Guinness World Record Attempt - Largest Image of a Spiral Galaxy

[Chris Willocks]

Good morning everyone and Merry Christmas,

Over the past three months or so, I've been working on a 3x3 (9 panel) mosaic of M31 in order to beat the current Guinness World Record for the largest image of a spiral galaxy ever taken, set by Robert Gendler in 2008.

I've now finished the mosaic and it is indeed larger than the current record. However, I've gone to put an application in the official Guinness World Records website and it say that they don't take proactive applications for this record, as it states "This record has been sourced from expert consultants and institutions and we do not invite proactive applications". I've contacted them about the record, however I wanted to also check on here to see if anyone has any further information or knowledge on how I can get my attempt recognised, as it is indeed valid?

Many thanks,

Chris

[vlaiv]

Sorry, I can't really help you with what you are asking, but I hope you don't mind me asking about the details of your image?

What is the FOV and how many pixels does image contain?

In fact, what constitutes "largest" image of M31 in the first place?

[Chris Willocks]

24 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Sorry, I can't really help you with what you are asking, but I hope you don't mind me asking about the details of your image?

What is the FOV and how many pixels does image contain?

In fact, what constitutes "largest" image of M31 in the first place?

It is a 3x3 (9 panel) mosaic of M31, the image scale of each frame is 0.60"/px and the overall FOV of the image is 3.61 x 2.46 degrees. The resolution of the image is 21,882 x 14,883 (325 megapixels).

The current record is held by Robert Gendler at 21,904 x 14,454 (316 megapixels). According to Robert's website (http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M31NMmosaic.html), he states "This image will be published in the 2008 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest image (in pixel dimensions) of a spiral galaxy ever taken". This is also confirmed to still be standing on the official website: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/83321-largest-image-of-a-spiral-galaxy.

The main measurement of the record is the number of pixels in the image, which I've managed to surpass. The other details aren't really relevant to the record as far I can tell.

Kind regards,

Chris

[Shimrod]

1 minute ago, Chris Willocks said:

It is a 3x3 (9 panel) mosaic of M31, the image scale of each frame is 0.60"/px and the overall FOV of the image is 3.61 x 2.46 degrees. The resolution of the image is 21,882 x 14,883 (325 megapixels).

The current record is held by Robert Gendler at 21,904 x 14,454 (316 megapixels). According to Robert's website (http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M31NMmosaic.html), he states "This image will be published in the 2008 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest image (in pixel dimensions) of a spiral galaxy ever taken". This is also confirmed to still be standing on the official website: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/83321-largest-image-of-a-spiral-galaxy.

The main measurement of the record is the number of pixels in the image, which I've managed to surpass. The other details aren't really relevant to the record as far I can tell.

Kind regards,

Chris

Here's one from Hubble that at 69,000 x 22,000 makes that look like a 6x4" photo   https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/

Here's an earth-based imager who claims to have gone bigger than Robert Gendler - https://astrofalls.com/products/10k-andromeda-print

2008 is 15 years ago now and there's been a lot of advances in that time that make it easier to claim larger image sizes - doesn't mean there is any corresponding increase in image detail though. That's probably why the World Records people are not taking active submissions - they'd be verifying and updating the record every few weeks!

[Chris Willocks]

9 minutes ago, Shimrod said:

Here's one from Hubble that at 69,000 x 22,000 makes that look like a 6x4" photo   https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/

Here's an earth-based imager who claims to have gone bigger than Robert Gendler - https://astrofalls.com/products/10k-andromeda-print

2008 is 15 years ago now and there's been a lot of advances in that time that make it easier to claim larger image sizes - doesn't mean there is any corresponding increase in image detail though. That's probably why the World Records people are not taking active submissions - they'd be verifying and updating the record every few weeks!

Okay, thanks for the information and the confirmation. That's a disappointing result, but it is what it is. I was aware of the Hubble one, but I think the record had to be the whole galaxy in the frame. But it doesn't matter any longer anyway.

Edited December 26, 2022 by Chris Willocks

[vlaiv]

5 minutes ago, Chris Willocks said:

The main measurement of the record is the number of pixels in the image, which I've managed to surpass.

Well, that is interesting.

If I submit image that is 100,000 x 60,000 pixels that I captured, will I then be contender for the record?

It is fairly easy to produce such data, especially if over sampling is allowed.

[Chris Willocks]

15 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

Well, that is interesting.

If I submit image that is 100,000 x 60,000 pixels that I captured, will I then be contender for the record?

It is fairly easy to produce such data, especially if over sampling is allowed.

I presume they would have checked all of the raw data i.e. straight out of the camera to verify it. It's irrelevant now anyway.

Here's my image, if anyone is interested. I couldn't upload the full sized copy as it's too large. I'm still proud of it on a personal level anyway:

Edited December 26, 2022 by Chris Willocks

[vlaiv]

3 minutes ago, Chris Willocks said:

I presume they would have checked all of the raw data i.e. straight out of the camera to verify it. It's irrelevant now anyway.

Here's my image, if anyone is interested. I couldn't upload the full sized copy as it's too large:

That can be easily faked as well as long as one has set of data to base it on (we can take genuine darks and bias subs and apply them to "lights" that we calculate from interpolated data and add appropriate noise levels - shot noise with Poisson distribution), but like you say - it is indeed irrelevant.

Not sure who actually awarded record for such a thing - but it is not something I'd consider worthy of record holding.

In any case - you have very nice image of M31 there. Maybe overly saturated for my taste and too heavily processed, but nice nonetheless.

[Chris Willocks]

4 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

That can be easily faked as well as long as one has set of data to base it on (we can take genuine darks and bias subs and apply them to "lights" that we calculate from interpolated data and add appropriate noise levels - shot noise with Poisson distribution), but like you say - it is indeed irrelevant.

Not sure who actually awarded record for such a thing - but it is not something I'd consider worthy of record holding.

In any case - you have very nice image of M31 there. Maybe overly saturated for my taste and too heavily processed, but nice nonetheless.

Thanks for the feedback. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though as they say and everyone has their own unique processing style and take on it, which is what keeps it interesting. It'd be boring if everyones' images looked the same.

[PeterC65]

39 minutes ago, Chris Willocks said:

I presume they would have checked all of the raw data i.e. straight out of the camera to verify it. It's irrelevant now anyway.

Here's my image, if anyone is interested. I couldn't upload the full sized copy as it's too large. I'm still proud of it on a personal level anyway:

That's a beautiful image of M31 and its neighbours. Well worth the effort you have made.

[Chris Willocks]

9 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

That's a beautiful image of M31 and its neighbours. Well worth the effort you have made.

Thank you, appreciate the kind words.

[tomato]

That’s a great M31, what kit did you use for the project?
I’ve done a 12 panel mosaic of this galaxy, so I’ll have to look up how many pixels were in that image. 
 

[ollypenrice]

21 hours ago, Chris Willocks said:

I presume they would have checked all of the raw data i.e. straight out of the camera to verify it. It's irrelevant now anyway.

Here's my image, if anyone is interested. I couldn't upload the full sized copy as it's too large. I'm still proud of it on a personal level anyway:

If a requirement is to cover the whole galaxy you'd need to go considerably deeper, because much of its full extent is very faint. I dare say that this is why the publishers don't really want this record on their hands: it is too ambiguous. In the image below, you can see that both ends of the galaxy reach out far beyond what we may think of as M31 but, even here, there will surely be more. There seems to be an interesting region of faint nebulosity, not in the plane of the main disk, on the right hand end.

Olly

 

[Carbon Brush]

Thank you Olly & Chris.

Both images are amazing. I know that probably 99% of the UK population have never seen M31.
Of the 1% who have, it was a grey smudge in binoculars or a wide field scope. I have enjoyed showing this to visitors.
To be able to follow up a grey smudge with one of your images after returning indoors......

[ollypenrice]

30 minutes ago, Carbon Brush said:

Thank you Olly & Chris.

Both images are amazing. I know that probably 99% of the UK population have never seen M31.
Of the 1% who have, it was a grey smudge in binoculars or a wide field scope. I have enjoyed showing this to visitors.
To be able to follow up a grey smudge with one of your images after returning indoors......

It's a grey smudge which can make your spine tingle, though...

Olly

[Alien 13]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

If a requirement is to cover the whole galaxy you'd need to go considerably deeper, because much of its full extent is very faint. I dare say that this is why the publishers don't really want this record on their hands: it is too ambiguous. In the image below, you can see that both ends of the galaxy reach out far beyond what we may think of as M31 but, even here, there will surely be more. There seems to be an interesting region of faint nebulosity, not in the plane of the main disk, on the right hand end.

Olly

 

I wonder if the outer reaches of M31 and the Milky way actually touch.. 

Alan

[DaveS]

From what I've read the outer halos of M31 and the Milky Way may already be colliding.

[vlaiv]

39 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

I wonder if the outer reaches of M31 and the Milky way actually touch.. 

Alan

 

37 minutes ago, DaveS said:

From what I've read the outer halos of M31 and the Milky Way may already be colliding.

I'm not so sure. There is like order of magnitude in distance between the two versus diameter of each.

Milky way has about 110000Ly in diameter and Andromeda has something like 220000Ly in diameter. Distance between the two is 2.5 million Ly.

Best "visualization" of the relationship of the two galaxies - and indeed observable universe if you try to "visualize" it - would be as follows:

You extend palm of your hand - to be one galaxy and palm of your other hand to be the other galaxy - and then stretch your hands as far as you can. That is approximately the distance between the two at that scale (where M31 is the size of your stretched palm with fingers and Mw is just palm).

If we extend that analogy - imagine some place that is about 40Km away from you in that moment - that would be the edge of observable universe. If you are standing on the hill (or mountain) top - you would actually be able to see Milky way and Andromeda and edge of the universe if someone puts their hands like described above for you

 

[ONIKKINEN]

This article mentions the collision : https://earthsky.org/space/earths-night-sky-milky-way-andromeda-merge/

Whether its true or not is another thing as its based on the assumption that our galactic halo is similar in size to Andromedas halo. May not be the case, and difficult to tell our halo size from within it.