So who's up for the challenge?

[Ouroboros]

I feel rather ashamed to post my rather mediocre effort. Rather shows how noisy an aging Canon 450D can be. I don't need to post all the graphics. You know the Hubble Deep Field by heart by now.

Obtained with a 450D on an 8" SkyWatcher Newtonian.

Total of 85 minutes (14 x 150s + 10 x 300s). The 150s subs were because it was windy pre-midnight. I had to throw half the subs away.

But it was good fun finding the right area of the sky.

[phantom14]

wow some great images coming in, gives us all a better chance of identifying what we have, I tried last night but have yet to see what I've managed to capture as we were all out Lyrid spotting too till 1am

[paulobao]

I wish you the best possible seeing! Here it is just rain all over the country :-(.

Cheers,

paulo

[Macavity]

...gives us all a better chance of identifying what we have

And, if nothing else, very useful --  Just to get SOME kind of handle on sensitivity.

Not always obvious among the plethora of performance figures (and  "units" etc.)

There seems a lot of (welcome) convergence, between the technology of "classical"

imaging and video astronomy these days... Idem the techniques used (hopefully!)

I must admit I did have residual difficulty superimposing the Hubble images??? But

then I (finally) remembered - My video camera pixels are significantly non-square. 

[Ouroboros]

I would like to know how far away are the four or five "brightest" objects we are all picking up.

[DaveS]

I'd love to give it a go, but my skies are so rubbish there'd be no chance at all.

[Freddie]

Some great shots on here so here's my go with the MN190. Just a 15min shot (to check I was in the right place!!) plus 2x20mins before clouds stopped play. May be able to add more on Thurs night thought the moon may start to be a problem.

[paulobao]

Hi,

Just added a little bit more info to my image (object name and the red shift values and one or two more objects...(?))!

Cheers,

paulo

[Starman]

Brightest objects are between 1.2 and 1.8 billion light years distant.

Pete

[paulobao]

Hi,

Gx Nº1 apprx 1.2 Gyr

Gx Nº669 apprx 1.2 Gyr

Gx Nº913 apprx 1.9 Gyr 

Gx Nº534 apprx 2.5 Gyr

Gx Nº297 apprx 4.9 Gyr

Gx Nº90 apprx  5.4 Gyr

Cheers,

paulo

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Starman and Paulobao. We quickly get a tad blasé about Hubble taking images of objects that far away, and more. But it knocks me over to think that I captured photons from an object over a billion LY away from my back garden. Wow!

[Freddie]

Bit of an update now with 3hours of 20 min subs plus that first 15min shot. Last nights subs have added a little but last night was not super clear. The inset is an inverted copy of the actual hubble image.

[paulobao]

Hi,

With more 9x 1800s unfiltered! I will end here because I think my system cannot give me more! I needed more resolution :-(

The image shows just the updated objects (from my previous image).

Cheers,

paulo

[Freddie]

That's an excellent shot. In mine you can see the brighter galaxies and hints of others coming through but yours is very clear. Nice work,

[Space Cowboy]

Remarkable work guys!

[MikeD]

Here is the area from my image resized to 200% .

click image to see animated gif.

I was going to add it to the sky at night flicker group but flicker do not take animated gifs ( which I think is the best way to show the comparison

between my shot and the Hubble deep field). so i am not going to bother now.

Mike.

[rharrison]

Amazing stuff, would a big fast reflector be best for this kind of challenge ?

[MikeD]

I think something like a Celestron  C14 would be best for this, anything with a big light grasp and long FL to get the resolution that is needed to try and fill your sensor with as much of the Hubble's field of view as posible would be "BEST".

Mike.

[rharrison]

I would have thought a C14 might be a tad slow. No hope with my Ed80

[MikeD]

Just a case of upping the sub lengths, 30 to 40 mins would be a good start with a C14.

80Ed should work just need to expose for longer, not the best scope for the task  but you will get a result if you put the time in.

Mike.

[rharrison]

30 to 40 min subs   with 4m focal length would have to be one hell of a mount!  Would my 200mm f4.5 newt be better... more light grasp  ?

[MikeD]

If you can guide a C14 for 10 mins why not 40 (wind allowing)?

200mm  f4.5 newt would defiantly be better than an 80Ed you should be able to get at least as deep as I did.

I only did 10 minute  subs @ 1200mm f4.8 because of the wind, I could have happily done 40 minute subs on a better night.

Mike.

[laser_jock99]

Amazing stuff, would a big fast reflector be best for this kind of challenge ?

Focal length is the key- 1200mm and small CCD (6x4mm) is what I used. The scope was a fast F4 Newtonian which is an added bonus. 

[paulobao]

Resolution + integration time + great seeing + Low LP.

For now I cannot improve my resolution (but I will)! More integration time will not bring anything new with my resolution :-(

Keep the thread open until someone rent the VLT

Cheers,

paulo