Astrophotography / Astronomy Photos / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Astrophotography / Astronomy Photos

previous 1 2 3 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

HV Enthusiast

Mon Feb 20 2006, 09:29PM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

joe doh wrote ...

These are really impressive pictures, post some more if you have them at hand.

Could you give a ballpark figure how much $$$ it takes to get the equipment for taking this kind of pictures? I guess the off-the-shelf telescope from the supermarket wont cut it, but then a 4" refractor does not seem to be out of reach of an amateur either...

Thanks! I'll give you the image information for the first two good shots i took which are the Orion Nebula and Horsehead Nebula shown in my second set of photos.

1. Williams Optics Megrez 80mm APO triplet $700.00 Refractor
2. Scope Rings for Megrez 80mm $100.00
3. Vixen GP Equ Mount with accessories (Used with everything for about $1000.00)
4. Modified Canon Rebel 300D DSLR - $700.00

Thats about it. So for under $3000.00 i was able to take those shots. Of course, the learning curve is ULTRA-STEEP - much steeper than any other hobby i've ever done. Astrophotography makes solid state tesla coiling look like a walk in the park.

Now, i've got a lot better equipment and probably over $20,000 invested so far in mounts, scopes, photo equipment . . . perhaps even close to $30,000 if counting all the accessories, eyepieces, etc...

Here are a few widefield shots . ..

1140470982 15 FT493 103005 Biglittledipper02

c4r0

Mon Feb 20 2006, 09:40PM

Registered Member #151 Joined: Sun Feb 12 2006, 02:53PM
Location: Poland
Posts: 153

Woooo! It's awesome

craigsarea

Mon Feb 20 2006, 10:35PM

Registered Member #130 Joined: Fri Feb 10 2006, 08:12PM
Location:
Posts: 15

Amazing pictures Dan

. If I could take pictures like that I would have them plastered all over my house.

You say you're using a modified Canon Rebel. What sort of modifications have you done to it?

HV Enthusiast

Tue Feb 21 2006, 12:33AM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

craigsarea wrote ...

Amazing pictures Dan

. If I could take pictures like that I would have them plastered all over my house.

You say you're using a modified Canon Rebel. What sort of modifications have you done to it?

Thanks. The last set of photos were taken by the Canon 20Da DSLR which is a specialized designed astrophotography camera made by camera. It features a real time focus mode (can focus stars on the rear LCD screen) and modified internal filter to allow h-alpha wavelengths to pass.

badastronaut

Tue Feb 21 2006, 01:00AM

Registered Member #222 Joined: Mon Feb 20 2006, 05:49PM
Location:
Posts: 96

Very impressive pictures indeed.

What software do you use to process the images?

Have you ever thought of making an average of several pictures to improve the image?

Any images of planets? I'd like to see how well you can get your system to resolve the Encke gap and the C ring.

HV Enthusiast

Tue Feb 21 2006, 01:08AM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

[quote]
Very impressive pictures indeed.
[/quote]

Thanks!

wrote ...

What software do you use to process the images?

I use mostly Images Plus and Photoshop CS2.

wrote ...

Have you ever thought of making an average of several pictures to improve the image?

All of the deep sky objects are combined images from multiple exposures.

[quote]
Any images of planets? I'd like to see how well you can get your system to resolve the Encke gap and the C ring.
[/quote1140483836]

No images of planets. My system isn't designed for planetary photography, which is typically done afocally with webcams and scopes which have much longer focal lengths. Also planets are much too bright for this type of photography. They are typically shot using webcams (video feeds) and then the individual video frames (short exposure) are stacked - sometimes in multiples of 1000 frames and up.

The angular size of planets are much, much smaller than many of the popular deep sky objects. Take my first photo the Andromeda Galaxy. The angular size of this object is almost six (6) moon diameters wide, so you can see its a huge object as opposed to a planet which is just a speck.

badastronaut

Tue Feb 21 2006, 04:41AM

Registered Member #222 Joined: Mon Feb 20 2006, 05:49PM
Location:
Posts: 96

It seems that your configuration uses prime focus to get images, what about using the eye piece projection technique for planets?

Ben

Tue Feb 21 2006, 07:41AM

Vigilatny
Registered Member #17 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158

EastVoltResearch wrote ...

Of course, the learning curve is ULTRA-STEEP - much steeper than any other hobby i've ever done. Astrophotography makes solid state tesla coiling look like a walk in the park.

I think the cost is a bigger issue. I wouldn't say the learning curve is all that steep if you had the background. Probably the same can be said for SSTC's.

HV Enthusiast

Tue Feb 21 2006, 12:48PM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

wrote ...

I think the cost is a bigger issue. I wouldn't say the learning curve is all that steep if you had the background. Probably the same can be said for SSTC's.

I disagree. The learning curve for astrophotography is very steep, even with the proper background. To build an SSTC you can simply follow a schematic and in a day or two get it to work. Even the most inexperienced individual can get an SSTC working without too much effort. Astrophotography on the other hand requires skills which take a lot of practice, trial and error, and patience to learn. Just learning how to focus the camera is a daunting task and takes a long time to master - definitely not something that is mastered in a few outings. Not to mention polar alignment, drift alignment, autoguiding, locating objects, and processing. Not to mention this is done in the dark in cold temperatures (even in summer)

Not saying its more difficult than SSTCs, but it certaintly does have a much steeper learning curve, and requires much more time and effort to be come proficient.

Of course, digital cameras are making this easier as they do provide instant feedback so you can identify and correct errors immediately as opposed to waiting a week for the film to get developed only to realize your focus was out of whack!

Ben

Tue Feb 21 2006, 10:04PM

Vigilatny
Registered Member #17 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 02:47PM
Location: NL
Posts: 158

EastVoltResearch wrote ...

I disagree. The learning curve for astrophotography is very steep, even with the proper background.

It took me about an hour to take my first nebula picture, using a robotic telescope already set up etc. About half that was exposure. I've never used anything but specialized digital cameras made for astrophotography. It took me about 2 hours to setup the portable telescope the school had the first time. Anyhow, it's not really rocket science, all the problems you mention can be solved easily with money. I'm guessing it would take someone who hasn't had courses in optics, astromechanics, attitude dynamics, and astronomy a bit longer. Sheesh, even some liberal arts majors took observational astronomy with me.

As for difficulties, how about impacting the pedestal at 5 AM and potentially ruining YEARS of calibration....I hadn't been that scared since I got caught looking at christmas presents when I was 5(and haven't been since). Luckily the computer never lost track, and my professor didn't kill me.

[i]

EastVoltResearch wrote ...

If gradients are present, then additional processing is used to remove the background sky gradient and keep the black sky uniform.

I think you missed a step, to take out the gradients induced by your optics. Generally this involves taking a frame of a uniformly lit white background and subtracting the gradient present in it from your other frames, dark and light. Then again analytic astrophotography may be different from artistic. Other sky gradients are best just avoided altogether(by not being near cities or other light pollution, or taking exposures during the right time of night).

previous 1 2 3 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob