|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NGC 4236 Another low surface brightness M81 group galaxy 2nd try
Here it is with more saturation.
Rick Rick Johnson wrote: It seems the only clear nights I get are also moon lit. I'm not all that great at processing moon lit images. Still it sort of works. This galaxy was much bigger than I expected. It is listed as about 6 minutes shorter than M81 which fit nicely on my frame but this guy is actually larger but tilted about the same. Looking at the short 5" image I used for checking if the mount hit it I saw a star that was dead center on my chip and seemed dead center along the bright bar of the galaxy. Not until I processed it and could see the fainter parts did I realize the southern part extends farther. The star was indeed about the center of the bar but this galaxy is quite unsymmetrical. Not sure if I missed anything below the southern end or not. This is one blue galaxy. At first I thought it due to moonlight but checking the few other color images it seems right. How a galaxy has mostly brilliant blue stars can be so faint I'm not sure. Some reports call it heavily obscured but I'd expect that to redden it some. I see no sign of that. I am impressed by the number of faint galaxies in this image. Looks to me that there may be more of them than foreground stars. Unfortunately, seeing wasn't all that good so its hard to tell. This was taken over two nights. I took my usual 4x10' and 2x10 minute series but it was so low luminosity I waited for another clear night to do it again. First night had a 3 day old moon that set before I took color data. I used those frames to check that my color was correct. Then the last frame was taken at 5 days when the moon was in the sky giving me fits on all frames. Still, I got a better result using all frames. Seeing was better the moon lit night as well which helped a bit as well as fogging the faint stuff. In all this is one surprisingly big galaxy. It is listed at 11.5 million light years (M81 is 12). Brightest blue stars are listed at 19th magnitude and as this shot easily goes well below that some of those "stars" in the galaxy really are stars and not clusters it would seem. Which is which is the question. H-alpha might show up some HII regions but I sure don't see any in the RGB data. They must be smaller than my seeing allowed me to resolve. Earlier this galaxy was so high a declination it was in my Polaris tree all the time. Last year I had no trouble reaching 70 degrees but couldn't this winter. 67 was about the limit unless I wanted to image many nights using a 25 minute window, then I could hit 68. But now I'm back to 70. Snow is out of the tree after high winds blew it all far to the north of me. That means the tree leans toward me when snow covered. I waded through the snow (still 18" on the ground) to get a good look at it with a plumb bob. It is leaning about 5 degrees toward the observatory even now, and has been apparently, but with a heavy snow load it leans even more. Not sure if that means I could have a bisected observatory or not. I think I'll have a tree guy I know give his assessment. It saves me a lot of time raking snow off the roof. Nothing like standing atop a 10' ladder atop a 9' deck using a 26' snow rake trying to remove snow off the observatory. It's a long way down from up there! Thanks to the tree I didn't need to do it at all last year (light snow) and only once this year (normal snow). But the snow on the house roof that isn't protected indicates I'd have been doing it about 8 times this winter without the tree. When the snow load is heavy rolling the roof would dump it all into the observatory as it rolled back. That I don't need. I only clean off the south side as the north side dumps only outside the observatory and isn't a problem. So I'm now in a quandary over the tree. Unlike my Meridian Tree, this one is legal to cut, though at 100 feet expensive to do as it has to be tied off and cut in short sections to be sure it doesn't fall on the observatory. 14" LX200R @ f/10, L=8x10' binned 2x2, RGB=4x10' binned 3x3, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME Rick -- Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct. Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NGC 4236 Another low surface brightness M81 group galaxy 2nd try
looks good to me Rick
you sure have a lot of background galaxies in that shot too. "Rick Johnson" wrote in message ... Here it is with more saturation. Rick Rick Johnson wrote: It seems the only clear nights I get are also moon lit. I'm not all that great at processing moon lit images. Still it sort of works. This galaxy was much bigger than I expected. It is listed as about 6 minutes shorter than M81 which fit nicely on my frame but this guy is actually larger but tilted about the same. Looking at the short 5" image I used for checking if the mount hit it I saw a star that was dead center on my chip and seemed dead center along the bright bar of the galaxy. Not until I processed it and could see the fainter parts did I realize the southern part extends farther. The star was indeed about the center of the bar but this galaxy is quite unsymmetrical. Not sure if I missed anything below the southern end or not. This is one blue galaxy. At first I thought it due to moonlight but checking the few other color images it seems right. How a galaxy has mostly brilliant blue stars can be so faint I'm not sure. Some reports call it heavily obscured but I'd expect that to redden it some. I see no sign of that. I am impressed by the number of faint galaxies in this image. Looks to me that there may be more of them than foreground stars. Unfortunately, seeing wasn't all that good so its hard to tell. This was taken over two nights. I took my usual 4x10' and 2x10 minute series but it was so low luminosity I waited for another clear night to do it again. First night had a 3 day old moon that set before I took color data. I used those frames to check that my color was correct. Then the last frame was taken at 5 days when the moon was in the sky giving me fits on all frames. Still, I got a better result using all frames. Seeing was better the moon lit night as well which helped a bit as well as fogging the faint stuff. In all this is one surprisingly big galaxy. It is listed at 11.5 million light years (M81 is 12). Brightest blue stars are listed at 19th magnitude and as this shot easily goes well below that some of those "stars" in the galaxy really are stars and not clusters it would seem. Which is which is the question. H-alpha might show up some HII regions but I sure don't see any in the RGB data. They must be smaller than my seeing allowed me to resolve. Earlier this galaxy was so high a declination it was in my Polaris tree all the time. Last year I had no trouble reaching 70 degrees but couldn't this winter. 67 was about the limit unless I wanted to image many nights using a 25 minute window, then I could hit 68. But now I'm back to 70. Snow is out of the tree after high winds blew it all far to the north of me. That means the tree leans toward me when snow covered. I waded through the snow (still 18" on the ground) to get a good look at it with a plumb bob. It is leaning about 5 degrees toward the observatory even now, and has been apparently, but with a heavy snow load it leans even more. Not sure if that means I could have a bisected observatory or not. I think I'll have a tree guy I know give his assessment. It saves me a lot of time raking snow off the roof. Nothing like standing atop a 10' ladder atop a 9' deck using a 26' snow rake trying to remove snow off the observatory. It's a long way down from up there! Thanks to the tree I didn't need to do it at all last year (light snow) and only once this year (normal snow). But the snow on the house roof that isn't protected indicates I'd have been doing it about 8 times this winter without the tree. When the snow load is heavy rolling the roof would dump it all into the observatory as it rolled back. That I don't need. I only clean off the south side as the north side dumps only outside the observatory and isn't a problem. So I'm now in a quandary over the tree. Unlike my Meridian Tree, this one is legal to cut, though at 100 feet expensive to do as it has to be tied off and cut in short sections to be sure it doesn't fall on the observatory. 14" LX200R @ f/10, L=8x10' binned 2x2, RGB=4x10' binned 3x3, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME Rick -- Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct. Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh". |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NGC 4236 Another low surface brightness M81 group galaxy 2nd try
Mighty image Rick. I never imaged this galaxy because I wanted to save it
for a very good night and never got around to imaging it. Stefan "Richard Crisp" schrieb im Newsbeitrag et... looks good to me Rick you sure have a lot of background galaxies in that shot too. "Rick Johnson" wrote in message ... Here it is with more saturation. Rick Rick Johnson wrote: It seems the only clear nights I get are also moon lit. I'm not all that great at processing moon lit images. Still it sort of works. This galaxy was much bigger than I expected. It is listed as about 6 minutes shorter than M81 which fit nicely on my frame but this guy is actually larger but tilted about the same. Looking at the short 5" image I used for checking if the mount hit it I saw a star that was dead center on my chip and seemed dead center along the bright bar of the galaxy. Not until I processed it and could see the fainter parts did I realize the southern part extends farther. The star was indeed about the center of the bar but this galaxy is quite unsymmetrical. Not sure if I missed anything below the southern end or not. This is one blue galaxy. At first I thought it due to moonlight but checking the few other color images it seems right. How a galaxy has mostly brilliant blue stars can be so faint I'm not sure. Some reports call it heavily obscured but I'd expect that to redden it some. I see no sign of that. I am impressed by the number of faint galaxies in this image. Looks to me that there may be more of them than foreground stars. Unfortunately, seeing wasn't all that good so its hard to tell. This was taken over two nights. I took my usual 4x10' and 2x10 minute series but it was so low luminosity I waited for another clear night to do it again. First night had a 3 day old moon that set before I took color data. I used those frames to check that my color was correct. Then the last frame was taken at 5 days when the moon was in the sky giving me fits on all frames. Still, I got a better result using all frames. Seeing was better the moon lit night as well which helped a bit as well as fogging the faint stuff. In all this is one surprisingly big galaxy. It is listed at 11.5 million light years (M81 is 12). Brightest blue stars are listed at 19th magnitude and as this shot easily goes well below that some of those "stars" in the galaxy really are stars and not clusters it would seem. Which is which is the question. H-alpha might show up some HII regions but I sure don't see any in the RGB data. They must be smaller than my seeing allowed me to resolve. Earlier this galaxy was so high a declination it was in my Polaris tree all the time. Last year I had no trouble reaching 70 degrees but couldn't this winter. 67 was about the limit unless I wanted to image many nights using a 25 minute window, then I could hit 68. But now I'm back to 70. Snow is out of the tree after high winds blew it all far to the north of me. That means the tree leans toward me when snow covered. I waded through the snow (still 18" on the ground) to get a good look at it with a plumb bob. It is leaning about 5 degrees toward the observatory even now, and has been apparently, but with a heavy snow load it leans even more. Not sure if that means I could have a bisected observatory or not. I think I'll have a tree guy I know give his assessment. It saves me a lot of time raking snow off the roof. Nothing like standing atop a 10' ladder atop a 9' deck using a 26' snow rake trying to remove snow off the observatory. It's a long way down from up there! Thanks to the tree I didn't need to do it at all last year (light snow) and only once this year (normal snow). But the snow on the house roof that isn't protected indicates I'd have been doing it about 8 times this winter without the tree. When the snow load is heavy rolling the roof would dump it all into the observatory as it rolled back. That I don't need. I only clean off the south side as the north side dumps only outside the observatory and isn't a problem. So I'm now in a quandary over the tree. Unlike my Meridian Tree, this one is legal to cut, though at 100 feet expensive to do as it has to be tied off and cut in short sections to be sure it doesn't fall on the observatory. 14" LX200R @ f/10, L=8x10' binned 2x2, RGB=4x10' binned 3x3, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME Rick -- Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct. Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NGC 4236 Another low surface brightness M81 group galaxy | Rick Johnson[_3_] | Astro Pictures | 6 | March 18th 08 05:19 PM |
Surface Brightness of Deep-Sky Objects Measured with a Digital Camera | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 27th 06 06:44 AM |
Question about galaxy brightness | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 5th 05 01:18 AM |
surface brightness and photons | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 22 | April 15th 05 01:42 AM |
Surface brightness of Mars | M. Tettnanger | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | September 3rd 03 08:42 PM |