Messing about with M31

[The Admiral]

In no way can this be regarded as a serious attempt to image M31. It was really just an experiment to see what I could get out of a spotting 'scope mounted on an ALT-AZ, and with my camera replacing the eyepiece. If that alone doesn't have the odds stacked (pardon the pun ) against me, this is also the first time I've tried anything like this or tried stacking, so I'm sure there's plenty that could be improved upon. Anyway, given the constraints I'm quite satisfied with the way my humble attempt has turned out.

This is from 20 x 30 sec subs, 8 darks and 10 bias frames, all converted from RAW to tiffs in Capture One, and stacked in Deep Sky Stacker. DSS uses DCRAW to convert RAWs, but as my Fuji uses a non-Bayer array I was a little uncertain whether it would actually work properly with these, despite it supposedly being supported, and indeed it didn't. Hence the need to convert to tiffs before importing. I finished the image in Lightroom, and I think the image looked slightly less grainy than does the exported file. Presumably insufficient exposure for colour to be apparent. Equipment used: Opticron HR66 spotting 'scope with an Opticron Telephoto adapter (giving an effective focal length of 700mm if memory serves), NexStar SE mount, Fuji X-T1.

Cheers

Ian

[SteveNickolls]

Nice photo and ingenious use of kit.

Steve

[pyrasanth]

well.....it looks better than my first attempt...I'm still trying to do it properly. I've just about captured the middle......at least you got all of it. Have a look at my middle bit. I need a wider field or start shooting lots of tiles then stick them together- don't fancy that much.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/251929-m31-the-core-revisited/

This picture took me ages to get but looks good enlarged as computer wall paper!

[The Admiral]

Thanks for your post pyrasanth. I had already seen your marvellous image, and others recently posted, so I know that there is an AU wide gulf between mine and those. As you point out though, those images require a considerable investment in time and funds, and is a sink-hole I'd just rather not get into . Nonetheless, I was just intrigued to discover what would be achievable with a limited set-up. I might have another go at M31 but with using more subs and/or longer exposure (not sure which would be better), and I'd like to have a pop at the Orion nebula. But I'm also well aware of the limits to what could be achieved.

Ian

[pyrasanth]

I've seen spectacular results with modest equipment. The gulf between you & I is imaginary. I don't have much skill currently but I have good equipment & a desire to learn. My first images were dire- much worse than you could ever imagine. I will see if I can find some- most were deleted out of embarrassment but they show progression.

The most important piece of equipment is YOU followed by a good mount. Spend more on the mount than any other piece of equipment. The Paramount cost me nearly £8000.00 but is worth every penny as it is the glue that holds every single image together & sometimes even that glue falls apart.

Match the object with your equipment & the sky is literally the limit.

Good luck with your imaging.

[davefrance]

Great first attempt. You don't need many frames or too long an exposure to get some colour. If you use a long exposure you will blow out the core.

This is not my best but is only 45 x 45 sec exposures.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/250895-30-minute-andromeda-widefield/?hl=%2B30+%2Bminute+%2Bandromeda#entry2734142

[The Admiral]

Thanks for the encouragement pyrasanth. I know I come cheap, (but with not a lot of commitment if I am honest), but I think you also demonstrate (£££) why I wouldn't want to get sucked in to the astro-imaging world  . I tend to be a perfectionist, so it would be a very slippery slope indeed! I think I'll be happy enough just gazing at the stunning achievements of you folk, knowing that I have other limitations such as not having desperately dark skies and being unable to view Polaris from my observing position (and if I move to where I can see it then my sky view isn't so good).

Thanks Davefrance, I'd be pleased to have got an image approaching yours. My camera has a built-in intervalometer function, but as it only works up to 30s exposures that was a convenient exposure time. Besides which, I was concerned that with an Alt-Az mount I might get too much trailing with longer exposures. Next time I'll try more exposures, with and without extending the exposure time, and see what I get. Looking at a sub, the core is only ~ 1/6th of full white, so I guess that there is a good way to go with exposure before I saturate it. I'm not quite sure how stacking multiple frames affects that though.

Ian

[davefrance]

Thanks Davefrance, I'd be pleased to have got an image approaching yours. My camera has a built-in intervalometer function, but as it only works up to 30s exposures that was a convenient exposure time. Besides which, I was concerned that with an Alt-Az mount I might get too much trailing with longer exposures. Next time I'll try more exposures, with and without extending the exposure time, and see what I get. Looking at a sub, the core is only ~ 1/6th of full white, so I guess that there is a good way to go with exposure before I saturate it. I'm not quite sure how stacking multiple frames affects that though.

Ian

Here is one where I had more time, same settings but double the exposures. 30 secs will be fine if you can get more frames to stack. When post processing I find it is a balance between getting detail in the arms and blowing the core. I am no expert but I guess the ideal would be to stack some at 30 secs and some 60 secs or longer.

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/252164-m31-07-sept-2015/?hl=andromeda#entry2748666