Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
This is my Andromeda.
TC ftJun 
TC ftJun 
Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
- Status
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Sorry having troubles but you have one even if there are too many..can't delete it seems.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Andromeda (The gallaxy in the photos) can be seen as a star (with the naked eye) from a dark location and very nicely thru a pair of binoculars. It is some two and a half million light years distance...
Alex
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Yes as to the ones I posted. I don't know who did the one Paddo posted. They were with my 115 mm triplet refractor and cooled mono ZWO camera with 8 pos filter wheel.
I have one with the 80 mm refractor but can't find it? I like it better because you get the whole gallaxy in.
Alex
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
80mm not my best one but it's a better fit.
This is at 400mm fl.
I think you could get a good framing with a DSLR at 200mm which I will try when it comes back. Hopefully attach the ZWO cooled mono and filter wheel to my Nikon 200 mm lens.
Using a cooled camera is almost mandatory because Andromeda appears in our Summer and a DSLR suffers from excessive noise because of the heat. I run the cooled camera at -15 c which works well.
Even these above shots can be greatly improved upon next time as neither had dark frames, flat frames (with their own dark frames subtracted) or bias dark frames subtracted in the stacking process. Also the above photos were taken at ridiculously high gain and very short exposures ( 30 seconds and 60 seconds) and lower gain and longer exposure together with better stacking and dark and flat frame subtraction should make then much better. Also next time the colour will be better because in each of the above at least one colour channel in each photo did not have as many subs as I needed.
This is at 400mm fl.
I think you could get a good framing with a DSLR at 200mm which I will try when it comes back. Hopefully attach the ZWO cooled mono and filter wheel to my Nikon 200 mm lens.
Using a cooled camera is almost mandatory because Andromeda appears in our Summer and a DSLR suffers from excessive noise because of the heat. I run the cooled camera at -15 c which works well.
Even these above shots can be greatly improved upon next time as neither had dark frames, flat frames (with their own dark frames subtracted) or bias dark frames subtracted in the stacking process. Also the above photos were taken at ridiculously high gain and very short exposures ( 30 seconds and 60 seconds) and lower gain and longer exposure together with better stacking and dark and flat frame subtraction should make then much better. Also next time the colour will be better because in each of the above at least one colour channel in each photo did not have as many subs as I needed.
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
So much is lost in the down sizing.
Interestingly when the individual channels were stacked I used a feature in the software called "drizzle" which was originally written for the Hubble which makes better use of the data but the final stacked image before further processing is some one and a half gigbytes , I end up with seven of these if I use all filters ( the above had no S11 or O11 by the way which may add something) but at that size the next bit of processing software really struggles often wont load and is ratty until I reduce size touchy touchy crash crash...which is a pain cause I crop at this point and the first sub gives a reference so a crash can see you start over when doing your fifth for example... I reduce each sub to at least half by a process called Binning which as I understand makes better use of the data whilst reducing the size.
Each of the subs are individually processed to make various improvements in the software used after the stacking software and among other things, reduces noise greatly...most effective really...signal to noise is what it's all about..like with the CBR map you will notice reference there to signal to noise concerns....
Anyways when your seven odd individual channels are processed you take them into photo shop RAW and have a bit of a play to tweak, exposure, contrast, dark highlights, light highlights, etc...then take them into the main section and give each channel it's colour, remember up to this point all channels are just mono ( black and white). When each has its colour that's when the fun starts because you are trying to balance to get colour correct but not lose detail....I usually duplicate each and can end up with twenty photos that I gradually merge I to one.
Finally I get them merged into one photo which I further process to adjust overall colour, brightness and contrast and highlighting of dark or light regions, and apply things like haze reduction. At this point I use the dodge tool to brighten certain spots , say the outter regions in the above photos to bring out the light nebulosity and use the burn tool to darken features say in the above to minimise the burn out of the gallaxy core...at this point I will create solid colour frames of a colour I wish to improve and layer the final photo over the solid colour and using the rubber tool let a slight amount of colour into the main image..I often give individual stars a little colour this way but it takes a long time as I may add a little red blue and yellow....so it's pretty well finished but I take that image into another program to adjust the brightness and contrast a little and even the levels miniscully, and down a down size there to be able to post it here say.
It is very time intensive as staking each sub frame can take hours x seven, each initial process is about one hour minimum x 7 and photo shop takes maybe 2 to 3 hours.
So as you can imagine this has not been in my days for six months ... usually I am processing day in day out.
Plus I have new software which
I have not really implemented that allows me to merge the data from two different rigs...so the above shots I can now merge for a better image.
Alex
Last edited:
You have a talent Alex. Perhaps we need to meet up so you can take a photo of me and make me look awesome and interesting?
We could do a before a few VBs and after a few VBs and see how they turn out.
Seriously, good stuff!
This is APOD material Alex, seriously.
Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff (MTU) & Jerry Bonnell (UMCP)
NASA Official: Phillip Newman Specific rights apply.
NASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices
A service of:ASD at NASA / GSFC
&Michigan Tech. U.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
And referencing the op...I may seem to know a fair bit about astro imaging but the reality is I know so little in relation to what there is to know and I have manuals on the camera and processing etc etc literally a foot thick which I am reasonably familiar with but there is still stuff I am not familiar with... but it's great for me...it is really difficult for me and I have to push so hard sometimes..like just getting the distance between the camera sensor and the field flatter can send you bats, getting the camera to work can send you bats, I tried three different software's before I found one that I could work with...you get to points where it should work but it won't and you spend a day or to finding the problem...these days I stay cool knowing that finally I will win.
Ale
Ale
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Thanks Paddo but not yet..these shots are just tests really, colour needs work, no dark or flats, need more channels, better processing etc...when I go there it will be with an image that is the best that I can do with the equipment I have...I can greatly improve..it's like racing and developing your bike and just doing everything better than everyone else and doing things others just don't do because they don't think such a small detail makes a difference. I had my bike close to a works bike and actually did things even the works teams did not do...I would boil the shocks to get the opperating volume of oil so as to optimise the shocks at operating temps and pressure , dome the piston to help turbulence...oil the cables with vegetable oil for smoother action blue print the clutch lever to be smooth for starts...that made a big difference strangley I was always in the top five by the fjrst corner...thirty five riders..think about it.
I would drill out the brake shoes and assembly such that the brakes weighed less that the inner tube..that counts in unsprung weight.
I do one thing that as far as I can tell only Hubble does...other come close but no one does what I do...and I invented this before I found Hubble used the same approach.
I realised that although miniscule star light could enter the telescope tube from outside your field of view so I built a long tube extention that I baffle to cut out any light from the side that may bouncy around in the tube and effect contrast..it's a small thing and folk think why worry...Anyways I was very happy when looking at Hubble one day to see that they have the same approach..I build a tube about two and a half feet with baffles every two inches so light just won't get past..if you look at most Hubble drawings you can see how they have done it, mine is probably longer relatively speaking.
I paint it and sprinkle saw dust on the wet paint let it dry and paint again to make the surface as none reflective as possible.
I don't do it with my refractors but on a reflector scope I also baffle the telescope main tube (OTA) and paint it black, sprinkle saw dust on the wet paint let that dry and stick and paint again so the tube is both baffled and the surface more none reflective..there are many little things I do when I and serious.
I don't come over this way but I am unfortunately an obsessive perfectionist...most of the reason I don't care about spelling and grammar in fact treat it badly is my way of trying to get on top of it...I was once responsible for drawing up judges orders or drafting Memo and Article for companie.you dont get more exact than that...suited me fine...but I try to be like normal folk these days the astronomy let's me be obsessive but you really need that quality...and I got it and there ain't nuffin
gunna change dat.
Alex
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Here are three scopes.
Eight inch reflector with no camera etc.
80mm triplet refractor with baffled extention tube, narrow band camera and filter 8 w,an imaging session with object on lap top screen.
80 mm triplet getting fitted with electric focuser and general sort out of cables etc.
Fourth photo shows EQ6 mount on left and HEQ 5 pro mount on right with 115 mm triplet refractor, finder scope, camera etc. during its first set up in the little observatory...
Alex
Eight inch reflector with no camera etc.
80mm triplet refractor with baffled extention tube, narrow band camera and filter 8 w,an imaging session with object on lap top screen.
80 mm triplet getting fitted with electric focuser and general sort out of cables etc.
Fourth photo shows EQ6 mount on left and HEQ 5 pro mount on right with 115 mm triplet refractor, finder scope, camera etc. during its first set up in the little observatory...
Alex
Attachments
Jan Ardena:
Also, check out the Berkeley site that paddoboy has extracted stuff from in several posts. There's lot of useful information there.
Thanks, paddoboy! Really useful site there.
Have I not already explained to you that scientific theories will never "reject God"? The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity and electromagnetism, don't involve gods. Gods are irrelevant to those theories. They are scientific theories.
For anybody to be upset because science doesn't disprove your god would be bizarrely irrational.
But you'd already know this if you'd paid any attention at all to our discussions over a period of years. The only conclusion I can reach, therefore, is that you are trolling.
Please don't tell lies, Jan.
Also, check out the Berkeley site that paddoboy has extracted stuff from in several posts. There's lot of useful information there.
Thanks, paddoboy! Really useful site there.
Is this you really failing to understand, or is this just more trolling?
Have I not already explained to you that scientific theories will never "reject God"? The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity and electromagnetism, don't involve gods. Gods are irrelevant to those theories. They are scientific theories.
For anybody to be upset because science doesn't disprove your god would be bizarrely irrational.
But you'd already know this if you'd paid any attention at all to our discussions over a period of years. The only conclusion I can reach, therefore, is that you are trolling.
You know it can. Moreover, I know that I, not to mention others, have explained it to you many times in different ways. So, you are trolling.
This, too, has been discussed and refuted at length. You are trolling.
Indeed. There is no point trying to have an honest discussion with a dishonest troll.
Moderator note:
Jan Ardena has been warned for trolling on the topic of evolution throughout the course of this thread.
Jan has repeatedly refused to engage with substantive points put to him. He has avoided answering questions he finds difficult. He has posted repetitively and has systematically ignored responses that he finds inconvenient, instead choosing to repost many times on matters that have already been addressed.
Our site rules say "Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty." Jan has not displayed suitable standards of intellectual integrity or honesty throughout this thread.
We have specific rules regarding trolling. Here are some typical behaviours of trolls, from our site rules:
Our rules also note:
On a personal note, I must say that I am disappointed that Jan has chosen to pursue this dishonest way of interacting on certain topics. I don't know whether it is his religion that demands dishonesty and evasion on this topic, or whether it is just Jan himself who is unable to come to terms with certain ideas that make him uncomfortable. Either way, his transparently dishonest tactics are unacceptable.
Jan Ardena has been warned for trolling on the topic of evolution throughout the course of this thread.
Jan has repeatedly refused to engage with substantive points put to him. He has avoided answering questions he finds difficult. He has posted repetitively and has systematically ignored responses that he finds inconvenient, instead choosing to repost many times on matters that have already been addressed.
Our site rules say "Vigorous debate is expected, but we expect all participants to treat each other with courtesy and basic good manners, and to abide by reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty." Jan has not displayed suitable standards of intellectual integrity or honesty throughout this thread.
We have specific rules regarding trolling. Here are some typical behaviours of trolls, from our site rules:
- Posting of similar responses and topics repeatedly.
- Avoiding giving answers to direct questions put to them.
- Never attempting to justify their position.
- Demanding evidence from others while offering none in return.
- Vanishing when their bluff is called, only to reappear in a different thread arguing the same point.
- Deliberately derailing discussions onto tangential matters in order to try to control the flow of discussion.
Our rules also note:
Repetitive or vexatious posting is considered trolling.
On a personal note, I must say that I am disappointed that Jan has chosen to pursue this dishonest way of interacting on certain topics. I don't know whether it is his religion that demands dishonesty and evasion on this topic, or whether it is just Jan himself who is unable to come to terms with certain ideas that make him uncomfortable. Either way, his transparently dishonest tactics are unacceptable.
Moderator note:
On a more general note, the discussion in this thread has been off-topic for some time now. Arguably, the topic itself is a little unfocussed, although I think that the opening post was addressed adequately earlier in the thread.
Rather than trying to split off potentially hundreds of off-topic posts to a different thread, I think it is best to leave things in the context that they happened and archive (i.e. close) this thread.
There is no problem with starting one or more new threads that focus on different aspects of the discussion, if you want to continue.
It is difficult to know where evolution denial sits best in this forum: Religion or Biology. Since countering religious denials of evolution usually involves explaining the science, I lean towards the Biology subforum. On the other hand, denial from religiously-motivated posters who do not post specific objections to the theory of evolution seems better suited to the Religion subforum. If we take Jan's inputs into this thread as an example, he raises no actual objections to the science of evolution; his denials all rest on the repeated baseless assertion that "nobody can show that evolution happens", and his underlying objection is a barely-concealed religious one rather than a scientific one. Perhaps I will have to continue to find different homes for anti-evolution threads, where the best fit will depend on the specific content of the objection.
Anyway, this thread is now closed.
On a more general note, the discussion in this thread has been off-topic for some time now. Arguably, the topic itself is a little unfocussed, although I think that the opening post was addressed adequately earlier in the thread.
Rather than trying to split off potentially hundreds of off-topic posts to a different thread, I think it is best to leave things in the context that they happened and archive (i.e. close) this thread.
There is no problem with starting one or more new threads that focus on different aspects of the discussion, if you want to continue.
It is difficult to know where evolution denial sits best in this forum: Religion or Biology. Since countering religious denials of evolution usually involves explaining the science, I lean towards the Biology subforum. On the other hand, denial from religiously-motivated posters who do not post specific objections to the theory of evolution seems better suited to the Religion subforum. If we take Jan's inputs into this thread as an example, he raises no actual objections to the science of evolution; his denials all rest on the repeated baseless assertion that "nobody can show that evolution happens", and his underlying objection is a barely-concealed religious one rather than a scientific one. Perhaps I will have to continue to find different homes for anti-evolution threads, where the best fit will depend on the specific content of the objection.
Anyway, this thread is now closed.
- Status