Go Back   IceInSpace > Images > Deep Space
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 20-02-2007, 11:19 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
M83 with the...errr…DMK - Really ?????

Hello,

Well the forecast was for rain, the skies were clear and although the stars were twinkling, I decided to set up the rig for Jupiter, go to bed and get up again at 3:00am.

I actually awoke around 1:00am so crept out of the house and powered up the rig. Whilst waiting for Jove, I thought I’d try the DMK on a galaxy, M83 to be specific. A quick GoTo and crikey! There she was! Very dim and indistinct compared to the same exposure, 30 secs, using the cooled and more sensitive SBIG ST7 CCD camera.

I banged off an avi that comprised 10 x 30 sec frames and then headed for Omega Centauri. Just as the mount arrived after its slew, so did the clouds. A tantalising wait and I managed to squeeze off 10 x 15 sec frames. Hmm, I wonder how Registax will handle all those stars?

Anyhow, the time for Jove arrived, as did the clouds, so in the end, at 5:12am, I managed to grab the only ToUcam avi of the session.

Overall a very pleasing session, albeit a bit frustrating due to the clouds. The long exposures on the DMK are nice, but I'll stick to the more sensitive, cooled ST7 for DSO's.

Cheers

Dennis

C9.25 with F6.3 R/C
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (M83 07-02-20 01-51-59.jpg)
51.9 KB189 views
Click for full-size image (Omega 07-02-20 02-27-07.jpg)
68.9 KB117 views
Click for full-size image (Jupiter_2007-02-20_05-12-09 N235.jpg)
18.9 KB146 views
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 20-02-2007, 11:30 AM
[1ponders]'s Avatar
[1ponders] (Paul)
Retired, damn no pension

[1ponders] is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Obi Obi, Qld
Posts: 18,778
Very nice Dennis. I especially like the M83.

Well I'm excited Dennis, by the fact that you managed to get out last night. I gave it up as a bad joke. Cloud, Clear, Cloud, Clear, Cloud, Clear.

I've been thinking that if it ever cleared up and the seeing was lousy I'd give the DMK a shot at long exposure. Looks very promising.

Last edited by [1ponders]; 20-02-2007 at 12:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 20-02-2007, 11:30 AM
h0ughy's Avatar
h0ughy (David)
Moderator

h0ughy is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NEWCASTLE NSW Australia
Posts: 33,429
thats very clever Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 20-02-2007, 11:50 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
Nice one Dennis, been waiting to see how the DMK would go on deep sky.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-02-2007, 12:34 PM
tornado33
Registered User

tornado33 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Posts: 4,116
Nice shots there, Jupiter looks great.
Scott
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-02-2007, 01:07 PM
ving's Avatar
ving (David)
~Dust bunny breeder~

ving is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: The town of campbells
Posts: 12,359
the dmk on dsos was discussed at MAS last night. interesting to com on here the next day and see a result
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-02-2007, 01:16 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
Thanks guys. The DMK surprised me with the deep sky stuff, although even at 30 secs there were approx 6 to 8 hot pixels clearly visible, so I'm not too sure how it will perform for longer exposures?

It was good to be outdoors again Paul – but gee I was rusty, it took me ages to get going.

Mike – I am now even more impressed with your recent Jupiter images, after having attempted it myself this morning.

Still, the DMK is quite a versatile camera, whilst you are out there, waiting for the Planets or the Moon.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20-02-2007, 05:05 PM
Ric's Avatar
Ric
Support your local RFS

Ric is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wamboin NSW
Posts: 12,405
Very nice images Dennis.
I noticed on M83 that the middle to upper left seems lighter. I get that as well on some of my images, is that light pollution being captured as well or something else.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20-02-2007, 05:30 PM
davidpretorius's Avatar
davidpretorius
lots of eyes on you!

davidpretorius is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 7,381
very well done dennis, you qlders are just firing up!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20-02-2007, 05:43 PM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Launceston, Australia
Posts: 6,570
Impressive, Dennis.

Does your DMK have a maximum 30 sec exposure? That's the 21AFO4 right? Is that the astronomy long exp modded version?

Can it go any longer?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 20-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric View Post
Very nice images Dennis.
I noticed on M83 that the middle to upper left seems lighter. I get that as well on some of my images, is that light pollution being captured as well or something else.

Cheers
Hi Ric

The M83 image has not been “reduced”, that is, Flat Fields and Dark Frames were not taken and applied. A Dark Frame (subtracted) removes thermal noise and a Flat Field (divided) removes light gradients, vignetting, dust spots, etc.

The light gradient would have been removed if I had taken a Flat Field. The DSO’s were captured using the Celestron F6.3 Reducer/Corrector. When using the F6.3 R/C, vignetting becomes quite apparent, even on a 640x480 chip.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 20-02-2007, 05:59 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt View Post
Impressive, Dennis.

Does your DMK have a maximum 30 sec exposure? That's the 21AFO4 right? Is that the astronomy long exp modded version?

Can it go any longer?
Hi Matt

Like Paul, I got the DMK21AF04.AS which is the firmware modded camera. I think that the unit is capable (in the software settings) of exposures of up to 1 hour? I only went as high as 30 secs on M83, just messing around really.

To take say, 3 minute + images, I would have to fit an auto guider, or acquire the patience and stamina of Scott and manually guide!

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 20-02-2007, 10:23 PM
Ric's Avatar
Ric
Support your local RFS

Ric is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wamboin NSW
Posts: 12,405
Thanks Dennis for the explanation.
I always take darks but haven't been using flats so that would explain the the same effect in some of my images.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20-02-2007, 10:38 PM
spacezebra's Avatar
spacezebra (Petra)
Lost in Namibia

spacezebra is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albury NSW
Posts: 3,134
Excellent Dennis

Very impressive captures.

Cheers Petra
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 21-02-2007, 08:15 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ric View Post
Thanks Dennis for the explanation.
I always take darks but haven't been using flats so that would explain the the same effect in some of my images.

Cheers
Hi Ric

Often at F10, I can get away without the need for Flats, but using the F6.3 Reducer/Corrector always requires Flats. EddieT has written a great article here which provides instructions on how to construct a Flat Field box.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 21-02-2007, 08:35 AM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
Hello,

Here is an illustration of the difference between imaging with a 6 mega pixel DSLR and 0.3M (640x480) pixel DMK.

The background image was taken with my Vixen 4” refractor at F9 using a Pentax *ist DS DSLR at prime focus (fl=918mm).

The inset image was taken with the Celestron C9.25 with an F6.3 Reducer/Corrector and the DMK21AF04.AS at prime focus (fl=1500mm).

It shows nicely the differences between fl, sensor size and colour/B&W.

Cheers

Dennis
Attached Thumbnails
Click for full-size image (DMK vs Pentax FOV 1024.jpg)
118.3 KB73 views
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 21-02-2007, 08:39 AM
iceman's Avatar
iceman (Mike)
Sir Post a Lot!

iceman is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Gosford, NSW, Australia
Posts: 36,799
Wow, very clear demonstration! Thanks Dennis.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21-02-2007, 09:42 AM
RB's Avatar
RB (Andrew)
Moderator

RB is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 26,638
Very interesting Dennis, great work and thanks for the comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21-02-2007, 11:33 AM
Ric's Avatar
Ric
Support your local RFS

Ric is offline
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Wamboin NSW
Posts: 12,405
Thanks Dennis for the info and link.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21-02-2007, 01:14 PM
Dennis
Dazzled by the Cosmos.

Dennis is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11,823
Hi Ric

I should have explained that I don't usually take flats (for vignetting) at F10 when using a small sensor such as the DMK 640x480. If I were using a larger sensor such as the 3000x2000 pixel Pentax *ist DS, I would always plan to take flats. Note the use of the word “plan”, for when I’m a little groggy at 4:00am, I sometimes forget - doh!

When imaging with the SBIG ST7 I always take flats, mainly for the dust bunnies rather than light gradients, which tend to be negligible at F10 over this relatively small sensor of 765 x 510 pixels.

The crucial thing part about taking Flats, is that you must take them at exactly the same camera/focuser configuration and orientation as your light frames. That is, you cannot change the focus or move the camera, otherwise you will get image artefacts when do the Flat Field division.

This is because the original light frame would have contained the data about the dust bunnies at certain X-Y pixel locations and if you have changed focus or rotated the ccd for the Flat, then the relative position of the dust bunnies will have changed so they no longer match up exactly with the original light frame.

Cheers

Dennis
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 06:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Astrophotography Prize
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement