Come join the friendliest, most engaging and inclusive astronomy forum geared for beginners and advanced telescope users, astrophotography devotees, plus check out our "Astro" goods vendors.
Come join the friendliest, most engaging and inclusive astronomy forum geared for beginners and advanced telescope users, astrophotography devotees, plus check out our "Astro" goods vendors.
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
Scopes; Meade 16 LX200, AT80LE, plus bunch just sitting around gathering dust
Cameras; Atik 460ex mono, Zwo ASI1600MC-cool, QHY5L-II color and mono
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.
Alan
Scopes: Astro Sky 17.5 f/4.5 Dob || Apertura AD12 f/5 Dob || Zhumell Z10 f/4.9 Dob ||
ES AR127 f/6.5 || ES ED80 f/6 || Apertura 6" f/5 Newtonian
Mounts: ES Twilight-II and Twilight-I
EPs: AT 82° 28mm UWA || TV Ethos 100° 21mm and 13mm || Vixen LVW 65° 22mm ||
ES 82° 18mm || Pentax XW 70° 10mm, 7mm and 5mm || barlows
Filters (2 inch): DGM NPB || Orion Ultra Block, O-III and Sky Glow || Baader HaB
Primary Field Atlases: Uranometria All-Sky Edition and Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Astronomers, we look into the past to see our future." (me)
"Seeing is in some respect an art, which must be learnt." (William Herschel)
"What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
"No good deed goes unpunished." (various)
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't you think?” (Scarecrow, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz)
kt4hx wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:00 pm
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
Scopes; Meade 16 LX200, AT80LE, plus bunch just sitting around gathering dust
Cameras; Atik 460ex mono, Zwo ASI1600MC-cool, QHY5L-II color and mono
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.
Alan
Scopes: Astro Sky 17.5 f/4.5 Dob || Apertura AD12 f/5 Dob || Zhumell Z10 f/4.9 Dob ||
ES AR127 f/6.5 || ES ED80 f/6 || Apertura 6" f/5 Newtonian
Mounts: ES Twilight-II and Twilight-I
EPs: AT 82° 28mm UWA || TV Ethos 100° 21mm and 13mm || Vixen LVW 65° 22mm ||
ES 82° 18mm || Pentax XW 70° 10mm, 7mm and 5mm || barlows
Filters (2 inch): DGM NPB || Orion Ultra Block, O-III and Sky Glow || Baader HaB
Primary Field Atlases: Uranometria All-Sky Edition and Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Astronomers, we look into the past to see our future." (me)
"Seeing is in some respect an art, which must be learnt." (William Herschel)
"What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
"No good deed goes unpunished." (various)
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't you think?” (Scarecrow, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz)
kt4hx wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:23 pm
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
Scopes; Meade 16 LX200, AT80LE, plus bunch just sitting around gathering dust
Cameras; Atik 460ex mono, Zwo ASI1600MC-cool, QHY5L-II color and mono
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.
-Michael Refractors: ES AR152 f/6.5 Achromat on Twilight II, Celestron 102mm XLT f/9.8 on Celestron Heavy Duty Alt Az mount, KOWA 90mm spotting scope Binoculars: Celestron SkyMaster 15x70, Bushnell 10x50 Eyepieces: Various, GSO Superview, 9mm Plossl, Celestron 25mm Plossl Camera: ZWO ASI 120 Naked Eye: Two Eyeballs Latitude: 48.7229° N
kt4hx wrote: ↑Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:23 pm
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.
Alan
Scopes: Astro Sky 17.5 f/4.5 Dob || Apertura AD12 f/5 Dob || Zhumell Z10 f/4.9 Dob ||
ES AR127 f/6.5 || ES ED80 f/6 || Apertura 6" f/5 Newtonian
Mounts: ES Twilight-II and Twilight-I
EPs: AT 82° 28mm UWA || TV Ethos 100° 21mm and 13mm || Vixen LVW 65° 22mm ||
ES 82° 18mm || Pentax XW 70° 10mm, 7mm and 5mm || barlows
Filters (2 inch): DGM NPB || Orion Ultra Block, O-III and Sky Glow || Baader HaB
Primary Field Atlases: Uranometria All-Sky Edition and Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Astronomers, we look into the past to see our future." (me)
"Seeing is in some respect an art, which must be learnt." (William Herschel)
"What we know is a drop, what we don't know is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)
"No good deed goes unpunished." (various)
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't you think?” (Scarecrow, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz)
helicon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:21 pm
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
Scopes; Meade 16 LX200, AT80LE, plus bunch just sitting around gathering dust
Cameras; Atik 460ex mono, Zwo ASI1600MC-cool, QHY5L-II color and mono
BABOafrica wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:17 pm
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
Scopes; Meade 16 LX200, AT80LE, plus bunch just sitting around gathering dust
Cameras; Atik 460ex mono, Zwo ASI1600MC-cool, QHY5L-II color and mono
BABOafrica wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2020 1:17 pm
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
"In lumine tuo videbimus lumen."
Scopes: Stellarvue SV80 Raptor Carbon Fiber ED Doublet / Celestron SCT C8
Williams Optics 66mm APO / DIY 8" f/4 Newtonian astrograph / Nikon 180mm f/2.8
Mounts: Orion Atlas EQ-G / Celestron AVX / DIY mini-equatorial
Cameras: QHY163m / Fujifilm X-A1 (modded) / Fuji X-A2 (not modded) / Orion StarShoot Auto Guider
Filters: ZWO 7nm NB set / ZWO LRGB set / ZWO Dual Band / Astronomics UHC