Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
I was wondering whether it's possible to image a DSO and capture any depth. Every 3D astro image online is faked so at the start of the year, I decided to image M42 six months apart.
Back in March I posted a image of M42 imaged at f10, 2032mm FL through my 8SE on 28th February 2019. Than on 3rd September (setup and captured 15 second subs on 1 September) I captured M42 at the same focal length, same orientation and very similar subs for a total exposure of 1 hr 24 minutes. This was almost to the day exactly 6 months between the two images, so the earth was 300 million km away from the original position on the other side of the sun, furthest I could hope for imaging a 3D stereo pair.
First attached is the image from September...
I color matched the above image with the image from February, aligned them and below is the end result....
As you can see there is no detectable 3D effect... There was a 3Dish effect but this was most likely due to the differences in processing of the two stacks and when I SCALE and rotate the two images to align them, and hence no 3D effect.
Of course the stars and nebula are certainly not on a flat plain so I believe that the reason for the lack of any discernable depth is simply due to the distance of M42 resulting in a very small angular shift in the stars, so small in fact, that it’s beyond the sensitivity of my 8” SCT, camera pixel resolution and tracking accuracy of the CGEM.
Calculation of the expected motion of any parallax shift when the Orion Nebula is 1344 lightyears away and the distance of Earth being 149,600,000km from the Sun:
1344LY = 1.2715e+16km
Θ° = Tan-1(149.6e+6/1.2715e+16)
Parallax Shift Θ” = 2 x 3600 x Θ
Parallax Shift Θ” = 0.0048536712567150
An angular motion of 0.005” was not picked up by my system that tracks with an average accuracy of about 1” RMS, with a camera sensor that has a resolution of 1.16”/pixel at 2032mm focal length with a 8” SCT. Even if I could get consistent tracking at the best accuracy that I have ever seen with my gear, 0.38” RMS, this is still well above 0.005” and well beyond the 40D sensor pixel resolution, and all this is without considering atmospheric distortion, obviously my setup is not even close to sensitive enough.
This was a good project but unfortunately the distances of objects in the universe are too great, even objects classed as in our celestial “backyard”. If I didn’t try this experiment than I would be always wondering and curiosity would most likely make me try it eventually.
By R26 oldtimer
I see that there are some great actions for PS out there but they come at a price. Have you come across any free and good actions, that you can recommend?
Hi to everyone, I used to do some astrophotography in the past with a Celestron AVX and DSLR but after few month had to give up for several reasons, including light pollution (I'm living in zone 3 east London), and also working shifts. Now I want to start again, and this time more serious. I've been searching around for a couple of months to choose all the gear and I'm quite happy with the list so far although it's a bit over the price I planned at first.
I will get an William optics Z73 with his 50mm guide scope, a flattener/reducer 0.8, light pollution filter IDAS D2 and as camera I will use a Canon 600D modded and I will buy a ZWO 183MC Pro, after so much research, I'm very happy with the scale and framing I will get with this combo, but I'm starting to get confused with the mount.
My first idea was to go for an HEQ5 Pro, as my previous experience with the AVX has been awful, then I realized that the FLO, sells that mount with belt modification and also some cleaning and tuning if required, I heard that it's a big improvement over the stock one and the price it's ok, but another important factor for me it's portability. Unfortunately, my garden doesn't allow me to do much so I will need to carry around on trolley, for a km walk, I'm a strong person and been doing plenty of time with the AVX, so my confusion came recently when the iOptron mounts entered my radar. I start comparing the heq5 pro with belt, with the iOptron cem25EC and the CEM40 without encoders, and I'm so unsure of which to buy, the cem25 seem to be the equivalent of heq5 at least speaking of payload, but in some threads I read people saying it's a bit fragile so kind of remove it from the equation although the weight it's interesting for my situation, then the cem40, seem to be quite similar on weight to the heq5 but with higher payload and that's interesting too as I will buy a C11 at some point.
Now it will all come down to the accuracy of tracking I guess, how the heq5 and cem40 would compare on tracking and guiding? If the cem40 it's better, I would probably go with that since it holds more and would last longer as I don't plan to get anything bigger than a C11, but if the skywatcher it's better, I could decide to go for that, and when I move to a place with better garden then get a second mount with higher payload.
Apologise for the long post and my english.
Hello, this is my first attempt on NGC 7635 with my skywatcher 250pds on an NEQ6 synscan mount. These are 7min subs stacked to a total exposure of 5 hours taken with my unmodified canon 700d and a skytech cls filter. No coma corrector was used as I haven't gotten one yet. I'm just wondering how I could make my images look clearer when zoomed in and improve them overall as I can see the image gets more blurry when I zoom in onto the bubble, should I use a higher magnification? Do I need to take more darks to get rid of the redness around the image ? Or perhaps I stretched the image too much in Photoshop? I used 10 darks, 60 bias and 60 flat frames.
Update: I have now further processed my image with greater care and got a much better result.