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.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_lunar_landings.thumb.jpg.b50378d0845690d8a03305a49923eb40.jpg

gorann

Helping Hubble why waiting for clear skies

Recommended Posts

Or, why not steal some Hubble data to improve your images?

While waiting for clear skies (today we got 20 cm of snow), I have like apparently many other Stargazers played around with old data. After realizing that I could not do much more to improve my latest M42 image, and trying to get inspiration from the numerous M42s published on the net, I stumbled on what Wikipedia says is "one of the most detailed astronomical images ever produced: NASA/ESA's Hubble Space Telescope version of the M42 that took 105 Hubble orbits to complete. Even if it is a mosaic, it is far from capturing the whole nebula and the Running man is way out of reach. So, I decided to join forces with NASA and ESA and expland their field of view a bit. It was also a good Photoshop exercise for me.

Here is my latest version of M42 and the Running man.

post-44514-0-76209000-1452440769_thumb.j

Here is the Hubble M42

post-44514-0-25995200-1452440784_thumb.j

And here they are living together in perfect (?) harmony

post-44514-0-91641500-1452440954_thumb.j

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I meant to call the thread was: Helping Hubble WHILE waiting for clear skies

(Apparently I am not allowed to edit the heading)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting!

What strikes me is that the images we produce of M42 on this forum are not a million miles off of the Hubble image. Hubble is obviously much more detailed (and so it should be!) but it is amazing what we can produce for a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of Hubbles costs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was also struck by the fact that the difference was not as great as I would have thought, and it is great that we do not need to spend US$10 billion to get some rather amazing images. As, you say the detail is of course much better in the Hubble images but that is not so obvious until you zoom in.

Actually, some of us probably reach the same level of detail when doing major widefield mosaics, like Tom and Olly's Orion:

http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/237263-the-400-hour-image/?hl=%2Borion+%2Bmosaic

or Tom's recent galactic centre:

(http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/259691-100hr-galactic-centre-mosaic

  • Like 1

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.