Remote imaging M16 - My first attempt

[Star101]

I have been a subscriber to iTelescope.net for a couple of years but never gotten around to imaging.

I have imaged M16 from my garden before but my limited view between the houses allows me to only get about 20 minutes viewing.

Today, I was looking at iTelescopes wide range of scopes. I compared some settings with a FOV calculator and before I knew it I was selecting M16, using the T30 telescope in Australia. 

Here is image using 4 x 60s Lum quick process in Pixinsight.

Following on from this session I decided to book an hours time on same scope tomorrow afternoon my time using only 30s subs to see if I can get a decent colour image

Do many others use remote imaging by subscription? What is your opinion?

Thanks for looking

 

[Demonperformer]

I have considered it, if only to get some data that I know is good to practice my processing.

From previous discussions, remote imaging seems to polarise opinion on SGL. There are those who say the image is yours because you have selected the target, capture details and processed the resulting data. There are those who say because you have not set up the telescope yourself it is cheating. My opinion: as long as you don't pretend that the data you get from a remote telescope it the Atacama Desert was taken from your light-polluted garden, I don't see a problem.

[Pete Presland]

Not a fan myself, but that's only because I like being freezing cold at night and tired the next morning 😀 On a personal level being outside looking up at the stars is a huge part of astronomy for me, probably why a stopped imaging DSO's, I just felt I was looking down more than up! 🤩

Seriously though, do what you enjoy! As DP said as long you are honest about what you are presenting I don't see why anyone would have a problem. Damien peach's planetary images of late are a collaboration with the  http://www.chilescope.com/  team.

You will find many of his planetary images in their gallery. There is also a "remote (robotic) capture" category in the Insight astrophotographer of the year competition as well. 

[alan potts]

Never really thought about it but I feel the two previous cover anything I am likely to think of. Like Pete I do enjoy being outside with the capture and look up most of the time, even have my Dob outside as well sometimes. I could easily afford a complete remote set-up but like banging on with my AZEQ6 and scopes, am going to upgrade to a decent CMOS soon, then maybe I will sleep out there.

Alan

[david_taurus83]

10 hours ago, Star101 said:

I have been a subscriber to iTelescope.net for a couple of years but never gotten around to imaging.

I have imaged M16 from my garden before but my limited view between the houses allows me to only get about 20 minutes viewing.

Today, I was looking at iTelescopes wide range of scopes. I compared some settings with a FOV calculator and before I knew it I was selecting M16, using the T30 telescope in Australia. 

Here is image using 4 x 60s Lum quick process in Pixinsight.

Following on from this session I decided to book an hours time on same scope tomorrow afternoon my time using only 30s subs to see if I can get a decent colour image

Do many others use remote imaging by subscription? What is your opinion?

Thanks for looking

 

I've been a subscriber for a couple of months now and still undecided if I'll keep up with the 40 plan. I've asked about their OSC options as I was thinking about Lum on one setup and OSC on another to try and make efficient use of credits but the Bathurst obsy is under maintenance at the moment. It's the only one which houses OSC I think.

Just so your aware, the minimum image time is 60s per sub. If you shoot 30s, then they will still charge you for 60s though they do cap this surcharge.

https://support.itelescope.net/support/solutions/articles/212714-billing-surcharges

[Star101]

8 hours ago, david_taurus83 said:

I've been a subscriber for a couple of months now and still undecided if I'll keep up with the 40 plan. I've asked about their OSC options as I was thinking about Lum on one setup and OSC on another to try and make efficient use of credits but the Bathurst obsy is under maintenance at the moment. It's the only one which houses OSC I think.

Just so your aware, the minimum image time is 60s per sub. If you shoot 30s, then they will still charge you for 60s though they do cap this surcharge.

https://support.itelescope.net/support/solutions/articles/212714-billing-surcharges

Thanks for the info on 60s mimimum charge! I thought it was on time...booking 1 hour/1.5 hours or 2 hours etc!! did not expect to get a bill for twice the time!!

Having just read the pricing, I can see what they mean...Its OK. I have worked on 1.5 x the actual imaging time. So, allowing 30 minutes extra for each hour.

I chose 30s because if one looks closely, one can see bleeding on some stars, looking over exposed. At 60s....so, thought 30s would be about right.

My set did not run today due to cloud (roof on) so maybe I could rethink my ideas before its too late.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Star101

[Star101]

After a couple of days closed roof...Even remote imaging has cloud issues, sometimes. 😛

Finished product. M16.

40 x 30s Lum

15 x 30s RGB

Taken using iTelsecope.net T30 scope in Australia. About 90 mins booked.

 Processed in Pixinsight....I need more practice

 

[Demonperformer]

Definitely worth the wait. Nice result.

[Jkulin]

On 12/06/2019 at 00:05, Star101 said:

Do many others use remote imaging by subscription? What is your opinion?

Please understand that you have asked for opinions, but it just isn’t for me as it goes against the grain of my personal feelings about remote imaging.

For me there are a number of classifications: -

1. Those who hire time from downloading images using commercial equipment not owned by them, for me it doesn’t contain any merit.

2. Those that get a company to setup their equipment and maintain it, again to me that contains very little merit.

3. Those that install, setup, configure and maintain their own equipment remotely, this indeed is in my opinion a worthy capture method, although not for me.

So although I appreciate you have still had to process the images it is rather like going fishing, that everything is done for you so that you can pose with the fish after it has been landed.

No insult inferred, it just really isn’t for me

Edited June 16, 2019 by Jkulin

[Gina]

That expresses my views precisely.

[Whirlwind]

9 hours ago, Jkulin said:

Please understand that you have asked for opinions, but it just isn’t for me as it goes against the grain of my personal feelings about remote imaging.

For me there are a number of classifications: -

1. Those who hire time from downloading images using commercial equipment not owned by them, for me it doesn’t contain any merit.

2. Those that get a company to setup their equipment and maintain it, again to me that contains very little merit.

3. Those that install, setup, configure and maintain their own equipment remotely, this indeed is in my opinion a worthy capture method, although not for me.

So although I appreciate you have still had to process the images it is rather like going fishing, that everything is done for you so that you can pose with the fish after it has been landed.

No insult inferred, it just really isn’t for me

There's a lot of reasons though that people interested in the hobby might not be able to effectively image though and remote imaging can fill a void.

For example:-

If you work night shifts, have very early mornings, work abroad frequently
If your home residence is conducive to imaging (you live in a flat in the city)
You have a medical condition, bad back etc that makes it difficult to do these things yourself anyway
You live in the UK and would prefer your equipment doesn't spend more time as a towel rack rather than imaging
You prefer more science based work (e.g. observing transits etc) where the UK weather is not conducive to this sort of work.
You live in north Scotland and would prefer to image some summer targets
You can use it to top up data you might have missed in the UK (e.g. you managed to get the LRG but not the B!)

I get the point that for some the challenge is to get everything just right, but then some just like to have images to show for it.

I do find the cost for itelescope expensive though.  For the 'lowest grade' (and I say that with some hesitancy) you are still looking at £30 per hour.  A whole night imaging would be close to £250

 

[Aidan]

I’m sort of half and half.  I thrive on the challenge of setting up, configuring and capturing my own images from my back garden and then processing it... but nights are limited and because I have to setup and tear down every session, consistently getting all components singing at the same time is never a gimmie.

Never really considered it, but having the ability to capture images of my choice and then processing does have some appeal to me..  The options I have looked at were too expensive for me.

[DaveS]

The nearest I've got to remote imaging is requesting time on the Liverpool Telescope, but would use it if I could afford it.

I think of the professional astronomers who might be on a different continent to the telescope they're using.

[DaveS]

Expanding on my previous post, I see a difference between being able to request your own imaging time, as I think iTelescope does, and those set-ups where you have to share a session.

For me, the 'scope is just a tool to acquire data, fussing over it may be necessary at times, but I'd rather be imaging. Remote imaging can also get you data on objects that just aren't visible from here, so I see no reason not to use remote imaging.

[Jkulin]

1 hour ago, Whirlwind said:

There's a lot of reasons though that people interested in the hobby might not be able to effectively image though and remote imaging can fill a void.

For example:-

If you work night shifts, have very early mornings, work abroad frequently
If your home residence is conducive to imaging (you live in a flat in the city)
You have a medical condition, bad back etc that makes it difficult to do these things yourself anyway
You live in the UK and would prefer your equipment doesn't spend more time as a towel rack rather than imaging
You prefer more science based work (e.g. observing transits etc) where the UK weather is not conducive to this sort of work.
You live in north Scotland and would prefer to image some summer targets
You can use it to top up data you might have missed in the UK (e.g. you managed to get the LRG but not the B!)

I get the point that for some the challenge is to get everything just right, but then some just like to have images to show for it.

I do find the cost for itelescope expensive though.  For the 'lowest grade' (and I say that with some hesitancy) you are still looking at £30 per hour.  A whole night imaging would be close to £250

 

In answer to the above: -

I work most nights until 3 or 4 in the morning and still managing to image, it depends how determined you are.

Your home residence might not be conducive to imaging, but the likes of @souls33k3r and @carastro have really bad skies and manage to produce superb images through perseverance and travelling and even @thelestria24 manages from her balcony in Glasgow, so it depends how much you want you own work or someone else's.

I have a chronic back condition and I'm classified as disabled, but I still manage.

So it really depends on how much you want to achieve your own success or use someone else's skills.

With regards to objects not in our hemisphere, then great, when I get time I shall visit countries with my travel kit and capture them then.

Just to be honest, it rattles my cage when I see images on Astrobin when it is obvious people have captured them in Namibia or Mexico or even Chile but classify it as their own back yard, yet when you look at the kit there is over 100-200 grands worth.

People need to be honest and if you have worked hard to establish your own kit remotely then you deserve the rewards, but to me someone who produces an excellently captured and processed image from a light polluted back garden deserves an even greater pat on the back.

[cotak]

I don't think think there is anything wrong with using services like itelescope. 

There are uses for services like them outside of amateur imagers who are out for a picture.

Schools for examples could use a service like that and it would be more cost effective than having a scope on site. And not everyone has local folks who can do out reach. And of course kids can't all stay up late.

Another thing is if your situation doesn't allow you to travel for imaging, you can still get snaps of the southern skies.

[carastro]

Quote

So although I appreciate you have still had to process the images it is rather like going fishing, that everything is done for you so that you can pose with the fish after it has been landed.

That sums it up precisely Jkulkin.  LOL  

Quote

Just to be honest, it rattles my cage when I see images on Astrobin when it is obvious people have captured them in Namibia or Mexico or even Chile but classify it as their own back yard, yet when you look at the kit there is over 100-200 grands worth.

Me too.  I don't "like" any images on Astrobin unless they are Backyard, Traveller or I happen to know the imager has set up their own rig with their own equipment and then operate it remotely.  All the other images are lovely to look at but in their shoes, I would not be able to comfortably say they were my images unless I had done the capturing work myself using my own equipment etc etc.  I have been embroiled in a number of arguments on Astrobin on this topic and now given up arguing and let them take their pats on the back for work they only half did themselves if that's what they feel they want/need.  Recently some-one was over the Moon for getting an APOD using Hubble data.  What's that all about?? 

The only time I would consider using downloaded data that I didn't set up myself is if I was physically unable to do the capture part myself for medical reasons and it's either that or give up the hobby completely. 

I won't even do it for targets that are out of reach in the UK.  I recently travelled to Spain with a small portable set up in order to capture the Antares region, it has taken data captured over 5 years to complete this image.  It's still not great because I had to use a camera lens (which I am not great with) and a Skytracker with no guiding, but it's all my own work.  

Carole 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2019 by carastro

[souls33k3r]

12 hours ago, Jkulin said:

Your home residence might not be conducive to imaging, but the likes of @souls33k3r and @carastro have really bad skies and manage to produce superb images through perseverance and travelling and even @thelestria24 manages from her balcony in Glasgow, so it depends how much you want you own work or someone else's.

Where's the fun if we're not struggling or challenge ourselves  

Makes the final image even more a sweet success

[Pompey Monkey]

I'm deliberately not going to quote anyone on this, because I don't want to offend. But I DO have a strong opinion on this matter:

I think that if you don't collect your own sand and trace minerals, build a kiln, produce your own blanks, grind and polish your own mirror, devise a new method for testing the optics using a hand made light-blub powered by home made batteries*, <pause for breath> smelt the steel to make your own lathe to produce your own bearings (do you know how much science and effort goes into making accurate ball-bearings?), develop your own light sensitive semiconductors and the associated digital electronics (not to mention programming the thing to work)**... then you are not worthy of any recognition at all.

We are all standing on the shoulders of giants. If you want to be masochistic about life, fair enough. Personally, I enjoy the rich pickings of modern society!  Plus I've worked blinking hard to get to the point where I can set up a remote observatory - does that effort count for nowt too?

 

*Gotta make your own copper wire (from ore that you prospected yourself) and insulation too..

**I could go on,  but you get the idea

[Star101]

Thanks for the very interesting replies 

I do have my own back yard ROR Obsy so setting up is not a problem.

All my images except this M16 above have been taken with my own equipment. My view of M16 from my garden is a 20 minute slot as it passes between two houses. And yes, I have imaged it from home too.

I agree that images should have indications with them showing how they were taken.

The reason I used iTelescope is that I sucumed to their advertising a couple of years back and at the time we had nothing but clouds for several weeks. iTelescope seemed to be the perfect answer to my lack of imaging chances.

Cost ! - I payed £15/month which gets me 20 points each month. Over the two years its gradually grown and I do receive loyalty bonus points now and then.

Each scope has a different price/hour to use and there are discounts for the moon being around or not.

For this image of M16, I booked just short of one and a half hours of telescope time. I got 50% reduction due to the moon being close by. It still cost me 98 points. Thats around £75 !!! Not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. For that £75 I do get to use, as I desire, a scope with a camera that I could only dream of and skies that are impossible from my back yard. I did a quick check on camera and scope only, come to £44,000 without pricing in the mount.

Am I happy with this image? Yes, I am. The pleasure I got taking this image was very different to imaging on my own rig. As I said above, on my own rig, watching the clock and checking Cartes du Ciel for M16 location. Setting the scope up for the 20 minutes visibility I have of the DSO. And finally setting the camera to image and seeing my first shot appear on my screen, Fantastic! …..Compared to iTelescope, take a test image, find the camera is (removed words) sensative. Reduce exposure to 30 seconds per sub. Fill in the form 40 subs Lum, 15 subs RGB all at 30s . Choose the time on the free space of the calendar. Wait!. Three days later, due to clouds lol, get an email to say the image has been captured. Download from here. Images in RAW and already calibrated forms. Its great. I got very clear and in focus image of a DSO that I find wonderful.

I have found remote imaging this way is great for imaging stuff that is nearly impossible from my current location. I will keep spending my modest £15/month for times like now, where we have no darkness and lots of clouds. But I do prefer my ROR Obsy. I love the tinkering. The chosing objects on a whim. The cable issues and neighbours security lights!! lol. So, yeah. There is room for BOTH And I will be honest and indicate where/how the image was taken. 

 

[carastro]

Just as an added point about buying downloaded data from professional sources such as Deep Sky West (I am sure there are several others).  The same data for a given target is processed by a number of people, so in effect it is just a processing contest.  There was a time on Astrobin when the same image was being presented by several people.  Not sure if it still happens as I am past caring about it now.  

I don't object to remote imaging so long as you own and set up the equipment yourself and capture and control it remotely.   

Carole 

[Star101]

4 minutes ago, carastro said:

Just as an added point about buying downloaded data from professional sources such as Deep Sky West (I am sure there are several others).  The same data for a given target is processed by a number of people, so in effect it is just a processing contest.  There was a time on Astrobin when the same image was being presented by several people.  Not sure if it still happens as I am past caring about it now.  

I don't object to remote imaging so long as you own and set up the equipment yourself and capture and control it remotely.   

Carole 

I would hate to think that the images I get from any remote imaging sites are from stock photos and not taken at the specified time I paid for. I did read iTelescope data is private and is yours and never shared. 

 

[DaveS]

14 hours ago, cotak said:

I don't think think there is anything wrong with using services like itelescope. 

There are uses for services like them outside of amateur imagers who are out for a picture.

Schools for examples could use a service like that and it would be more cost effective than having a scope on site. And not everyone has local folks who can do out reach. And of course kids can't all stay up late.

Another thing is if your situation doesn't allow you to travel for imaging, you can still get snaps of the southern skies.

For schools in the UK there's the National Schools' Observatory which gets access to the 2m Liverpool Telescope on La Palma. Your observations are private for a while then they are open for others to access. I think iTelescope is different to eg Deep Sky West, where data is shared among a group of subscribers. @MrsGnomus might know.

Thinking ahead (A long way ahead I hope), should I have to go into sheltered accomodation or a care home, then the occasional remote image acquisition might be all that I could manage. Assuming I still had enough marbles left (Not a joke).

[Demonperformer]

I've posed this before, so I know what the response will be,  but it bears repeating. If you went to Olly's and used his equipment, but uncollimated and unPAd his perfectly collimated and PAd scope, just so you could say you had set it all up yourself, imagine his reaction.

[Jkulin]

If I went to Olly's (Which I would love to do, then I would take my own kit and use my own processing, but would listen and learn from Olly to make my own images better.