It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This image is the realisation of a long time dream of mine: Taking a deep sky image with more than 100 hours of exposure.
I set out on this mission in early 2013 and after having gathered 120 hours of data on 43 different nights in Feb-May 2013 I present what I believe is the deepest view ever obtained of Centaurus A.
I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen before - with all the main features showing in one single image, in order to truly get a grasp of what this intriguing object is all about.
Visible are some unique features, some of which have never been imaged before by amateurs:
- A set of enormous reddish filaments associated with the relativistic jets.
- The complete shell structure of the extended halo, showing both the faint outer shells and brighter inner ones.
- 709 of the catalogued globular clusters orbiting the galaxy.
- Integrated Flux Nebulae permeating the entire field of view around the galaxy.
Image details:
Date: Taken over 43 nights in Feb-May 2013
Exposure: LRGB: 90h:10h:10h:10h, total 120 hours @ -28C
Telescope: 10" Serrurier Truss Newtonian f/5
Camera: QSI 683wsg with Lodestar guider
Filters: Astrodon LRGB E-Series Gen 2
Taken from my observatory in Auckland, New Zealand
I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen before
Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Forgive my ignorance, these images are beautiful.
But are they just an artists representation based on the data gathered or are
they actually true images ?
I ask because:
I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen before
edit on 11-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: added quote
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Forgive my ignorance, these images are beautiful.
But are they just an artists representation based on the data gathered or are
they actually true images ?
I ask because:
I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen before
edit on 11-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: added quote
Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.
Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
reply to post by smithjustinb
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.
Thankyou for clearing that up.
I am concerned that people walk away from seeing these types of images with certain notions
of their place in the universe. If the images are based on artist representation, then
those beliefs are just that, beliefs.
Still, I can appreciate the artistic value of these images and I could look at them all day, they are stunning.
Originally posted by wildespace
It's unfortunate that some people give you an answer like that, and you consider the situation "cleared up". The answer is wrong.
Those are photographs, images taken using visible light. The colours you see are real (even though they might be enhanced in saturation). It's very much like pictures taken with regular cameras, except astronomers use separate colour filters (usually red, green and blue) to make a colour composite, and obviously use very long exposures, sometimes hours - sometimes even days. Due to these factors, the final image is a product of stacking and post-processing in order to get decent contrast, saturation, and other parameters. I can sympathise with being a bit suspicious of all the computer wizadry involved, but I understand if due to the very dim light and optical/technological constraits, they need to do heavy post-processing to make nice-looking images.
Bottom line - those are real images, not just an artistic interpretation. It's not like every amateur astronomer that decides to take up astrophotography is automatically brainwashed into making the "fake" images. They take a telescope equipped with a camera, take pictures, learn to improve their techniques, experiment with stacking and processingt, etc. (I've never done it myself, I hear it's a very expensive hobby and just suck out all of your time)
Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Originally posted by wildespace
It's unfortunate that some people give you an answer like that, and you consider the situation "cleared up". The answer is wrong.
Those are photographs, images taken using visible light. The colours you see are real (even though they might be enhanced in saturation). It's very much like pictures taken with regular cameras, except astronomers use separate colour filters (usually red, green and blue) to make a colour composite, and obviously use very long exposures, sometimes hours - sometimes even days. Due to these factors, the final image is a product of stacking and post-processing in order to get decent contrast, saturation, and other parameters. I can sympathise with being a bit suspicious of all the computer wizadry involved, but I understand if due to the very dim light and optical/technological constraits, they need to do heavy post-processing to make nice-looking images.
Bottom line - those are real images, not just an artistic interpretation. It's not like every amateur astronomer that decides to take up astrophotography is automatically brainwashed into making the "fake" images. They take a telescope equipped with a camera, take pictures, learn to improve their techniques, experiment with stacking and processingt, etc. (I've never done it myself, I hear it's a very expensive hobby and just suck out all of your time)
Artist impressions and extensive post processing lead to an unatural result.
Lets take it out of context and into the world of music creation.
In the studio you can take a voice of a dull singer and use post processing to make
them seem more exciting and vibrant. Which is fine until they perform on stage.
That is not to take away from the expertise required to create these images.
Its certainly not a set of skills I possess.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
However, the stuff we see in that image are really there, and the light we see is the real light.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by elevenaugust
It's saddening to realize that almost every star in that picture was probably dead by the time its light reached the photographer's lens. At least we'll have something to remember them by.
Originally posted by ninepointfive
reply to post by AfterInfinity
When death occurs, there is also rebirth into new life. It's a all a cycle, and although death is upsetting - it is the start of something new.
Even I have to remind myself of this sometimes.
goodluckedit on 11-6-2013 by ninepointfive because: spelling
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Forgive my ignorance, these images are beautiful.
But are they just an artists representation based on the data gathered or are
they actually true images ?
I ask because:
I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen before
edit on 11-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: added quote
Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.
This is a real visible light image, not an artists representation. The information as to how this was made is included in the OP and the OP's links.
The reason the photographer had to "compile" the image is that it was taken over a span of 43 nights (one night at a time), AND he used an LRGP technique. LRGP stands for "Luminance, Red, Green and Blue". The red green and blue colors are real, but using color photography alone does not let you get enough brightness or light and dark contrast. Therefore, a black-and-white image is used to get the brightness in the image, then the red, green, and blue color image is overlaid on top of it. So, obviously there word be some "post-production" work required to compile this real image.
Granted, brightness levels, contrast, and color saturation levels could be manipulated, and even the exposure time will allow more things to be visible than normal, but the photographer pointed out that he tried to achieve a realistic look.
The bottom line is that all of the images used to create this image are real photographs that used visible light.
edit on 6/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)