Pillars of Creation...with the flu

[strongmanmike]

I'm home sick with the flu...:( but that doesn't mean I can't continue to tinker....:screwy:

Armed with tissues and strepsils I was trawling the net and came across Hubbles famous "Pillars of Creation" image and wondered how a wide field image of mine done a few years ago with my Starlightxpress camera and the 6" Starfire would stack up...after a serious narrow field zoom in :P

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/114698862/original

Might have another go at it...if I ever get out and image again :sadeyes:

This would be one for the long focal length imagers out there to try, there's more detail there to grab for sure :thumbsup:.

Mike

[renormalised]

Here's me, thinking there was going to be some disgusting green, snotty mess all over the piccie, and you come out....with this!!!!:eyepop::P:D

Nice shot, Mike:D

[jjjnettie]

It's a top shot for sure Mike. Even more amazing when you think about how many light years those photons have travelled just to hit your ccd sensor.

This post has me reminiscing. Remember the comparison photos that Irwin once posted, one of his Mars images and a Hubble one? Extraordinary. Makes one wonder what he would be producing with today's technology.
(sorry to hijack this thread btw)

Get well soon Mike.

[Hagar]

Not a bad comparison Mike. Shows you are not that far away from the wonders exposed by hubble and considering hubble doesn't have an atmosphere and all the problems and abhorations it creates your version is really good. Consider what you might achieve with a longer and narrower focal length scope. The wide field is still a much more pleasing image in my opinion.

Hope yu get over the virus quickly.

[Tamtarn]

A worthwhile bit of tinkering Mike. Sure is an interesting comparison and considering the gear used at the time yours is pretty damn good

[Octane]

What's amazing is how far those stars have moved. Or, am I completely off-base, and, in actuality what we're seeing is parallax?

Regards,
Humayun

[DavidU]

That's what I was thinking ! Some missing stars as well. Amazing pic Mike !

[bokglob]

Here's a story with a message for you Mr Sidonio. A couple of years ago after dusting off the old 60mm tasco and revisiting the universe after 10 years or so, I grabbed a copy of S&T,flicked it open, and there it was... The "eye of god" Helix nebula by Mike Sidonio.I stood there for several minutes totally mesmorized by what I was looking at ,its beauty and wonder just blew me away! Anyway, the newsagent guy reminds me I,m not in a waitingroom,so I buy the mag and go home.The rest of the mag is also fantastic, but that first foray back to the darkside,via your incredible image rekindled a love of the sky I had truely missed. This image also screams of "going there",but I for one would like to see heaps of new stuff from you ,so get well and MAKE some time! cheers and headsup:thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

T'was just a bit of playing around with a runny nose :)

The Hubble shot is several degrees of magnitude better of course but I like doing these comparisons because it tends to make you notice details in your image that you would otherwise have glossed over.

I know Doug, 1140mm FL is pretty short but considering this, the detail is still quite satisfying and probably still holds its own even with that revealed in many much longer FL shots probably?

Humi-ve (U'll be back) :P, The stars haven't moved, it's the narrow band filters Hubble used, some stars are invisible while others are enhanced, my version is basically a visible light image. The star images in Hubble's version are well...100% diffraction limited too so can appear as very tiny dots at this image display res.

Oh well...hmmm? what else can I tinker with? (Oh O, I hear the groans...ah too bad :lol:)

Mike

[Bassnut]

Nice pic there Mike, but Green?, Purple?, nah, Blue :D.

Blue on a cheapo SCT and wobbly mount, not flash, but wait till I get the new AO set up cranked up ;),

[strongmanmike]

Wow, cool story Darrell, glad to have helped ya back into it :thumbsup:

I know, I have been pretty slow this year...only 5 images taken so far :sadeyes:...combination of things, mostly due to weather and without an observatory in my backyard (or one at all!) it is the degree of fuss necessary to actually get out and image that is to blame :mad2:

And for old times sake, here is that "Eye of God" shot :)

http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/image/62415236/original

I remember the evening I grabbed the 2 hrs of Ha data for that too, it dropped to -7degC at Mt Campbell Observatory and I was setup outside in the open, not inside the observatory, at the finish everything, and I mean everything - computer, my chair, table the scope mount etc was coverd in ice :cold:
Mike

[DavidU]

Mike, here is a good artical on noise measurement of a camera
http://www.cloudynights.com/item.php?item_id=2001

[strongmanmike]

Thanks for that Dave, I found it thouroughly captivating...:whistle:

Ok...now what to play with....

:rofl:

[strongmanmike]

Ah see? Told ya Fred, a long FL is just cutting down on the lovely expanse or sky you could be getting aaaand with no net gain in detail :whistle:

Love your colours, narrow band is certainly the way to go to sharpen up the details, the AO might add a bit too..? Look forward to seeing your "taken through a stabilised dunny roll" images :rofl:

Mike
just kidding about the dunny roll :P

[jase]

As you're not well Mike, I think I'll let you get away with such a repro/comparison activity - under any other circumstances, I'd probably hang it on ya!:P

After all, being sick and not going to work provides a great opportunity to collecting data, especially considering you've got narrowband filters...so arr what moon? Don't tell me you're still watching the guide star like a hawk during your data acquisition. Go back inside man. Put you're feet up for a while and keep warm.

This is a nice comparison - I like it, however at times I see it as doing disservice to your work. Your image has a warm fuzzy feeling no matter which way you look at it. You'd be better off making a comparison with a ground based instrument IMO. Each to their own. I've only ever made one comparison to a Hubble image and I've sworn, I'd never do it again, how does one make a fair comparison? Yes, you've proven that Roland makes fine refractors, but I could have drawn that conclusion simply looking at one of your other images!

Hope to see some new images from you soon. The remedy to flu like symptoms is a good dose of photons.

Cheers

[scopemankit]

Mike,
I tweaked the colours with PSP and added the image back. Just for fun!

[strongmanmike]

:lol: No complicated agenda here jase, I'm not deluded into thinking my images are as good as Hubble shots :screwy: far from it but I actually find making these comparisons results in noticing the finer details in my image. In the big scheme of things, yes, compared to Hubble shots my image looks very ordinary but as I've said before I don't "present" my images in a grandios fashion, I just do what I do, sometiems they are quite good sometimes they are average, sometimes they are B&W sometimes they are crops and if making a lighthearted comparison with a HST shot tickles my fancy, hey I do it :shrug:...I do try to do good work but I am not a total perfectionist. I probably have a broader base for what I find appealing or interesting in an image compared to you..? I don't mean that in a derogatory way either, I am just a bit more of an imaging mungrel than you :lol:.

If I actually had a backyard, light pollution or not, yes I would be doing exactly as you suggest but alas I canna see tha stars from here me hearty :sadeyes:

Mike :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

Sorry Chris I'm a bit confused (easily done = an ex-strongman :P) is that your image on the left? Looks good, where is the full frame version?

Mike

[MrB]

Why do the stars in these images not match?
Some do, but then there are lots that don't.

[strongmanmike]

Hi Simon

I have used different filters to Hubble, Hubble uses narrowband filters so some stars may be bright through RGB filters but nearly invisible through a narrowband filter. The stars in Hubble shots can be tiny too if they are faint and wouldn't show up in such a low res presentation, at the original full raw processed size they are probably more noticable.

Mike

[MrB]

Ahhhh, hadn't considered filters.
Cheers :thumbsup:

[strongmanmike]

Hi Jeanette

I assume you mean Erwin van der Velden?

No I didn't see them, where is Irwins image, love to see it if it is still on the net.

No Hijack here :thumbsup:

Mike

[Alchemy]

i could be a swine and be critical, maybee squeal a little bit, make up a curly tale, ..... but no .... i canna do that to a sick man



get well soon big guy.

[loc46south]

Great Detail and clarity - Deserved to be a Winner.

[Tom Davis]

Sweet comparison! Sorry about the flu -- you haven't been kissing any pigs lately have you :)

Tom

[scopemankit]

Mike, I distorted the pic a bit to de-ovalise a couple of stars. The main experiment was to change the colours on your (middle ) image.

[strongmanmike]

Oh ok. Gee I thought it was a a totally different image...you murdered it man :scared: :lol:

I did this imge back in May 06, at that stage I was imaging with a Starlightxpress camera and True Tech filterwheel. Unfortunately the internal filter wheel disc was not orthoganal to the optical axis and it sloped a bit which sometimes caused oval stars, in this case I had a bit of tilt in my Ha shots which was why I added the Lum and Red to the Ha, this helped reduce the ovalisation but did lose a bit of resolution because the Lum and Red data isn't as detailed, still, I was happy with the final outcome.

Mike

[bloodhound31]

What a fantastic comparison! Thanks for that great image Mike. You are right, it does make you notice things you would otherwise miss...

Baz.

[Screwdriverone]

A few facts to consider here;

Image on the Left Image on the Right

Author: Mike Sidonio (Aus) Hubble/Nasa/ESA....US etc

People involved: 1 >5000

Aperture used: 150mm & 80mm 2400mm

Weight: <100kg (scope, not u) 11,170kg (11 tonnes)

Speed: 0 km/h 27,000 km/h

Technology: Refractor & CCD RC Cassegrain & WFC

Altitude: <500 metres >559 Kilometres

Cost: <$15,000USD? > $2.5 BILLION & counting

Launch Mechanism: Mike (and car) Space Shuttle Discovery

Propellant: Beer Liquid Hydrocarbon

Comparison between the two images: PRICELESS

I for one, enjoyed that comparison, a lot.

Thanks Mike, its amazing just how much you can see and capture from EARTH compared to a MULTI BILLION dollar project that probably no one we know will ever get to drive themselves.

Astronomy is great, aint it? :D

Cheers

Chris

[dpastern]

That's what I was thinking as well Humayun. Very good shot Mike.

Dave

[strongmanmike]

Very funny Chris :lol:

The Hubble ultra deep fields alone have been worth the 10's of $billion spent so far though. The idea of staring at the same tiny area of sky for days or weeks at a time to peer farther and farther back in time so that what would otherwise be a pretty empty piece of sky from Earth becomes full of thousands of remote galaxies forming just after the Big Bang...is certainly priceless :thumbsup:

Arrr chooo...sniff sniff hack...:sadeyes:

[Peter Ward]

Not that comparing ground based data with the HST is ever going to be fair, but I also figure you need to give the HST people their due and at least compare data at the same res as the Hubble shot....ie don't down sample.

This roll-over keeps the HST data in its native res...

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/m16fullres.html

Hope your cold gets better soon Mike.

[strongmanmike]

Now THAT'S a true "fickle finger" :lol:

Great comparison Peter wish I could do roll overs on my site, very cool.

Makes it easier to find the details in my version...isn't Hubble the coolest scope?

Yes hope I get better soon too, I am sick of coughing up Freds narrow band images :P

Mike

[Peter Ward]

With Hubble's servicing mission 4 completed, future HST imagery should be
decidedly more spectacular as the new Wide field camera 3 was installed..being several generations ahead of the camera used for "that" M16
image.

What does the WFC3 look like?

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/tutorials/WFC3.jpg

(Just a little bigger than the new camera I'm expecting to arrive in a month or so :) )

[strongmanmike]

[/URL]



Ah yes, receieving a big new camera in the mail is very exciting!

[URL]http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike2002/proline_arrives (http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/tutorials/WFC3.jpg)

Think I am due for that feeling again....:sadeyes:

Mike :)

[MrB]

Haha, thats one of best laughs I've had in a while. :lol: