Camera Labs

Taken over several years using 3 different imaging systems, the Parker/Carboni deep-sky imaging team bring you a wide field image of the Cave nebula in Cepheus.



Processing all this data in a self-consistent way was quite a task for Noel, but the result speaks for itself. Enjoy!

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/

That's astounding Greg. Could you elaborate a little on how you did this? I don't suppose you have a satellite at your disposal?

_________________
flickr
Canon 5D + 17-40 F4L + 50 F1.4 + 70-200 F2.8L
Velbon Sherpa 200R

Hi Paukl,

I took images of the region using a Hyperstar I lens and SXV-H9C camera, a Sky 90 refractor and SXVF-M25C camera, and finally a Hyperstar III lens and an SXVF-M25C camera. The Hyperstars were mounted on a Celestron GPS 11 scope. So there are 3 different fields of view, one from each system, that my processing collaborator Noel Carboni had to deal with. The Sky 90 data was also a combination of RGB and narrowband H-alpha. So collecting the data was one problem - putting the whole lot together in a self-consistent manner was an equally huge problem and I am grateful that I work with the best deep-sky image processor on the planet as I could never have created this nebula-vista myself. Total imaging time - no idea, somewhere around 20 to 25 hours I would imagine.

Greg

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/

Once again! Very good job! I love the fact that you actually can see the 'star dust' that is out there. Before i saw all of your pictures i thought that stuff like this, was taken from space (like Hubble)

0eyvind

_________________
Sonyian?

My Flickr - Comments very welcome
Gear: a200, Sony 18-70 3.5-5.6 DT, Minolta 50 1.7 AF, Lowepro TLZ Mini, GorillaPod SLR Zoom
Saving for Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM Macro II (50%)

Hi Oeyvind,

Glad you like it I will stick my neck out here and say that you can actually "do better than Hubble" with earth-bound scopes, even amateur setups - but of course it all depends on what you mean by "better".

Hubble has a very limited field of view, this means you don't get big panoramas like an amateur can take by sticking lots of frames together. The other (minor let down) with Hubble images is that they are false colour as opposed to the "true colour" images I, and other amateurs take.

On the plus side - Hubble of course can manage resolutions I can't even dream of - but then again, you don't NEED really high resolution for wide field deep-sky images.

Finally - I can put a LOT more exposure time into one of my images than can be typically allocated to a Hubble target, which means "better" data at the end. However - when Hubble is set up for a very long exposure (like the Hubble deep-field and ultra-deep field images) nothing can touch it

Greg

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/

It's been a while, but as I understood it, for astronomical telescopes, bigger (wider) = more detail. So big telescopes on earth can perform better than Hubble. Hubble's advantage is that it doesn't have to worry about the air getting in the way.

It's images like these that make me want to have a go too. But it might be a very long time before I get close.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

Bigger telescope only means more detail if it is able to grab more detail - the fact that earthbound telescopes image through the atmosphere and Hubble doesn't is the key point. Why hasn't the giant Palomar telescope yielded better images than Hubble for the last few decades? Because Palomar although considerably bigger than Hubble has to image through Earth's atmosphere.

It is only very recently with adaptive optics and "artificial stars" that big earthbound telescopes have managed to get around the "seeing" problem through the Earth's atmosphere.

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/

Wow....

how much does the equipment cost to create such image?

_________________
Canon EOS 40D - Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM - Canon EF 50/1,8 II - Canon EF 70-200/4L IS USM - Speedlite 430 EX - Lowerpro Nova 4 AW
My Flickr

You could take images like this with total (new) equipment cost between £4K and £5K. So if you went second hand, around half this.
Greg

_________________
Nexstar 11 GPS, 2 x Sky 90, M25C, MaximDL, Photshop CS3, Noel Carboni's Photoshop actions, 7 foot Pulsar fibreglass dome, Canon 40D, 100mm macro lens, 28-200mm zoom lens, 17-55mm f#2.8 zoom lens, 100-400mm zoom lens, 1.4x converter, 2x converter.
http://www.newforestobservatory.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/12801949@N02/