Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_2.thumb.jpg.72789c04780d7659f5b63ea05534a956.jpg

Orion Nebula closeup 3D Stereo Experiment


Recommended Posts

Hello All,

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...

1874188272_M42RGBF101-3Sep2019Frm.thumb.jpg.b8fc61dd039227ca4738dc12fb83cd82.jpg

 

I color matched the above image with the image from February, aligned them and below is the end result....

IMG_2887.thumb.JPG.f5f52ce718c0d34364051901ac0ddab5.JPG

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.

 

Clear Skies,

MG

 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Doing the calculation first would have saved you the effort but at the price of the fun in trying it 😀.

Regards Andrew 

I did... but I didn't want to believe it.. and until I saw it for my self I would have kept on wondering... for example, what if the official distance to M42 is wrong and it's not really that far away?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the difficulties encountered by the professionals in searching for stellar parallax, and the fact that the aberration of starlight had to be factored in before it could be discerned, I think you were being quite optimistic! But well done for having the tenacity to try. Your resolution of detail shows great finesse. The images are a delight.

Olly

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By jacko61
      After some trial and error I'm getting some very good guiding results with PHD2 now. 60mm guidescope and ASI290MM mini camera. The M42 image taken late March was 12 x 15 second exposures taken manually with my dslr / C8 and a stopwatch. Stacked in DSS and played with a bit in GIMP. On the night I couldn't get APT to register the camera - turned out to be the mini USB cable (although later trials point to the socket in the camera being a bit loose too). 
      Bought an iOPTRON iPOLAR that arrived on Friday and had a play with that which has resulted in near perfect polar alignment. 2 star alignment and an additional 2 calibration stars on my Advanced GT mount means I'm getting very accurate GOTOs now and PHD2 (through the ST4 port on the ASI camera) seems to be guiding very well.  Last night after more cable faffing I managed to get everything working together to the point where I felt confident enough to leave it running by itself for an hour and a half (45 minutes of 180 second exposures plus 3 minutes each exposure to save the file - I've since found out I shouldn't have noise reduction switched on in the camera - DOH!) so M51 is 15 x 180 second @ ISO 800 lights and 5 x 180 second darks.  A little manipulation in GIMP and I think it's come out very well. Obviously still have a lot to learn and I'm going to have to start taking much longer exposures  but I'm quite pleased with these 2 pictures. 
      Graeme.
       

       

    • By alexbb
      This is another finished target for this season.
      I (quite) recently bought a TS Photoline 102 ED with FPL53 which performs surprisingly well for a doublet. So I put it to tests and imaging, in parallel with an older FPL51 AstroProfessional 102 ED doublet.
      The blue color correction is much better in the newer TS. I shoot luminance often with both and then take the highlights from the better scope.
      For this image I also used some older data that I had available, shot with a 130PDS, but that maybe only made my life more difficult. Not that otherwise I shot data through the refractors in a single panel with reducers/correctors, but also in 2 panels with no reducing correctors. Same about the RGB. Some shorter exposures from the backyard, some from a dark site, most of the G data from a dark site, B and R from home (clouds came in at the dark site) and a lot of other adventures.
      But in the end I managed to put them all together and made an image out of them.
      You can watch it in full resolution and see other details on astrobin: Great Orion Nebula
      Clear skies!
      Alex

    • By Cobberwebb
      I've had a Star Adventure since October, but haven't had a chance to use it until Friday night (work and weather limitations). Also, I don't have a car at the moment, so I'm quite limited to how far I can travel on my e-bike and get to dark skies.
      Ran into a couple of issues, 1. my Nikon Z50 is limited to 30 second exposures and the wifi connection to my phone so I could use qDslrDashboard was terrible (now found out I can tether directly to the phone via USB, yey!). 2. my lens started to fog (a warmer was ordered as soon as I got home and has now arrived).
      Anyway, what I did manage to get was a nice shot of the Orion Nebula.
      Nikon Z50. 50-250mm kit lens @250mm. F6.3. 26x30s exposures. ISO640. Sky Watcher Star Adventure.
      I want to try the Horsehead or Rosette next, not sure how well the unmodded Z50 is with HA though.
       

    • By astrobena
      Heres my first ever shot of the Orion Nebula in a Bortal 8 sky (as well as my first nebula). I stacked 52 light frames with Deep Sky Stacker (with dark, bias and flat frames) and then edited the stacked image with photoshop. The Core looks kind of blown out, so I'll need some shorter exposures to combine with this version.
      I've also got a question linked to this: As i'm in a Bortal 8 location (on the edge of London, UK) i feel like i'm kind of limited by the exposure length befor the image just looks completly white/redisch from light pollution. For this photo i used 45 second Exposures but had to bump down the ISO to 200 to make it not look overexposed. In the end, does it really matter if the image looks overexposed due to light pollution because the light from the actuall DSO will still be there and can be filtered out through the power of editing or does this not really work?
      *Any other comments or things i can/should change with the image would be greatly appreciated
      Many Thanks to anyone taking their time to comment!

    • By AstroM1
      Nikon D5100 + WO ZS73 II Star Adventurer Pro 150 x 30 sec + DOF
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.