And now for something completely different....
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,242
Likes: 0
From: Branford, CT
Originally Posted by 124Spider,Jan 26 2007, 07:18 PM
For this picture, an Astrophysics AP130 Starfire f/6. The camera is a dedicated astronomy camera (an SBIG ST-10XME). The picture represents a bit over nine hours of exposure time.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,242
Likes: 0
From: Branford, CT
Originally Posted by AZDelt,Jan 26 2007, 08:09 PM
Great pictures. Not to completely hijack your thread, but are there attachments (telescope lenses) that you can put onto a 30d or a digital rebel to take decent sky/star pictures? I didn't know anything like that existed (obviously with less spectacular results than what you just posted but still like the idea) and I'm intrigued.
I realize light can be an issue, but in the summer I live in Flagstaff, AZ, the first international dark sky community (major restrictions on streetlights and such for the observatory there), and I'd like to try some of this out, as long as its not too cost prohibative.
I realize light can be an issue, but in the summer I live in Flagstaff, AZ, the first international dark sky community (major restrictions on streetlights and such for the observatory there), and I'd like to try some of this out, as long as its not too cost prohibative.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,207
Likes: 0
From: Motor City
Originally Posted by F1-Fanatic,Jan 27 2007, 10:38 AM
What are you using to cool it and where was the photo taken from?
seems to have a "cooler" built in
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,242
Likes: 0
From: Branford, CT
Originally Posted by brushman,Jan 27 2007, 11:13 AM
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0
From: Redmond, Washington, USA
The camera has a thermoelectric cooler, allowing it to easily cool the chip to 35 or more degrees Celsius below ambient temperature. That greatly lowers the noise generated by the system.
Through my 12" scope from my home in light-polluted Seattle, I probably could not see either nebula. The nine hours of exposure is made up of 13 30-minute exposures though one filter, and 11 five-minute exposures through each of three other filters, for a total of 555 minutes of exposure time. We take many shorter exposures, rather than one very long exposure, for a variety of reasons, the two most important of which are (i) it really sucks when an airplane, asteroid or satellite flies through a three hour exposure, ruining it, and (ii) statistical methods of combining exposures, and certain methods of moving the scope slightly between each exposure, greatly increases the signal-to-noise ratio of the final result.
The mount has the ability to point the scope wherever you tell it, with extreme accuracy (less than one arcminute error). The sensor is en extremely sensitive one, allowing us to image very, very faint objects. This equipment is located in perhaps the best location in the continental U.S. for the darkness, stillness and cloudlessness of its skies (Mayhill, NM), which helps with pictures of faint objects. These objects presumably were discovered by folks using large telescopes, and/or looking from dark skies (remember, skies used to be much darker than they are now; when I was growing up just outside of Washington, D.C. in the early '60s (I could easily see the Washington Monument with my tiny telescope from my house), the Milky Way was visible every night. Now, the vast majority of Americans can never see the Milky Way from their homes).
As one poster points out, this is highly specialized equipment, with relatively small demand for them, resulting in all this stuff being very expensive. The equipment we have in the dome (not even including the cost of the dome) cost about the same as a high-end, brand new 911. But it's just as much fun, too!
Through my 12" scope from my home in light-polluted Seattle, I probably could not see either nebula. The nine hours of exposure is made up of 13 30-minute exposures though one filter, and 11 five-minute exposures through each of three other filters, for a total of 555 minutes of exposure time. We take many shorter exposures, rather than one very long exposure, for a variety of reasons, the two most important of which are (i) it really sucks when an airplane, asteroid or satellite flies through a three hour exposure, ruining it, and (ii) statistical methods of combining exposures, and certain methods of moving the scope slightly between each exposure, greatly increases the signal-to-noise ratio of the final result.
The mount has the ability to point the scope wherever you tell it, with extreme accuracy (less than one arcminute error). The sensor is en extremely sensitive one, allowing us to image very, very faint objects. This equipment is located in perhaps the best location in the continental U.S. for the darkness, stillness and cloudlessness of its skies (Mayhill, NM), which helps with pictures of faint objects. These objects presumably were discovered by folks using large telescopes, and/or looking from dark skies (remember, skies used to be much darker than they are now; when I was growing up just outside of Washington, D.C. in the early '60s (I could easily see the Washington Monument with my tiny telescope from my house), the Milky Way was visible every night. Now, the vast majority of Americans can never see the Milky Way from their homes).
As one poster points out, this is highly specialized equipment, with relatively small demand for them, resulting in all this stuff being very expensive. The equipment we have in the dome (not even including the cost of the dome) cost about the same as a high-end, brand new 911. But it's just as much fun, too!
