M110 Oct Challenge

[sdbodin]

My submission is a re-processing of all my luminosity data from previous imaging of this nearby, but surprisingly faint galaxy. Faint because the surface brightness is quit low, I remember missing it on my first attempt with the 2.4 inch refractor in the late '50s in the middle of the Seattle. I was quite dismayed as the guide books said it was a bright companion to M31 and M32 was easy. But, this is a new challenge -- resolve the darn thing into stars. First performed by Walter Baade in 1944 with the 100 inch on Mt. Wilson. Modern distance modulus calculations are between 24.1 and 24.76, which translates, as I understand it, to a zero absolute magnitude star would be this apparent magnitude. Therefore I could probably get stars of absolute magnitude -2 and brighter, not impossible since these stars are mostly giants like in globular clusters.

Looks like it is at least "wooly" just on the edge of good resolution. Happy to get this with something in my backyard and only 16 inches not 100. Exposures, 15x5 minutes lum only at f6.2, 75 minutes total thru Atik 460ex mono binned 2x2 for 0.7"/pixel. Sharpened the 'crap' out if it to get this in Nebulosity and PS CS-5.

Clear skies,
Steve

[kt4hx]

Nice image Steve. You captured the dark lanes on either side of the galaxy core easily. When I look at your image, I do see a graininess to its appearance. However, I do not believe it has anything to do with near resolution as might be the case with globular clusters as I can detect granularity in varying degrees across the entire image. But not being an imager, I am uncertain if what I see are simply artifacts or my incorrect interpretation of what I am seeing. So perhaps take my comments with a grain of salt.

[sdbodin]

Nice image Steve. You captured the dark lanes on either side of the galaxy core easily. When I look at your image, I do see a graininess to its appearance. However, I do not believe it has anything to do with near resolution as might be the case with globular clusters as I can detect granularity in varying degrees across the entire image. But not being an imager, I am uncertain if what I see are simply artifacts or my incorrect interpretation of what I am seeing. So perhaps take my comments with a grain of salt.

Thanks for the comments Alan,

However, my interpretation is a bit different. If this was a film image, I would say it was film grain, remember those day of Tri-x images, as film grain was a random feature. In the days of CCDs, the 'grain' is organized in distinct rows and columns and not at all random. In a leap of faith, I would call this an image on the verge of resolution of distinct stars. Better seeing and more exposure would help, or maybe put my scope in orbit.

Thanks again,
Steve

[kt4hx]

Thanks for the clarification Steve, and I am not surprised. Since I am not an imager I really don't have much knowledge of that side of the hobby. Therefore I will just go sit in the corner.

[sdbodin]

Thanks for the clarification Steve, and I am not surprised. Since I am not an imager I really don't have much knowledge of that side of the hobby. Therefore I will just go sit in the corner.

Please don't sit in the corner! You forced me to further investigate. And I found an image done with a 32 inch RC. I posted a crop of the same area to about the same scale side by side to compare. If we both got noise, then we got it in the same places, odds are that this is good data and both have resolved the darn thing into individual stars.

It is always a struggle to use our scope to their maximum capability, either visually or photographically, whether this be to maximum resolution on double stars or planets or to maximum imaging magnitude with a CCD, but it is always fun and a source of accomplishment.

Thanks again,
Steve

[helicon]

Hi Steve, your image with the 16" appears to have clearer resolution of individual stars than the 32" RC. That one is more diffuse appearing, whereas yours shows tiny dots. Really nice job.

[kt4hx]

Thanks for the clarification Steve, and I am not surprised. Since I am not an imager I really don't have much knowledge of that side of the hobby. Therefore I will just go sit in the corner.

Please don't sit in the corner! You forced me to further investigate. And I found an image done with a 32 inch RC. I posted a crop of the same area to about the same scale side by side to compare. If we both got noise, then we got it in the same places, odds are that this is good data and both have resolved the darn thing into individual stars.



It is always a struggle to use our scope to their maximum capability, either visually or photographically, whether this be to maximum resolution on double stars or planets or to maximum imaging magnitude with a CCD, but it is always fun and a source of accomplishment.

Thanks again,
Steve

Well perhaps my ignorance is useful to some degree! If those are indeed individual stars, then that is really amazing stuff, and very well done Steve!

You are of course correct about the struggle to push both our scopes and our observing/imaging skills to the brink. In my case I have always been someone who likes to push myself, challenge myself. I know my pursuit of "barely there" objects is not everyone's bag of candy. But I relish my time in pursuit the truly dim denizens of the deep sky. However, I do love a bright and showy object tossed in once in a while to remind me of the true beauty of the universe that is just waiting for us to take notice.

[sdbodin]

Hi Steve, your image with the 16" appears to have clearer resolution of individual stars than the 32" RC. That one is more diffuse appearing, whereas yours shows tiny dots. Really nice job.

Thanks, but I really brutalized the lum to almost a binary image to separate the stars, just as an exercise. The shot with the 32 has a much better dynamic range. The image in my Messier album is basically the same, but not so pushed as to make it look cartoonish, but the resolution is not as distinct also.

Thanks again,
Steve

[BABOafrica]

Getting individual stars in another galaxy... Now that takes the cake.

BTW, let me know when you manage to get your telescope orbiting the planet. The ultimate quest ... Maybe Musk can help out.

BABO

[sdbodin]

Getting individual stars in another galaxy... Now that takes the cake.


BABO

Thanks, but after walking around a couple days all puffed up. I realized that anyone south of the line should have a good view of our two neighbor galaxies and do this without a problem. Even visually is my guess. I imaging that you have a view of these two and could very easily get an image with many individual stars resolved.

Deflated,
Steve

[BABOafrica]

Getting individual stars in another galaxy... Now that takes the cake.


BABO

Thanks, but after walking around a couple days all puffed up. I realized that anyone south of the line should have a good view of our two neighbor galaxies and do this without a problem. Even visually is my guess. I imaging that you have a view of these two and could very easily get an image with many individual stars resolved.

Deflated,
Steve

Yes, you're right. I had not thought of that. The individual stars show up quite easily in an image of SMC -- that I am sure of because I've done it close up with my Meade 102mm APO.

BABO