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.

ChrisLX200

TeleVue 5" refractor Vs. Hubble Telescope

Recommended Posts

I found this image of the Bubble Nebula in the Hubble Archives so cropped my recent Bubble Neb image to match (roughly) so I could compare the two.

mmm OK, I lose LOL! Hardly surprising but all the major features are there. Incredible performance for such a small instrument, and under UK skies too.

Well I though it was interesting....

ngc7635HubbleBubble_zpsc9eeae83.jpg

ChrisH

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I much prefer your colour choices!

And honestly... spikes....?

LOL, I know - and the nasty red halos round the stars? Should do better...  :)

ChrisH

PS., I should have said my image had to be scaled 500% to match...

Edited by ChrisLX200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic! This clearly shows it isn't all about aperture. Or being in orbit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spikes and bleeds from the scientific camera! Ugh!!

However, let's not kid ourselves. If Hubble chooses to get right in there it can... get right in there.

Olly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, but when I was processing this image I wondered if the details I was trying to tease out were real or artifacts, at my small image scale it's difficult to tell. Nice to see they are mostly genuine objects.

ChrisH

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chris,

Considering that you have over 400 KM of the atmosphere( or even more )  to contend with, i really do not see a great deal of difference to be concerned with. The HST image looks sharper for sure but to  my eyes it does not have more detail than your capture.

Regards,

A.G

Edited by lensman57
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of bang for your buck, yours wins hands down, also if you get a bit of dust on your lens it's way cheaper to pop out and blow it off :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison was a bit tongue-in-cheek of course :)    However, I'd processed my data using deconvolution routines so needed to know if I'd recovered real detail or generated rubbish from spurious noise. It's very easy to get deconvolution wrong, so finding a Hubble Space Telescope image answered that question.

ChrisH

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we need to send a mission of 5 astronomers to your place and replace the kettle and coffee machine see if that makes a difference !

I would be knocking on the door of NASA asking where they spent all those dollars if that's the best they can do .

joking aside you have proved that the amateur astronomer can achieve real results while earthbound with the atmosphere and real world budgets , AWSOME .

nice image too!

Andy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's a remarkable result. What s/w are you using to perform the deconvolution?

I use the one in StarTools, this was set @ 2.1 pxl radius and 12 iterations.

There is also the 'Flux' module in StarTools which offers a bit more control over the deconvolution process.

ChrisH

Edited by ChrisLX200

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always a good idea to test your data against other data on the same target. From time to time you discover that you shouldn't have used the clone stamp after all!!!  :grin:

But, sadly, nobody on here can do the Hubble Deep Field. http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fimages%2Fcontent%2F690951main_hs-2009-31-a-xlarge_web.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nasa.gov%2Fmission_pages%2Fhubble%2Fscience%2Fxdf.html&h=1113&w=1280&tbnid=SUXcobX78-HS_M%3A&zoom=1&docid=5Aoxg6WFo67SoM&ei=cMXKU5jJMMe70QXMuoH4Cg&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=440&page=1&start=0&ndsp=29&ved=0CCYQrQMwAA

The best we could hope for here would be about ten black pixels!! :grin:

Olly

Edited by ollypenrice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are times when I thiink ameteurs should be processing Hubble raw images. If we can get this much out of small scopes what could folk get out of big uns?!!

BTW Nice images

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered what our terrestrial equipment cpud produce from space ,assuming you could protect it from radiation etc..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Mars and Jupiter, I was pleasantly surprised by a comparison of my MAK150 

with (added stacked) Video images, with a C11 Edge HD plus "proper" planetary

camera. But Hey, a C11 would be my idea of a "Hubble" telescope. :p

I am coming to believe that, with "reasonable" optical capabilities, *seeing* has a lot

to do with it. Or my omni-preset THIN high cloud?  :angryfire: But nil desperandum, maybe...

Factoring in aperture, focal length, pixel size, I still think I can do even better.  :evil6:

Well, you gotta believe (or blame) something in this hobby ain'tcha? :angel12:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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