My Patreon: www.patreon.com/cuivlazygeek My Merch Store: cuiv.myspreadshop.com/ The more incredible Astrobiscuit attempt with a specific goal in mind: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5s9xbZ5G-wk.html Amazon affiliate: amzn.to/49XTx01 Agena affiliate: bit.ly/3Om0hNG High Point Scientific affiliate: bit.ly/3lReu8R First Light Optics affiliate: tinyurl.com/yxd2jkr2 All-Star Telescope affiliate: bit.ly/3SCgVbV Astroshop eu Affiliate: tinyurl.com/2vafkax8
Why would Hubble produce better pictures than Keck? Have you seen the comparison between the two? Hubble got 2.4 m mirror, Keck has 10 m mirror. There are diagrams comparing the two, take a look. And Keck is above Hawaiian mountain, so not much water vapor to distort the image either. So, how can little Hubble outperform massive Keck?
" fake color ". The on the books technical term for it is _False Color_ 😆It can be misleading when people hear that term thinking it's " fake ", but the data itself is not. The colors have been changed so our eyes can see the image with familiar color schemes.
@@kyzercube false collor is one thing but we're straight up missing some emission lines because some elements like hydrogen don't just glow in one color whitch makes me question some things
hydrogen doesn't just glow red, . it switches do blue whan it gets ionised more . . whitch makes me ask: how many emission lines are missing from the hubble image and what would a complete spectrum of the pillars look like :?
What's even more amazing was that Hubble was launched in 1990. What was the state of amateur astrophotography back then? Was anyone even using digital sensors? Even crazier - it was designed in the *1970s* and intended to be launched in 1983. Sure, amateurs had large, high-quality mirrors back then, but you weren't exactly able to stack 50 images on your laptop. Hubble was considered a boondoggle when it launched, due to the defective primary mirror. It was compared to the Hindenburg and Titanic. In the end, the spherical aberration was completely correctable (it was very precisely ground to the wrong shape) and it became one of the most successful scientific instruments in history. 30 years after launch and 50 years after its design, it's still producing cutting-edge science. When people compare their amateur images, they usually pick a big, easy, bright target like the eagle nebula. Give it a shot with the Hubble ultra-deep field, and the difference is even more stark. Good luck getting a month's worth of light. And that just talks about imaging capability, and doesn't get into the wavelengths that can't be observed through the atmosphere, Hubble's infrared and ultraviolet capabilities, spectroscopic capabilities, etc.
Social media sized versions of many of the Hubble images are easy to approximate with amateur equipment exactly as you have shown. I've found value in rescaleing Hubble and other large telescope images to the same pixel scale my equipment produces. This provides a benchmark for evaluating resolution enhancement techniques like deconvolution and drizzle stacking dithered images to recover resolution in my amateur images. The rescaling of the Hubble pixel scale to what my equipment produces, shows what my equipment should ideally capture in the absence of the atmosphere and diffraction.. Comparing my processed images to the rescaled large telescope images makes it clear what level of processing was recovering real details and when I was introducing processing artifacts.
Also the computer monitors are only having 8 bit depth, all the difference people can see comes from the usage of software which approximates 32+ bit depth "packing" it into 8-bit. Also software manipulations make art object from data, and art objects have low scientific value. Scientific image is =/= "astrophoto". I was making scientific images from data, which were beautiful, but still had scientific sense, because they contained exact information, not screwed by digital image processors. And nobody liked my scientific images. Average Casual People essentially always gonna like "astrophotos" but will never gonna like scientific imaging. Deconvolution actually destroys information, as every other digital convolution filtering, so it is merely a method of making art objects which have nothing common with real object in space.
I'm not into astro photography. This is a random RU-vid suggested video for me. I've seen Pilar's of creation many times. But showing this zoom image makes me want a big, high resolution poster to hang in my living room...
Thanks for stopping by! I absolutely love that you were recommended this video randomly and you still watched it AND now you would like that poster (me too!). Sometimes RU-vid works in cool ways!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek thank you for showing this. Like I've said - I've seen it many times before, but usually when showing the whole thing - you are not aware of how beautiful, scary, inspiring, exciting, extraordinary, impressive these details are. This is so cool!
Same! Random recommendation. In university I had access to a printer that used an A0 roll of paper. I thought it would be cool to print a poster of the carina nebula hubble photo, because it was so immense. The printer took HOURS to process the image, then hours to print it! so many student's walking to the printer wondering where their work was and why it was taking so long 😂
Great comparison. I downloaded and processed the Hubble's M51 images, 3 separate files, and just over a Gig of data! You could blow the final image up to the size of a city bus and still see amazing details. Amazing piece of kit we have flying around up there after 30+ years.
*Jimmurphy* -- I might be wrong in thinking this --- -- but I believe Google uses the Hubble imagery to show us the visible universe - the magnification is almost endless.
Great video Cuiv :) You can love Hubble (and JWST) and backyard astronomy at the same time. These things aren't mutually exclusive, despite what the commentators sometimes suggest ;)
Hubble did start that war. Back then they promoted the telescope besides its astronomical cost, specs, failures and delays with nice (for the pre internet taxpayer) images no one had ever shown before. By now it gets competition of backyard astronomers for those same images. This continues that war by saying Hubble is still superior on specs while the others are lying 6:20 Calling it a lie is a misrepresentation. But I love misrepresentations, so no harm done :)
I agree. My first wow moment was when my "backyard astronomy" father in law zoomed in on Saturn one crisp, cold winter night in Sweden, when the seeing was amazing. I don't remember making out the moons, but the contrast in the rings alone blew me away. Then there's the JWST deep field. That one blew me away too. But it was the same feeling of awe!
Wow, I have never seen the zoomed in version of the Hubble picture. Absolutely stunning. My jaw actually dropped as you showed us the intricate detail, the light eminating from the dust of creation, the stars shining, the clouds forming, etc. And to know all this is actually physically out there in the vast universe makes me so happy and sad at the same time, because I will never witness such beauty and greatnes with my own eyes. Thank you!
The really sad part is that, the image is a composite reconstruction of images, with slight recoloring for us to see. So in reality, even if we manage to build a ship that could park close to anything the hubble has photographed, we wouldn't see it like the hubble does. 😅
@@lXlDarKSuoLlXl Even then, these things are on such a scale that naked eye observation distances - they don't even exist as something we can see. It only becomes visible from a distance.
@@redneckcoder well, yes, but naked eye distances in space are much, much larger than in earth... I mean, you CAN see jupiter from here, you just can't make any details. The nebula is an extremely gigantic structure, you could be "close enough" to the pillars to "see" them, but since nebulas are clouds of dust/gas, they'd be very, very dark. Much like what you see when you look at the center of the galaxy.
This was the most engaging astrophotography video I've watched for a very long time! Congrats on picking a very educational topic and presenting it so interestingly.
I think it also shows how far personal astrophotography has come since the launch of the Hubble. We didn't have the kind of equipment back then that we do now.
it's true of the general public though that when they see the pillars with the glow at the top, they get the idea that these have never been seen before. But those pillars are clearly visible in my photo with a Seestar, which is a 50mm scope. What the Hubble brought to the party was increased resolution beyond anything imagined before. So these baby scopes vs Hubble have a function, to allow the general public to appreciate the true role of larger aperture scopes without atmospheric intervention. They at least have the chance to see differences with increased resolution looking at the same object. Most probably the general public still misunderstands. But it's fun for the astrophotographers who make the videos and it's fun for we amateur astronomers to see too. I don't think there's any misrepresentation going on here at all.
@@CuivTheLazyGeek There is a lot of work before that Hubble photo is released, at least as much as is in your photo. Hey, should I post my photo of the Pillars from my Seestar and pick a fight with Hubble? I thought not! But the Seestar is amazing.
So what think about what $3.4 billion in the telescope cost plus the launch ! Then think about the 66 guys on stupid money standing around talking about what they supposedly got from Hubble ( sophia, nasa identical spec telescope in a jumbo jet with a sunroof )
@@TheKuul69 _"So what think about what $3.4 billion in the telescope"_ I think you don't understand the science. Good thing you don't have the power to pull the plug on Hubble. Pro tip: what are you going to do when they launch Vera Rubin that will make Hubble look like a Walmart 50 mm refractor? We need it and you have no clue why. I prescribe a bit of learning. Join your local astronomy club. Get some eyeball time on some amateur scopes. The point of this video is that yeah, Hubble gets hundreds of times more data than an amateur scope, but you have to see it to appreciate just how good the amateur scopes are today. That's a long way from saying that Hubble is a waste of money.
Hubble`s concept is from the 70`s, when people had filmcamera`s and recordplayers. Hubble is like a LCD-television that`s 50 years old that still has better image than OLED. Surely camera`s for home use got a lot better since then, but shooting your camera/telescope up into space, having radiation shielding, gyroscopic image stabilisation, having digital wireless transmission over 100`s to 1000`s of kilometers, ability to adjust for problems remotely, also would make a home camera/telescope much bigger/complexer and very much more expensive.
@@luboinchina3013 JWST isn't the newer version of Hubble. JWST is specialized to take photos in the Infrared spectrum and give the different frequencies artificial colors in the visible spectrum so we can see them. JWST is the COMPLIMENT, not the replacement for Hubble. The replacement will be the Vera Rubin telescope with an 8 meter primary mirror, compared to Hubble's 2.4 meter and JWST's 6.5 meter primaries. And Vera Rubin will be working in optical wavelengths, just like Hubble. For light gathering power, Vera Rubin will gather 6.25 times more photons per second than Hubble. For resolution, Vera Rubin will resolve 2.71 times better than Hubble. It won't be like comparing Hubble to an amateur scope, but it will be a remarkable improvement.
Amazing! Let's also not forget that Hubble was launched in 1990! The instruments available now are leaps and bounds better than what was possible 34 years ago.
Thanks for your work on this and your patience in explaining the process. As ever, your enthusiasm is infectious. Winter is here so I can only rarely use my own kit. But you do keep my interest and my own enthusiasm in the “on” position. I’m very grateful. Thanks very much. 😊
Cuiv, that was a GREAT video. It really put things in perspective. One thing should be said though.. Your Pillars of Creation image is amazing. You are an extremely talented and knowledgeable Astrophotographer. You Totally sold me on the 585 chip. That will be my galaxy camera, coupled with my Quattro 200. You are an incredible resource for this community. Thank You sir. Joe D
I don't think that drizzling should be considered cheating when "competing" with the HST. Not only do the Hubble guys also use drizzling, they invented it!😉
Yes, many of the things home astronomers use now to clean up data was developed specifically for the Hubble when it was myopic. Without Hubble being there first modern home astronomers couldnt even have gotten close to the same image
One major caveat to the "I can almost match Hubble!" posts: The imaging device is over 30 years old. Go grab a consumer digital camera from 1994 and see what you get. Oh, there weren't really any? Hmm.... I want to see someone match JWT, THEN we'll have a real contender.
Cuiv people sometimes forget that Hubble was built in the 90s with 90s tech and yes it was nearsighted when they deployed it but now it has corrective optics and will be hard to beat for years to come! The most important fact I take away from your video is that using the latest amature astro tech and software, we now can produce images that get very close to Hubble which makes this hobby even more awesome and fun! I am actually quite impressed at your image from your location with a relatively smaller aperture. Well done! I can't wait to see what comes out in the future to get us closer to Hubble quality more than ever!
Fully agree Dave! The Hubble did get some sensor upgrades but still, it's such an amazing achievement! Fun fact, in "The Naked Gun 2 1/2", the Hubble is visible as part of the Loser's Bar, as it was considered an abject failure at the time!
Anyone doing Hubble comparisons should use photo processing software from the late 90s. Trying to compare a processed image from today to something processed on a Pentium 3 with 64 MB of memory, is a bit ridiculous. Most of Hubble's raw files could be processed today and blow the original images out of the water.
You are absolutely right, when look at the archived photos of what "state of the art" ground based imaging accomplished before Hubble, you can clearly see what a quantum leap forward Hubble was. Let's not forget, it's over 30 years old, based on a nearly 50 year old design! Speaking of quantum leaps, we should also recognise how far amateur astrophotography has come since the 1990's (a.ka. film photography, CCD was out of reach of most people) to even be able to have such a comparison. Thanks again for the video Cuiv!!
@@gabrielex Because almost every "Hubble VS (Insert amateur astrophotography camera here)" post is comparing Hubble pictures from 20+ years ago, most notably the thumbnail of this video as that pillars image was taken nearly 30 years ago.
@@CuivTheLazyGeek, years ago I knew the project manager for Hubble data communications and downloads. He showed me some Hubble images on a high-end graphics workstation. I could have sat there all day just staring at a single image. Visual data can contain more than just information. It can contain wonder.
Nice video. 100% agree here. The images fantastic. Anyone saying it wasn't worth it in their comparisons should repeat the same thing using cameras and trackers from 1990 and post their images from that. Even with the initial Hubble optical issues and thousands of hours of light collection from the earth-based telescope, Hubble would still produce better results.
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Yup. I remember the news articles of the day. People should never underestimate geeks. Especially those that aren't lazy and have NASA funding.
I started astrophotography in November 2020 and I did several comparisons between my low quality pictures and low quality pictures of the hubble not knowing what I was doing. My intention was to know the reaction of my friends on facebook that are astrophotographers and learn from their comments in order to enhance my skills. I still learning and I love this hobby. I just got an upgrade on my rig and hope to get better data using the Celestron StarSense Autoguider with dew heater gear and see what happens. I love your video. Thank you for sharing your knowledge and clarify the comparison between the Hubble and our gear.
I had a friend who rejected all Astro photography because it did not represent what he could see with his unaided eye. This is ridiculous. You show this argument to another level and I applaud you. All these people want to do is make themselves seem more important than they need to be. Be significant to the people who love you, and allow yourself to be humbled by your insignificance to the universe.
I think the biggest issue with this argument against the Hubble is that it’s comparing a digital camera from 30 years ago with a digital camera from now. Technology has improved so dramatically that the quality of Hubble will be worse even if it was tippetty top end for the time. Therefore, considering that these photos are of closer, larger targets (relative to other objects in the universe), and that commercially available optics can photo these, Hubble can’t win. However, farther and smaller objects will find Hubble on top due to its far superior optics and lack of atmospheric distortion.
@@ethanrichards3268 Hubble will always win vs amateur ground based telescopes, doesn't matter how technologically old are the sensors it uses. The reason is physics, and more specifically optics. The actual resolution is due to the size of the mirror (2.4m) in addition to this it's a space telescope, meaning it's not hindered by the atmosphere.
@@gabrielex yeah that’s what I said at the end. However, kind of like what I said, with much larger (and probably closer) objects, distortion from the atmosphere will have a much less meaningful affect. Largely the same with the optics too. That’s why I still say that modern cameras will win in that circumstance, at least when considering the perceived image quality.
@@ethanrichards3268 But the atmosphere can absorb certain frequencies giving a false impression of what the target is made of. Hubble doesnt have that issue. Hubble does a lot more than just make pretty pictures. It is a laboratory crammed into the size of a bus. It really is amazing.
Basic optics--resolution is limited by aperture. Larger aperture means more resolution. That's not something that you can trick out through software. And Hubble has much more aperture than most amateurs (leaving aside Bill Gates or Elon Musk and the like who can if they want to fund their own Hubble equivalent) can afford. Even with near, bright objects resolution is limited by aperture. Modern large ground-based telescopes have more aperture than any space-based telescope and can to a significant extent adjust for atmospheric distortion using active optics, but again you're talking about technology that is way outside of the reach of most amateurs. What has improved since Hubble is the image sensors, but that alone doesn't compensate for atmospheric distortion or lack of aperture.
Wonderful video Cuiv! Very informative and a great breakdown of how filters work and what the SHO pallet is. You are a great teacher and your enthusiasm is infectious!
It's still unreal what someone as skilled and experienced as you with excellent material can achieve! You can be proud of how far you got! Don't forget there is a huge team processing the Hubble-data! On the other hand let's not forget that these are kind of the "show-off"-pictures of the Hubble-team, perfectly processed for special occasions. Most of the time it's doing science where the data doesn't look all that sexy, but has had an unbelievable impact on our knowledge of almost everything space related. Side-note: I was already very happy when I discovered two years ago that Eagle is actually right "in front of my face" in summer, took a picture of it with my daily DSLR behind my 6''-SC-telescope and could really make out these beautiful pillars! Made the Hubble-pictures so much more real to me. Thx for a great video!
Thanks so much! And it's so cool amateurs like us can take pictures of those pillars of creation with such "low budget" (everything being relative) equipment!
As always, I love your videos - they are both educational and entertaining, which to me is what science is all about. In this video, I particularly appreciate your comparison of your work on the Pillars to the classic Hubble image. As good as we think that our amateur images are at times, and they are good indeed, there is a reason that professional astronomy remains alive and well. I liked how you were able to deftly express your love and admiration for the Hubble images, while at the same time acknowledging the efforts of amateur astrophotographers. By the way, I would be thrilled to capture the Eagle Nebula anywhere close to how well you captured it. :)
I am amateur(aka avid follower) of this channel for information about the galaxy and fuel my enthusiasm. He seems genuinely happy, and I can even feel his passion from here😊
It’s always with simple bright beginner targets which even Seestar can acquire…Hubble can see objects and phenomena for scientific analysis which here on earth we could never acquire and would seem boring to us
I dont know why, but these amazing images make me really emotional. Idk if it's the grandeur of the universe, or feelings of pride for mankind for the incredible achievement of photographing these objects with this insane detail, but they make me excited to be alive
"So what have you done with your astro photography setup?" Me who just got this recommended randomly and only have a pair of binoculars and a smartphone camera:
Binocs are one of the best ways to get started especially if you live in a dark area! Large binocs (something like 7x50) and a book called "turn left at Orion" are incredible for initial astronomy (not great for astrophotography though)
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Thats super cool, I'll look up that book :) There's probably a bit too much light pollution where I live, but I do love to stargaze whenever I'm out of town so maybe I can up my game a bit with that book tip!
Part of the value of Hubble is not something you can monetize. The thousands, if not millions of people it has inspired is invaluable. It's contribution to the human knowledge library and the pure awesome nature of the images is intangible
My pictures are nowhere near anything approaching even your pics Cuiv, but I keep on trucking along anyways because this hobby is so fun and space is for everyone!
I did a slightly different comparison. I compared an image I took with my 130mm newt to the first image taken of M31 by Isaac Roberts in the 19th century. I have to say mine won but only because of advances in technology that is now available to amateurs.
Some amateurs do do real science as well, it's actually one of the few hobbies where we can do real science... But yeah most of us (myself included) focus on pretty pictures :)
I don't really have a thing with astronomy or astrophotography, I do however love seeing someone being passionate about what they are doing.. Enjoyed the vid, and subscribed..
The purpose of Hubble was scientific research, not making nice pictures for Joe Pubic. These are only a fraction of it’s output and pretty good, considering.
I have been doing narrowband imaging for a long time (July 3rd 2024) 🤣 and my first target after testing my first dual band filter was RCW 165. I was so excited I didn’t even polar align and was guiding at 0.7” by some miracle. Went to bed and woke up the next morning to see I had imaged the Eagle nebula! I had no idea I could see the pillars of creation from my backyard!
Actually, the biggest advantage of mirrors vs. lenses is that mirrors reflect all wavelengths at the same angle, and they don't absorb as much light. So, there is no chromatic aberration and they can image a wider spectrum.
They are also way thinner (especially now with dynamic mirrors), it would be almost impossible to make an 8m wide lens that would just hold its own weight ;-)
So this was an easy subscribe decision. Fantastic video. I’m a very very very novice “astrophotographer” (no tracker, DSLR with fast glass, stacking in photoshop) and I’m highly interested in stepping up my game. The way you explain it makes me want to try out such a dedicated setup. Most RU-vid channels that do this type of photography just make me feel dumb instead.
Thank you so much! You may enjoy a channel called "Nebula Photos", they explain very well and one of their older videos is exactly about how to capture and stack with just a DSLR+lens and no tracker! Otherwise if you want to go down the rabbit hole that is this hobby, I have an "astrophotography for lazy people" playlist that goes into a lot of those details! Anyway, thanks so much for your feedback!
I actually am surprised, I've seen only one flat earther comment for the moment! It's been very good comments, accurate! Love the audience on this video!
@@CuivTheLazyGeek I really want them to see this video. My feed has been filled lately with that kind of stuff because when you watch one video... well you're done for. But yeah. They keep going on about "Do your own experiments" and you clearly did that. This is something they could do, and I bet you they will stray far from your video.
Also remember the amount of technological development since the launch of Hubble, especially in things like sensors and such. This level of detail with amateur methods was nothing but a dream at the time Hubble was launched.
How to beat Hubble? Easy, take a picture of the Milky Way. Since Hubble has such a large focal length, it's ability to capture a large part of the sky is close to impractical. Another way to beat Hubble is to take any pictures of the sun. Hubble would die if it tried.
I get you are joking, but for other people. The Hubble is for looking at far away objects in great detail with scientific purposes, not to take beautiful photos or to take photos of the sun that you can take really cheap without going to space for that.
@@lelouchlamperouge5910 I am not joking at all. The discipline is astrophotography. It's perfectly valid to challenge Hubble where it sucks. And it so happens that any amateur with a camera and a filter can gather more scientific data of the sun than Hubble. And pretty much all astrophotography is about taking pictures of far away objects.
@@kani75 Yes, the Moon isn't so bright that it would damage the telescope. And compared to what amateurs can do, the resolution of that Moon picture is amazing.
I cannot wait till the ESL will be finished in around two-ish years. The resolution limit difference between your images and Hubble are around the same as between Hubble and ESL. Just thinking about the structure we will see around young stars that are still building up their planets gives me shivers
I would recommend going for AR glass since you have access to the full spectrum then... But you do need to have at least a UV/IR cut filter somewhere in the light path - if that's a bother or you don't want to have a filter drawer, etc. then the IR cut is fine!
What an amazing image you created😍 you mentioned the incredible contrast in the hubble image. That’s mainly because of two factors. One, as in your last video about f roatio, with a higher f roatio you gain contrast(hubble is f:24). The other is the capability of the instruments on hubble.
Thanks so much! I'm so glad this video got scene, I kind of regret not making it "more entertaining" and to the point now, I don't have all the flashy production quality of others... I usually do very technical reviews and explanations in the astrophotography niche, so sorry if you get a lot of uninteresting videos! The setup in total was around $4,000, so it's not cheap. But with care you could get it down to around $2,000, although in use it would be a more frustrating experience!
Funny thing is that at least some of discoveries made with the help of amateurs were made by avoiding competition with professional telescopes. Three examples I could think of: 1. Kojima-1L is a microlensing event discovered by an amateur. Most microlensing surveys look at the center of the Milky Way because there are so many stars. Kojima-1L lies still in the Milky Way, but outside these dense fields of stars. 2. 2I-Borisov the interstellar comet. I think I read that Borisov look spefically at regions of the sky that other telescopes were not looking to avoid competition. 3. I was part of the backyard worlds project and we helped to discover brown dwarfs and planetary-mass companions around stars. In one case a large telescope looked with a coronagraph at the star for which we found a companion, but they could not see it. The companion was outside the field of view of the large telescope. We used mostly the images of a space telescope called WISE, which does not have a coronagraph.
I think Cuiv, you should do a comparison between the SeeStar S50 and the Hubble Space telescope. I think they are about the same…. Of course not. The Hubble scope has Dawes limit of 0.048 Arcseconds. The SeeStar with its mighty 50mm (1.97”) lens has a Dawes limit of 2.32 Arcseconds!
Absolutely Great video Quiv, very well explained ! You see a lot of those 'Me versus Hubble" comparisons lately, I always think it's funny and absolutely not even comparable at all. But I'm sure that most, if not all, non astro related people who see these comparisons are completely mislead
Interesting comparison Cuiv. My results aren't good enough to even think about comparing with the Hubble. But I have a lot of fun capturing and processing them, and they are getting better. Im sure over the comming years our amatueur gear will only improve. The only thing I really envy about Hubble is the lack of clouds, my lattest bit of kit is arriving today in the shape of a Sky Watcher 100i harmonic drive mount, so now I just need a few clear nights to see what it can do. Regarding lens v mirror for telescopes its not just the cost, the weight and complexity of the lens, which can only be supported by its edge, has to be considered. Does anyone even make refractors over 175mm these days? ( I honestly don't know the answer, but you never seem to hear of any). I still prefer them to small reflectors, but thats just a personal choice, Newtonians will always win on price, pity some amature ones are ruined by poor quality focusers, secondary mirror supports etc.
Very interesting video! Slight non-sequitor; a friend of mine was involved with designing Hubble, including the optical fix that was installed later. He has the distinction of being the last human to touch Hubble while it was still on Earth!
I'm super curious about the additional movement are you talking about the movement of the tracking or are you talking about additional movement aside from the tracking is the tracking itself not enough movement I'm curious
Thanks for the question! Yes, so there is tracking (countering the rotation of the earth), and then once you're done with a sub-exposure, you can randomly move the telescope field of view by a few pixels in a random direction! And then you start tracking again. This is called dithering. It forces any fixed pattern noise (like hot pixels) to end up on different pixels in each exposure, meaning that they can be filtered out in the final image. And at the same time, because a detail from the nebula can fall on a different fractional pixel after the dithering, you can eke some more information about your target that way (and the additional information is revealed via a process called drizzling - which was developed for the Hubble in the first place!)
I know almost nothing about telescopes (but I still know a lot about photography), your video is great, I learned a lot! Captivating! Thanks ! Greetings from France
Ground based amateur telescopes could never compete with the Hubble in terms of resolution, as you point out, but it is still a thrill when you can see stuff in your own image that you can see in a well-known Hubble image, however poor the comparison! I was so happy when I imaged M16 with my Seestar and could make out the Pillars of Creation, however indistinctly.
I painted it black as everyone told me it would fix all my troubles in life, but it wasn't effective! It's water soluble paint so I'll probably remove it at some point :)
You should also take into consideration how old the Hubble hardware actually is compared to new hobby backyard tech. I would love to see them try to upgrade the detectors on Hubble.
What a brilliant video! Well done and thanks for sharing. I know exactly what you mean when you say you still get Goose Bumps or "Chair de Poule", Skin of the Chicken, in French. 😀 I can still remember the very first time I captured the Orion Nebula with a fixed, tripod mounted, Nikon D70 and Sigma 300mm lens from our house in the Lot Valley, South West France. We had a fabulous dark sky there so even Andromeda was just about naked eye visible. The Orion nebula was barely more than a smudge but even so, there was colour and some detail... I can't tell you how overjoyed I was to capture such an amazing image with such basic equipment. Single exposure by the way... no stacking, rotating or any other image processing. Pure magic. Unfortunately, we no longer own our place in France so my dark skies are no more but you have inspired me to have another go. If you can do this from Tokyo, I can sure try it from here in Stoke-on-Trent. Thanks again and Cheers from the U.K. 🍺
Oh man I know that feeling so well!! I've had similar equipment and just getting a result was a thrill that is difficult to describe! Hope you get some clear skies in the UK!
This was a great video. It really should have been a video about how amateur astronomy has advanced in the last 30 years. What you achieved today was not even possible in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Even in the last 20 years, CCD has advanced astonishingly. Simply amazing! Have you ever attempted a image of Ganymede?
Thank you! Ganymede (assuming you're referring to Jupiter's moon) can be captured very easily since it's so bright. Even an untracked telescope with a modified webcam can get amazing results for planetary imaging. But if you want to actually see details on Ganymede, you need a large telescope (14 inch would be good), a very steady atmosphere, and to use an imaging method called "lucky imaging"!
Great video Cuiv! I also love Hubble space telescope!🥰 I am still waiting for clear skies to be able to point my litte Hubble onto the Pillars of Creation too. Little Hubble is waiting for months to finally get a glimpse at the famous area of the night sky like its huge brother. I would love to shoot the pillars in SHO too but I am lacking a monochrome camera. Maybe next year then with an IMX492 sensor camera on full 48MP resolution.🤩
The Hubble telescope was built 40 years ago, it was the best that we had at the time. Technology jumps exponentially. So comparing cost and technology, is a mute point. It's amazing what we have now, and it will only get better with more time. 😊
Great fun and enthusiastic video as ever Cuiv. You could have also thrown in there the new version from the JWST as a more fair comparison for today’s modern equipment - that’s even more gobsmacking! Funnily enough my last Astrophoto share on Facebook was looking at M16 but was more a discussion of the bridge between science and art. Thanks as ever for the great content- clear skies
