Deep Sky Astrophotography

Sort by date Sort by votes
#541
East Wind Photography said:
Yes it definitely requires a great deal of time and dedication to get results like Jon has.

Pixinsight is definitely the tool to master but it takes more than a month to learn the software and unless you have $$$ and time to throw at it, it may not be the best tool for everyone.

The rest of us have to live with mediocrity using free tools like deep sky stacker and post processing tools better suited for weddings and bar mitzvahs. I have tried my best over the years and have realized that I just don't have the time, money, and dedication to throw at it...after all I have teenagers getting ready for college...one of them mentioned law school. 8/.

While I wait for an automated tool that can get me 75% there, I live with 10% and a lot of unfinished projects. I am resolved to just frequent this forum and eagerly await the latest image that Jon has collected and processed. Hopefully along the way, he will share something that will inspire me to try again and again and again.

I'm disappointed that he has moved away from using a DSLR as that is what the rest of us minions can afford to use in both dollars and time. Seeing images created using monochrome sensors and a plethora of filters is nice but I can see those by visiting NASAs HST site. It's great to see what people are capturing in their backyard using such but it doesn't help me get to my 75% goal and probably not applicable to this CR forum.

I'm hoping to get some time in this weekend if weather permits...maybe I can get to 15%.
Click to expand...

The ASI1600MM-Cool camera I use costs a third the price of a 5D IV. With a filter wheel and LRGB filters, it is still less than half the price. With NB filters, it is just over half the price. I'm honestly not sure why you think it costs too much. ;P

The ASI1600 kit with LRGB fitlers and a filter wheel is $1580. ZWO ships direct, and you could have the camera in your hands within a few days. They also just released some narrow band filters, and are selling the new kit for $1900 on sale right now. That is still less than a 5D IV, less than a 6D even.

I got this camera because it was significantly cheaper than the CCD alternatives, and had significantly lower noise. I absolutely do not regret it, and it has been far more enjoyable to use IMO.
 
Upvote 0
#542
Heart Nebula - Hubble Palette (SHO)

This is a bit over 16 hours of total integration on Heart Nebula, in all three primary narrow band channels:

SII: 46x600s (460m)
Ha: 31x600s (310m)
OIII: 20x600s (200m)

FI24hN0h.jpg

Full Size: http://www.astrobin.com/full/273197/B/

This was kind of an afterthought project, as I kept acquiring data on Heart Nebula at the end of the night, and it was never really in the forefront of my mind to really acquire a lot of data on it. Well, now that I finally processed the data, I wish I'd focused on it a bit more. I ended up with over 16 hours of data in total...and the SII and OIII channels could use some more integration. I think I'll try to get both of them up to about 8 hours each, and leave Ha at just 5h20m, to clean up the fainter parts of this image.
 
Upvote 0
#544
Beautifully shot.
Can't believe the universe is so colourful, have to take a trip there one of these days! 8) ::) ;D ;D
-r

jrista said:
Heart Nebula - Hubble Palette (SHO)

This is a bit over 16 hours of total integration on Heart Nebula, in all three primary narrow band channels:

SII: 46x600s (460m)
Ha: 31x600s (310m)
OIII: 20x600s (200m)

Full Size: http://www.astrobin.com/full/273197/B/

This was kind of an afterthought project, as I kept acquiring data on Heart Nebula at the end of the night, and it was never really in the forefront of my mind to really acquire a lot of data on it. Well, now that I finally processed the data, I wish I'd focused on it a bit more. I ended up with over 16 hours of data in total...and the SII and OIII channels could use some more integration. I think I'll try to get both of them up to about 8 hours each, and leave Ha at just 5h20m, to clean up the fainter parts of this image.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#545
Thanks, guys!

The universe is an amazing place...however, it isn't quite that colorful. This is the Hubble palette, and is false color mostly. I mapped very specific wavelengths to red, green, and blue. Thing is, in reality, most of the light is red, just of slightly different red wavelengths (hydrogen and sulfur), and some of it is a more blue green-blue color (oxygen). The oxygen is usually more diffuse and tenuous and cloudy, so it in reality it is not as visible as I've made it here.

This is a more realistic representation:

gtPk0PR.jpg


The hydrogen gas dominates, with sulfur wreathed underneath it, and the oxygen drifting among the bright red gasses as a fainter emission.
 
Upvote 0
#549
Using the 1dxii tonight. Finished a series of the pleides at iso1600. Tested one shot of m31 at iso3200 and really impressed with the noise visually. Running 40 subs as i type. Im tempted to make a short run 20 subs at iso 6400. Im using my 300mm at f2.8 and taking 45 second shots.

M31 right now is at the zenith and in the darkest park of my sky.
 
Upvote 0
#551
I am looking forward to them as well.

One thing about high ISO on Canon cameras. Beyond a certain ISO (usually ISO 1600) a secondary downstream amp kicks in, which flattens the read noise curve. Make sure that using ISO 3200 and 6400 is really giving you the benefit of usefully lower read noise than ISO 1600. Based on my experience across all of the cameras I have tested, using ISO's above 3200 primarily results in loss of DR and not much improvement in terms of read noise. You are likely better off at ISO 1600.
 
Upvote 0
#554
Hi Jon, as usual I'm awestruck by your pictures. I've been obsessed With space since childhood. Buck Rogers in the 25th century , Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek were staple TV watching when I was young.
I was wondering if you could recommend two types of beginner set ups.
a ) Using a Canon camera and lens
b) A more specific to Astro set up.
I've done the Milky Way and the moon but I'd love to go a bit deeper into space.
Weather conditions frequent clouds would be against me but I'd love to give it a go.
Would there be any beginners guide you'd recommend.
I get lost in the technology and tools used.
I have a 70-200 F2.5 and a 100-400 II - could I see something interesting with them?
 
Upvote 0
#557
Hector1970 said:
Hi Jon, as usual I'm awestruck by your pictures. I've been obsessed With space since childhood. Buck Rogers in the 25th century , Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek were staple TV watching when I was young.
I was wondering if you could recommend two types of beginner set ups.
a ) Using a Canon camera and lens
b) A more specific to Astro set up.
I've done the Milky Way and the moon but I'd love to go a bit deeper into space.
Weather conditions frequent clouds would be against me but I'd love to give it a go.
Would there be any beginners guide you'd recommend.
I get lost in the technology and tools used.
I have a 70-200 F2.5 and a 100-400 II - could I see something interesting with them?
Click to expand...

+1 :)
 
Upvote 0
#559
StudentOfLight said:
My first attempt at Orion with the 80D. Sometimes my exposure is slightly too long and there is a bit of trailing and stars become oval. In this case movement was from bottom right to top left. What is a good method to deconvolve?
Click to expand...
First Attempt? NOT BAD!

So how did you do it and what software?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu