Film M31 for the Cynical

Chaps!

Taken with this:
http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/minolta/
Exposed for 30 minutes, although with 2 cloud bank and 5 plane
intteruptions(hat trick) it actually took an hour, on iso 400 kodak gold
through a mitsuki 200mm lens(like gold dust apparently) on a clear night
after about 4 hours of rain(always helps transparency me thinks). This is
scanned on a crap scanner hence the granularity.

This image is unaltered in anyway aside from scanning and cropping. NO
filters or mathematical algowhatsnames applied.... Mount(first generation
eq6) was aligned via polar scope then guide star-polaris iterations upto
250X. Site is about 10 feet away from the Sheppy Faversham creek(Harty Ferry
View for those in the know).

http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/M31-30MX-F4-200mm.jpg


R

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:04:24 +0000 (UTC), "Robert Geake"
wrote:

Chaps!

Taken with this:
http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/minolta/
Exposed for 30 minutes, although with 2 cloud bank and 5 plane
intteruptions(hat trick) it actually took an hour, on iso 400 kodak gold
through a mitsuki 200mm lens(like gold dust apparently) on a clear night
after about 4 hours of rain(always helps transparency me thinks). This is
scanned on a crap scanner hence the granularity.

This image is unaltered in anyway aside from scanning and cropping. NO
filters or mathematical algowhatsnames applied.... Mount(first generation
eq6) was aligned via polar scope then guide star-polaris iterations upto
250X. Site is about 10 feet away from the Sheppy Faversham creek(Harty Ferry
View for those in the know).

http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/M31-30MX-F4-200mm.jpg


Lovely image. Loads of detail visible with a bit of tweaking ;-)

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/temp/thegeakes.html

--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Recent images http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/recent/recent_images.html
** Last update June 24 2005 **

"Robert Geake" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Chaps!

Taken with this:
http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/minolta/
Exposed for 30 minutes, although with 2 cloud bank and 5 plane
intteruptions(hat trick) it actually took an hour, on iso 400 kodak gold
through a mitsuki 200mm lens(like gold dust apparently) on a clear night
after about 4 hours of rain(always helps transparency me thinks). This is
scanned on a crap scanner hence the granularity.

This image is unaltered in anyway aside from scanning and cropping. NO
filters or mathematical algowhatsnames applied.... Mount(first generation
eq6) was aligned via polar scope then guide star-polaris iterations upto
250X. Site is about 10 feet away from the Sheppy Faversham creek(Harty
Ferry View for those in the know).

http://thegeakes.co.uk/astro/M31-30MX-F4-200mm.jpg


R
Impressive! This urges me to shot it as soon as possible...:-)
Clear skies,

--
---
Beta Persei
45° 35' N
08° 51' E

remove "_nospam" to reply

Ok, I'll bite. What are those thin, darker "lanes", running like threads round
the galaxy?

Dust and other interstellar detritus that didn't quite coalesce enough to form
stars? If not, then what? *Lack* of stars?

Nice pic, anyway.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'll bite. What are those thin, darker "lanes", running like threads
round
the galaxy?

Dust and other interstellar detritus that didn't quite coalesce enough to
form
stars? If not, then what? *Lack* of stars?

Nice pic, anyway.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
110890
Manchester, U.K.
http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie



I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!

I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!
I don't think so! Those 'lack of stars' are the dust lanes in M31 which
obscure the stars.

Pete's quick processing attempt has clearly brought out more data from the
original image but it has not brought out imaginary dust lanes (you can see
them in the original anyway.)

Here is a superb shot of M31 taken by Philip Perkins, I think it just about
as good a shot of it on film (certainly one of the best I can find). Look at
the excellent equipment used, and 6 x 50 mins stacked and "further enhanced
in Photoshop". (Note that Philip Perkins is flogging his film hypering
system - see front page of his site)
http://www.astrocruise.com/m31.htm

Here's another one by Jerry Lodriguss
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/A_FALL/M31.HTM this time using a
Gas-hypersensitised film (also a composite image)

Now have a look at Robert Gendler's image of M31
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M...LRGBsmall.html (Have a look at
the big one as well - and other images on his site. The Orion widefield is
truly awesume). His images of M31 are thought by many to be the best taken
by anyone ever with any telescope.

There are also dozens of CCD and DSLR examples on M31 to be found that are
far superior than the best obtainable on film.

Compare the Film version M51 on the Jerry Lodrigiss site with (say) the one
on Philip Perkins' site or, of course, the best of all, Robert Gendlers.

The superiority of the CCD images is unquestionable and vast (in my
opinion). Also, the good film astroimagers do digitally enhance their
images.

So, what's the problem in maximising what you've got - should we abandon our
webcams and Registax and go back to single blurred images of the Planets on
film? - I don't think so - ask Damian Peach.

Rant over!
Ian.

"Robert Geake" wrote in message
...
"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'll bite. What are those thin, darker "lanes", running like threads
round
the galaxy?

Dust and other interstellar detritus that didn't quite coalesce enough to
form
stars? If not, then what? *Lack* of stars?

Nice pic, anyway.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie



I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!

"Ian Sharp" wrote in message
...
I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!
I don't think so! Those 'lack of stars' are the dust lanes in M31 which
obscure the stars.

Pete's quick processing attempt has clearly brought out more data from the
original image but it has not brought out imaginary dust lanes (you can
see them in the original anyway.)

Here is a superb shot of M31 taken by Philip Perkins, I think it just
about as good a shot of it on film (certainly one of the best I can find).
Look at the excellent equipment used, and 6 x 50 mins stacked and "further
enhanced in Photoshop". (Note that Philip Perkins is flogging his film
hypering system - see front page of his site)
http://www.astrocruise.com/m31.htm

Here's another one by Jerry Lodriguss
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/A_FALL/M31.HTM this time using a
Gas-hypersensitised film (also a composite image)

Now have a look at Robert Gendler's image of M31
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M...LRGBsmall.html (Have a look
at the big one as well - and other images on his site. The Orion widefield
is truly awesume). His images of M31 are thought by many to be the best
taken by anyone ever with any telescope.

There are also dozens of CCD and DSLR examples on M31 to be found that are
far superior than the best obtainable on film.

Compare the Film version M51 on the Jerry Lodrigiss site with (say) the
one on Philip Perkins' site or, of course, the best of all, Robert
Gendlers.

The superiority of the CCD images is unquestionable and vast (in my
opinion). Also, the good film astroimagers do digitally enhance their
images.

So, what's the problem in maximising what you've got - should we abandon
our webcams and Registax and go back to single blurred images of the
Planets on film? - I don't think so - ask Damian Peach.

Rant over!
Ian.

"Robert Geake" wrote in message
...
"Fleetie" wrote in message
...
Ok, I'll bite. What are those thin, darker "lanes", running like threads
round
the galaxy?

Dust and other interstellar detritus that didn't quite coalesce enough
to form
stars? If not, then what? *Lack* of stars?

Nice pic, anyway.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie



I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!




Fleetie Said:
Dust and other interstellar detritus that didn't quite coalesce enough to
form stars?

Robert Geake Said:
I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!

Ian Sharpe Said
I don't think so! Those 'lack of stars' are the dust lanes in M31 which
obscure the stars.

Robert Geake Says
I really do detest it when people dont understand what they read and then
comment on it! If you want some reading lessons send me an email and i will
gladly teach you how to do it right, it does seem by your reply that you
arent to good at it!!!

Ian Sharpe Should Now Do:
Swallow a big chunk of humble pie and admit that Robert Geake did, indeed
answer correctly in the original reply! Coupled to the fact that Ian Sharpe
has refered to every body elses images and included none of his own he
should most likely continue to eat pie untill such times that he can take a
film picture with the skill and accuracy that i acheived in the original
subject image.


In plain english...Dont be taking the **** out of my work when you have not
the skills nor the evidence to back up your opinion!

Thank you!

So-so even for film. You should have tweaked it (as Pete has shown), at
least a bit.

Andrea T.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:34:27 +0000 (UTC), "Robert Geake" wrote:
"Ian Sharp" ian.sharp@websav

Robert Geake Says
I really do detest

You may detest what you like, this is a public forum and "we" will
reflect (and judge) upon intemperate and offensive use of English.
regardless of your skill with film.

Swallow a big chunk of humble pie

OT see uk.rec.food+drink.misc

and admit that Robert Geake did,

I detect ArthurSkargillism,
what is wrong with first person singular ?

untill

English

Sharpe

??
Observation.

In plain english...Dont be taking the ****

abusive, see above
I prescribe tranquilliser pills ol'chap.

Now **** off till you can write something that will entertain and
interest me,
else I have an empty kill file waiting,,

Thank you!

pomposity

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 10:42:24 +0100, "Ian Sharp" wrote:
I think you hit the nail on the head ol chap!!!
I don't think so! Those 'lack of stars' are the dust lanes in M31 which
obscure the stars.

Pete's quick processing attempt has clearly brought out more data from the
original image but it has not brought out imaginary dust lanes (you can see
them in the original anyway.)

Here is a superb shot of M31 taken by Philip Perkins, I think it just about
as good a shot of it on film (certainly one of the best I can find). Look at
the excellent equipment used, and 6 x 50 mins stacked and "further enhanced
in Photoshop". (Note that Philip Perkins is flogging his film hypering
system - see front page of his site)
http://www.astrocruise.com/m31.htm

Here's another one by Jerry Lodriguss
http://www.astropix.com/HTML/A_FALL/M31.HTM this time using a
Gas-hypersensitised film (also a composite image)

Now have a look at Robert Gendler's image of M31
http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/M...LRGBsmall.html (Have a look at
the big one as well - and other images on his site. The Orion widefield is
truly awesume). His images of M31 are thought by many to be the best taken
by anyone ever with any telescope.

There are also dozens of CCD and DSLR examples on M31 to be found that are
far superior than the best obtainable on film.

Compare the Film version M51 on the Jerry Lodrigiss site with (say) the one
on Philip Perkins' site or, of course, the best of all, Robert Gendlers.

The superiority of the CCD images is unquestionable and vast (in my
opinion). Also, the good film astroimagers do digitally enhance their
images.

So, what's the problem in maximising what you've got - should we abandon our
webcams and Registax and go back to single blurred images of the Planets on
film? - I don't think so - ask Damian Peach.

Thanks for the links Ian, very interesting.

Normally I would snip for a one-liner appreciative comment,
but in view of flack elsewhere I thort Id better keep the lot, sry for
excess scrolling folks ;-)