Viewing Galaxies- Don't just use a camera- it's sort of better!

[pyrasanth]

It is surprising difficult to see galaxies visually. My viewing site is just average when it comes to darkness. I "see" most galaxies as just a blob of light. However there is some light at the end of the tunnel-excuse the pun!. I slewed the telescope to M51-looked in the eyepiece & saw virtually nothing other than 2 very faint blobs of light-certainly not a magnificent spiral like in the text books.

I then had a brainwave (it sometimes happens with me). I will try & take a picture with my CCD camera. I will post the picture when I find it again-its not particularly magnificent as its more of a knee jerk "can I do this". So I put the CCD on the back of the telescope refocused & took a 480 second exposure (why this length I don't know it just looked good). I was shocked when I looked at the image- there was forming the familiar shape of everything we love about this galaxy. I saw the spirals connecting the 2 nucleus.

I tried the same exposure on M81 & 82 & could see a lot of structure in the "cigar"- much more than I could see visually. I'm a beginner at all of this so its very exciting! I need to work on focus & guiding if I do this for real but the concept proved great. 

This has whetted my appetite for more deep sky. I have the equipment, the telescope but alas not the weather or the time working away currently but hey if I can do this badly then everybody should have a go at doing it better. I will post that very first picture when I get over the excitement.

Clear skies to you all!

[Mike73]

When I first got my 8" I was gobsmacked simply by the fact that I could see distant galaxies with my own eyes, yes is was just a grey smudge but it was the fact that I could see it which was truly amazing. I also enjoyed the challenge of star hopping and finding more grey smudges and I know for a fact that every time I saw a new galaxy I muttered something like 'wow' under my breath.

Since then I upgraded to a larger scope and travel to darker skies, I can now see spiral arms in galaxies and I've learnt a lot since I first started but I still get that same 'wow' feeling every time I look through the EP.

Just knowing that those photons have travelled millions of light years to finally reach my scope and eye is an amazing thing.

I guess some people just will never 'get' that wow feeling from seeing a grey smudge and others just don't 'get' the excitement of seeing it on a monitor!

Best of luck with your AP anyway.

[Zakalwe]

So I put the CCD on the back of the telescope refocused & took a 480 second exposure (why this length I don't know it just looked good). I was shocked when I looked at the image- there was forming the familiar shape of everything we love about this galaxy. I saw the spirals connecting the 2 nucleus.

I tried the same exposure on M81 & 82 & could see a lot of structure in the "cigar"- much more than I could see visually. I'm a beginner at all of this so its very exciting! I need to work on focus & guiding if I do this for real but the concept proved great. 

That is why I image. I'm not much cop at it, but it always inspires me when I see detail appearing at each step of the processing workflow. Pressing the "Do All" button in Registax  is always a favourite moment as is seeing the results of the first stack in DSS.

I rarely bother putting an eyepiece in any of my scopes- maybe a quick browse across the moon or a quick squint at the Sun before sticking a camera on. To me, visual is time wasted as I know that my crummy "wetware" optical system can only capture a tiny percentage of the beauty of night sky objects.

It's slippery expensive slope, but looking at your kit list you have an awesome mount, scope and camera.

Clear skies.

[DrRobin]

Hi,

Same here, virtually no visual. I much prefer looking at everything on the screen rather than through an eyepiece, it is just easier and allows more than one person to look at the same time. I know purists will shriek with horror but then if they really are that fanatical what are they using a scope for in the first place? A telescope is just like a camera, it allows me to see things I wouldn't be able to.

Anyway your scope (C11) is an imaging scope not really designed for visual and it deserves to be connected to a camera.

Robin

[bingevader]

Ooh easy tiger, no need to jump in so defensively. I think the OP was saying how exciting imaging was, no one was having a go at you!

I'm not sure why fanatical has become an insult these days either. 

I wear glasses, does the addition of a couple of pieces of precisely ground glass make me somehow an impure human?

Yep, there's nothing better than to lie out under the stars and just gaze up at the incomprehensible vastness of the universe.

Each to his own, as always in life!

Pyrasanth, I haven't the time or money to get into imaging at the moment, but I do like seeing what other people mange to image from their back gardens, please post your pics!

[DrRobin]

Ooh easy tiger, no need to jump in so defensively. I think the OP was saying how exciting imaging was, no one was having a go at you!

This visual/imaging debate has gone on for long enough on here and I just wanted to get my shots in early in defense of imaging.

Each to his own, as always in life!

Exactly!

Robin

[bingevader]

This visual/imaging debate has gone on for long enough on here and I just wanted to get my shots in early in defense of imaging.

[pyrasanth]

Hi,

Anyway your scope (C11) is an imaging scope not really designed for visual and it deserves to be connected to a camera.

Robin

I laughed at this quote. I don't think Celestron would agree or the massive number of people who enjoy visual astronomy. I think CCD imaging should be used as another tool in your arsenal to enhance your experience at the telescope. Certainly it was never my intention to kick off a debate about the merits of visual vs photography. The Celestron Edge is a magnificent VISUAL or PHOTOGRAPHIC telescope- what ever floats your boat!

[DrRobin]

I laughed at this quote. I don't think Celestron would agree or the massive number of people who enjoy visual astronomy. I think CCD imaging should be used as another tool in your arsenal to enhance your experience at the telescope. Certainly it was never my intention to kick off a debate about the merits of visual vs photography. The Celestron Edge is a magnificent VISUAL or PHOTOGRAPHIC telescope- what ever floats your boat!

It is a fantastic scope and for that reason I bought one a couple of years ago.  However, what sets the Edge series apart from the standard C11 is the additional corrector plates designed to give a flat coma free field across a full frame DSLR or other large imaging chip and this is the reason for the price hike over a standard C11.

The benefits of the flat field are not noticeable in the eyepiece and the benefits of this scope aren't even realised when imaging the planets as you only use a small portion of the field of view.  For these reasons it will work no better than a standard C11 visually, that is not to say it isn't any good, of course it is.  Celestron themselves suggest that this scope is primarily designed for imaging and I think if you asked them for a recommendation for a large SCT for visual only they would suggest the standard C11.

I notice you have Hyperstar, which BTW is only ever for imaging.  BTW Hyperstar bypasses all of the advantages of the Edge as well, since all of the Edge's correctors are after the secondary.  Watch out when swapping out the secondary for the Hyperstar, the secondary holder on these scopes comes loose very easily, it happened to me and took several months to get it back in the right place.  Now I know how to get it back right and with a Hotech Advanced it would only be one night to get it sorted, but first time it will take ages.

There is still the vent holes to aid cool down, but without a fan kit these do next door to nothing.  You can get a nice little fan kit from Deep Space Products (deepspaceproducts.com) over in the US, they make a huge difference to the cool down time of the Edge series.  There is also the primary clutches, again of very limited value unless you fit a Crayford to the rear and want to image/view through the zenith.

Best of luck no matter how you decide to use your C11 Edge, with a Hyperstar it is a great all rounder and one heck of a scope.

Robin

[swamp thing]

Certainly it was never my intention to kick off a debate about the merits of visual vs photography.

In that case I'll move this into the getting started imaging area as no observing is being discussed.

[toxic]

whether your into visual or astrophotography whether  is video or 30 second exposures to hours it dos'nt matter if you enjoy it and if you do the photo side then you have the option to do both just have fun with what ever kit you have.

i like to do both and there is no debate i dont care if someone wants to do one or the other its there choice and they enjoy it. just have fun and get the buzzzzzzz.

[pyrasanth]

Here is a very quick snap of M51. Nothing special as I said. It was more a "can I do it". Notice the round rings which I think are specs of dust on the CCD protective cover. I was amazed by this image,no guiding, no thought & no planning! 480 seconds o the Atik 490EX (just a flat binned at 2x2)

[cutepetgroomer]

When I see what I think at first is a smudge I keep reminding myself it could be so and so galaxy , etc based time and portion of sky. Always a wow for me.

[Northern Soul man]

Here is a very quick snap of M51. Nothing special as I said. It was more a "can I do it". Notice the round rings which I think are specs of dust on the CCD protective cover. I was amazed by this image,no guiding, no thought & no planning! 480 seconds o the Atik 490EX (just a flat binned at 2x2)

M51_Quick.png

I thought the Ring nebula was in Lyra !!!!!!!! - last time I LOOKED (NO camera, NO ccd, NO canon, NO Atik, NO wso, NO webcam) you get the PICTURE!!!!!

Paul.

[Northern Soul man]

Here is a very quick snap of M51. Nothing special as I said. It was more a "can I do it". Notice the round rings which I think are specs of dust on the CCD protective cover. I was amazed by this image,no guiding, no thought & no planning! 480 seconds o the Atik 490EX (just a flat binned at 2x2)

M51_Quick.png

I thought the Ring nebula was in Lyra and there was only one!! last time I LOOKED (NO camera, NO ccd, No Atik, NO wso, No ccd tools, NO astro tortilla, NO registax) I think you get the PICTURE!!!!!

Paul.

[Martin Meredith]

It is surprising difficult to see galaxies visually. My viewing site is just average when it comes to darkness. I "see" most galaxies as just a blob of light. However there is some light at the end of the tunnel-excuse the pun!. I slewed the telescope to M51-looked in the eyepiece & saw virtually nothing other than 2 very faint blobs of light-certainly not a magnificent spiral like in the text books.

I then had a brainwave (it sometimes happens with me). I will try & take a picture with my CCD camera. I will post the picture when I find it again-its not particularly magnificent as its more of a knee jerk "can I do this". So I put the CCD on the back of the telescope refocused & took a 480 second exposure (why this length I don't know it just looked good). I was shocked when I looked at the image- there was forming the familiar shape of everything we love about this galaxy. I saw the spirals connecting the 2 nucleus.

I tried the same exposure on M81 & 82 & could see a lot of structure in the "cigar"- much more than I could see visually. I'm a beginner at all of this so its very exciting! I need to work on focus & guiding if I do this for real but the concept proved great. 

This has whetted my appetite for more deep sky. I have the equipment, the telescope but alas not the weather or the time working away currently but hey if I can do this badly then everybody should have a go at doing it better. I will post that very first picture when I get over the excitement.

Clear skies to you all!

Hi Pyrasanth

Check out the video astronomy forum; what you describe is what is being done there, and with shorter exposures. Most people there don't regard it as AP but more as sensor-assisted viewing. If you're not interested in creating 'perfect' images then you can forget about guiding too i.e. much simpler than hard-core AP. I mainly use an 80mm f6 achromat with a Lodestar guide/imaging camera in alt-az mode. You'll be amazed at what you can see even with a small aperture in under a minute with a sensitive camera e.g. galaxy clusters, dark nebulae,...

Martin

[laser_jock99]

Some of the more sensitive CCD's can image almost in real time. I have been playing with Lodestar X2 camera getting recognisable images in very short times

M51 in 5 seconds

The other possiblity is imaging really faint objects (such as the magnitude 18 galaxies between the arrows) in under 30 seconds

I defy anybody to see these visually!!

[ollypenrice]

A lot of people appreciate the kind of half way house approach of capturing a short exposure of the target to enjoy there and then, rather than spending multiple nights on a dataset for extensive processing. This approach needs a name! I got into hot water once for saying it's not what I call astrophotography but my point was to distinguish it from the typically head banging DS approach of multiple nights. I wasn't trying to denigrate it because I think it's a very valid thing to do.

Olly

[szymon]

This thread title needs punctuation! :-)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[happy-kat]

How about 'astromatic'

[Ptarmigan]

Pyrasanth> Very interesting discussion you've raised

Nice quick snap, I like your reasoning for it.

Did anyone answer your rings/dust question ? If so I missed it, must have a re-read

Laser-jock>Very interesting and impressive

"I defy anybody to see these visually!!"

you're defying me to see them even on my screen !! Thanks for prompting me to give it a clean and an adjust of levels ! !

Even then it needed a bit of averted vision ! No I jest not, I copied it and diverted it to Irfanview for a bit of processing. Heheee.

 So two upshots :

1) I'll have to seriously consider getting one of those when I get my 'scope (binos still)

and 2 ) What is the nearby faint arc, yellow arrow, Einstein lensing ? or artefact or other ?

3) what is the glow in the upper middle, local light pollution or Loadstar artefact

Oh! Sorry that was three

[simmo39]

I would be v happy with these images, As long as it fits your needs then you have achieved. Will be looking to get results like these as soon as the clouds go and play somewhere else.

[laser_jock99]

Pyrasanth> Very interesting discussion you've raised

Nice quick snap, I like your reasoning for it.

Did anyone answer your rings/dust question ? If so I missed it, must have a re-read

Laser-jock>Very interesting and impressive

"I defy anybody to see these visually!!"

you're defying me to see them even on my screen !! Thanks for prompting me to give it a clean and an adjust of levels ! !

Even then it needed a bit of averted vision ! No I jest not, I copied it and diverted it to Irfanview for a bit of processing. Heheee.

 So two upshots :

1) I'll have to seriously consider getting one of those when I get my 'scope (binos still)

and 2 ) What is the nearby faint arc, yellow arrow, Einstein lensing ? or artefact or other ?

3) what is the glow in the upper middle, local light pollution or Loadstar artefact

Oh! Sorry that was three

Mag 18 is very faint I agree- but bear in mind this is a 25 second exposure using a 10" F4 Newt under nearly full moon conditions, from a mag 4-5 site.

The gradient is mainly from the moonlight- no idea what the arc is (just an optical artefact probably). If it was an Einstein Lensing it would be a well know target for amateurs already!  

[Ptarmigan]

using a 10" F4 Newt under nearly full moon

If it was an Einstein Lensing it would be a well know target for amateurs already!  

Full moon as well ! Gosh !

and you must be telepathic, I meant to ask about the telescope but forgot

Good point about Lensing for amateurs

And the big galaxy in that 2nd pic is ?? I think I should know it but , ,

Thanks.

[Macavity]

I just call 'em "Video Astronomy" and *Classical* Imaging - No one seems to get too excited?

I now use a hybrid method, stacking 10-20m of 5-10s video integrations, plus dark subtraction.

Once one realises (openly admits? lol) the strengths & limitations of the various techniques, it

seems to prompt eager knowledge sharing? A mutual interest in geekery technology, at least! 

It's great not to work in a vacuum? "Comrades in adversity", fighting light pollution, weather...

P.S. To relax after "imaging", I try to leave the setup tracking an object, carefully remove the

camera, put in a... whatchamacallit... Eyepiece - Yes that's it! Find out what I can see visually.