to color but to "chemistry".

I would contend that as you can find the image on t-shirts, mouse mats, coffee mugs etc, that it is indeed pop-art. It was you who introduced the idea that images not processed to produce a standardised outcome might be considered pop-art.

You can't determine what is and what is not relevant to this thread by dismissing those who don't want to discuss the specifics that you do. 

What sort of colour balance standard is used in this image? Would it matter if the colour balancing was done differently? Are those stars really pink? What colours should it really have? Is the image in any way inferior because of the palette? Would others process it differently? Is it really a good representation, or should it be regarded as pop-art?