Jupiter Movie from Celestron 14" & Webcam

[Prospekt0r]

To add to the discussion. One of the things we learn in physics is that a 200mm aperture is pretty much as good as you can get before atmospheric tubbulence and poor seeing kick in. After this point a 200mm scope and a 2m scope dont make a difference in the image clarity (unless of course you have adaptive optics). The only difference is the amount of light you gather.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r not really. It depends where you live

[Prospekt0r]

@Neueregel Even in the best possible seeing conditions, 230mm is around the maximum, you never get better. So regardless of where you live, there's always a point where aperture wont make any difference. Lets just say 200 +/- 30 depending on the seeing conditions.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r 230mm ?? Really? Then, why many amateur people lately are rushing to get 12", 14" ,16" or even 20" inch Dobs? If 230mm was more than enough then anyone would stay at 10 inches max.The larger the aperture the better the light gathering capability. Question: What about Pluto (magnitude 14.5), can you see it clearly with an 8 inch?? The answer is no, but had you have a 20" baby with a 4000mm Focal Length then everything would be perfectly okay for magnitude-15 objects

[Prospekt0r]

@Neueregel I'm talking about angular resolution... not light gathering power. Obviously a larger aperture "collects" more light but that wasn't the topic of the discussion. My argument still stands.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r Angular resolution is actually PROPORTIONAL to the aperture. For aperture D (in mm) the Angular resolution is θ (in arcseconds) = 115/D , so for a 5-6 inch scope (125-150mm) it's somewhat below 1 arcsecond. Your argument is totally refuted, have a nice day/night.

[Prospekt0r]

@Neueregel You haven't refuted anything. I know very well that it's proportional to the aperture - I didn't say it wasn't. What I'm saying is that part a certain point, the increase in resolution you gain from a large aperture only really improves the resolution of the atmospheric turbulence. I mean, the object you're trying to view DOES increase in resolution but this is meaningless if it's behind a rippling blanket of air. Also, your formula for angular resolution is incorrect.

[Neueregel]

@Prospekt0r That formula I mentioned applies for a specific wavelength (400 nm - blue) only. The general formula is θ=λ(wavelength)/D(mm) in radians. So for 400 nm, θ = 400/ 150*π ~ sth less than 1 arcsec. For the red color (700nm) it should be around 1.5" for the same 150mm scope.

[calebp9503]

this actually isn't that good for a C14 and a ToUcam, seeing conditions or focus or collimations is off because your setup is capable of capturing better quality than this.

[DivineO2]

It looks like a cricket ball if you slightly tilt your head to the right

[ZhenyaMr]

there is no star wtf?

[todd8137]

great vid man a love thesee types really nice footage tell me this what view would i get with my 12" sykliner dobsonain and did you use filters i have just spent over £1200 on eye peices barlows filters camera mount ect and can not wait till the 25th dec when a can set it up what software was ya running theres some come with the eyepeices a brought ?any answer would be help full a newb to the night skies as you can tell thanks pat

[adamv16]

why cant we see the moons?

[Notfromthisworld7]

It's awesome looking at Jupiter too, my 80 dollar sale telescope(Originally 160 dollars) can get this clearly

[bayouastro]

@TheChuckk

Exactly, you need a Televue or the like to retain the brightness of the object. My meade 2x is like looking through a welding hood.

[doctorcaligarissss]

Nice!

[skyliner288]

I saw Jupiter with it's moons through my Omegon Telescope N 130/920 EQ-2 and the view just made me so fascinated that I can't even describe it...it was 5 AM and I was tired but when I saw the size of Jupiter without my telescope, I knew why Jupiter is the star of Bethlehem...What size of lens did you use?

[funnygirl532]

how many mm. do you need to see jupiter?? please answer back cause i have 7000mm could that help??

[bottle2lip]

this C14 has a motorized mount that tracks the object

very large scope

[ArticMuse]

here's some stupid question. do you need a kind of compensator device to make sure the planet stays at the center of the frame? and why is that?

[FalconAnno75]

@ArticMuse

Yes, on most mounts you have a small motor that you use for tracking objects.

The reason is quite simple really. Earth rotates which makes all objects "spin" around us, the viewer, earth.

You don't really notice this when just looking up with your Mk-I eyeball, but with a telescope it becomes very apparent.

[ArticMuse]

oo..thanks.

[bottle2lip]

the astromaster 130 non motor was my first scope bought 3 years ago. I quickly upgraded to a 10" dob though. The EQ mount just isn't all that fun to work with, especially if its kinda of cheap.

the astromaster really isn't ideal for photography, its just not that great of a scope. Its decent though. Go with a dob if you dont plan on doing much photowork imo..larger aperature+ ease of use

[SVB222]

That's no 14"....

[mmjurczak]

Some people just don't understand that seeing affects all instruments, and that sharp images take lots of processing.

But regardless, that's a great view! Almost as good as through the 24" Cassegrain I use for research.

[arturovava]

cuanto de apertura tiene este telecopio?

[marguttu]

este tiene 14 pulgadas que son 35 cm de diametro y mira que mierda !!!

[AlexPimienta]

Se ve que no sabes NADA de astronomia ni de telescopios.

[marguttu]

yo?? no nada tu si todo...

[MrTerrificII]

Wow. I agree with other posters here. The quality of the image is terrible not to mention the fact that we are seeing Juipter titled on its axis!

[daz197]

We are all eagerly awaiting your Jupiter video....

[grabedigger]

Are you shure the apperture size is 14" ? Or are you messing that value with the focal lenght? Because with a 14" aperture size telescope, you would be able to see much more than that. I can do the same with my 114mm 4.5" Konus....

[TheFifthApes]

The description says it's a Celestron C14, so it's 14 inch aperature.

Is your Konus a reflector? I highly doubt you could get this resolution with it. My 5" reflector with a 4mm 640x480 webcam, and 2x barlow (650mm F/L, F5) takes an image less than a quarter this size... Can barely make out the dark cloud belts, let alone any other detail.

[grabedigger]

hummm it's a 2.3" telescope, with a 60mm lens. Saw jupiter one of this days and it looked way small!! I was on the mood for a Celestron EQ114, but i guess the diferences won't be much! Thanks for reply!

[TheFifthApes]

Remember that magnification has to do with the focal length, not the aperature.

If you have a focal length of 1000mm and a 4mm eyepiece, your magnification is 250x. Hardly enough to see any detail. You'll probably need around 400-500x to see good detail, but this requires a scope with at least an 8" aperature.

Celestron NexStar 8SE anyone?

[TheFifthApes]

Just to clarify, the more aperature, the more magnification you can use effectively. You could use a 60mm scope to get 500x magnification, but it will be so blurry you won't be able to see any detail. Invest in a 3x barlow and try it.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

hello just wondered if you'd offer some advice on a scope ? read your post here and you seem knowledgable so ye, I've abou £200 , looking to get something decent which I an add lenses too and grow into over a good long time ...it'll be for the whole family to use. Been offered a celestron 76eq for 80£ ... any thoughts 'd be appreciated

[TheFifthApes]

You don't add lenses to a telescope, I think you mean eyepieces. It's the eyepieces that control magnification. The smaller the eyepiece's aperature, the more magnification.

If you're going to use the telescope for planets and bright nebulae like M42 that telescope is fine, bust most objects will be impossible to view. Aperature is the most important spec, and astronomy is an expensive hobby. The more aperature the better. Don't worry about magnification power.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

Yes, eyepieces, I do mean those.

I have tried the 70eq and had to send it back because a couple fittings on the mount did not fit well, or at all in once case which has made me doubt the brand , seeing many mention of build Q probs, sorry I'm digressing.

It's sort of a gift for the family but mainly my partner...though I have developed a keen interest since trying out the 70EQ, even though we sent it back.

[TheFifthApes]

Take a look at the Celestron Astromaster 130 EQ. It's a decent starter telescope with a 5" aperature, and you can find them with a motor drive for photography, but it is a manual scope. The motor drive will only serve to keep the object in view and can't be used to actually find objects. That might be your best option, and it's quite inexpensive $250 USD at Opticsplanet. (I have this telescope, without the motor)

[TheFifthApes]

Personally I would suggest looking at a Dobsonian Reflector. They have a large aperature for a relatively low price and are very simple to use, bit they are large and difficult to transport and are not very good for photography because of the alt-az mount.

You can probably get a 10" for under $400 which may be a bit over your price range, but take a look anyway.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

I really need the photograph capabilities, makes it for me that you see and to be able to take shot of the stars, planets,and hopefully deeper space objects wold be frankly pretty good learning experience for the family and I .

JUst thinking bang buck for us all,I appreciate your help though, for certain..its helping me look in different directions

[TheFifthApes]

If you want to do photography you need a scope with an equilateral mount and tracking capability, unless you're only photographing the moon and planets. You also need a camera capable of taking long exposure photographs like a Meade DSI, which can run over $400 or more depending on the model. - Astronomy is an expensive hobby.

[TheFifthApes]

The other option would be something with Autostar tracking (motors and a computer) that will find objects for you. Meade and celestron both make very good ones. I would look for nothing under 5" aperature if you are going to be looking at deep sky objects. A reflector will always be less expensive than a refractor because mirrors are cheaper to manufacture than lenses so you can get a larger aperature for the same money. Good luck and clear skies.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

hmm yes I've seen those around but am not really into having the objects found for me at this stage just because I'd like to learn how to find each particular object as I want to learn not just sight see if you know what I mean and I guess you d. you know I've always wanted to be able to navigate by the stars

[TheFifthApes]

Yeah, finding the objects with a manual scope is a lot more difficult, but with a manual scope, astrophotography is next to impossible. The only things you will be able to photograph are planets and the moon. In order to photograph deep space objects you need to be able to track them because they move out of view quite quickly and you need to take long exposures (Sometimes exceeding 30 minutes). Astrophotography is very, very difficult and it would take a while to get it down.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

I think it would be a while before we're ready to do that, though sounds amazing fun ...and some skill too I imagine

I understand about the tracking a little more now, since your comment an having spent most of the night reading about it....I do believe I'm hooked .

[TheFifthApes]

To give you an idea of what you really need for photography, this is what i'm looking to buy in the near future for it:

Celestron C8 S-GT Advanced Computerized Telescope - $1,529 @ opticsplanet

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

okies, amp money then! ... not happening just yet then kids .. mmm lovely amps :)

For now, I think it wise to just throw 150UK possibly 200 at a Newtonian type of scope and see where we go from there..even if the family lose interest(which is doubtful) I am into this now so...

Any reccomends for a scope to try in this range... I know, I know..I'd struggle recommending amps :)

thanks agin for your input here, it is appreciated.

I

[TheFifthApes]

200UK is about 380USD so that Astromaster 130 EQ Newtonian Reflector with RA Motor should be well within your price range.

There's also the Celestron NexStar 130 SLT Computerized Telescope at telescopes(dot)com for $369 USD though it's an Alt-Az Mount.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

Yes it is ..great stuffs..The Astromaster -motorized version is showing at £140UK (on amazon) and the and ten pounds less for the non motorized... hmm, how good are these motors and do I really need one .. worth getting for just a tenner ?

The NexStar is over by about 100£ on amazon but no mind there is the: 80( £239UK), 102(289UK) and the 114(219UK) - amazon again.

odd, I though the prices would have risen along with the model number , usually the way but...

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

have just noticed the only NexStar one can afford has just over 4" aperture, looks like its the 130Eq but I so would have like to have connected the pooter up to it, that said, will computer connection just give control over the scope or is it _very_ good to have if the money is there?..save up some more or go get the 130EQ

arrgghh sorry bout all these Q's . hope I can help you the same way one day.

[TheFifthApes]

4" = 114 mm

5" = 130 mm

No, you wouldn't have to connect the computer to it to control it. The scope has a computer built in that allows it to find and track objects, as well as help with polar alignment. I think the computer connection is only to update the software on the telescope's computer. That little hand-held remote on the side of the telescope is it's computer.

Don't worry about all the questions, I'm happy to help.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

cheers man , much appreciated.

Ok am looking for scopes above 5".. Ah; I was thinking that the computer would be able to 'see' what the scope sees, obviously not, my bad, ok so dont really need that then -in my mind.

[TheFifthApes]

I'm not sure on the quality of the astromaster's motor, but I'm sure it's fine, and it can be removed and replaced on that telescope.

The NexStar is a much better telescope with better mirrors. Check the features of those three, the 80 and 102 I think are Refractors instead of Reflectors, which would explain why they are more expensive. Lenses are more expensive than mirrors.

[djmisplacedmarblesTV]

okies, I think it may be wise to leave the 130EQ motorized.

The NexStar 114GT seems like a reasonable choice going off what you've mentioned.. it's coming up at 220£UK , slightly over budget but if I shop around...

Only thing is.. it's a reflector . The 102 is way over budget at 289 so that's out, the 80 is around the same money

Sir, I believe the 114GT could be a definitely maybe, possibly...

[TheFifthApes]

Yes, the NexStar 114 GT is a good choice but remember it's an Alt-Az mount, so during long-exposure photography you will get some field rotation in the image, though, I doubt you'll be taking 15 - 30 minute long exposures any time soon.

Keep in mind, all professional telescopes (The Hubble Space Telescope for example) are reflectors. Reflectors are excellent telescopes. Google "reflector vs refractor" and do some reading.

Good luck.

[AchromaticRefractor]

Sorry, but a Schmidt Cassegrain of that focal length would be a nightmare to someone new to astrophotography. F10's too slow for a beginner. A smaller refractor on the same mount, such as one of Orion's 80mm ED's would be much easier to use.

[TheFifthApes]

Yes, you're absolutely right. I was simply mentioning what the price range is when doing moderately advanced photoghaphy. Cheers.

[Zorack10]

For astrophotography yes,for viewing no.

[AchromaticRefractor]

Well obviously. I was simply trying to point out that a smaller refractor would be a better choice for astrophotography. The comment was directed towards someone who was asking about astrophotography.

[WhatCanIsay100]

anybody see palnet X

[lukeslandspeeder]

a small 600x50mm refractor costing under 100 dollars you can see this even better than that. jupiter is easy 2 find & c.

wtf with the price these scopes cost i better see more detail in those cloud belts than this.and the red spot... hell that scope i had i saw much better then this and it was made in the 1960"s.and was half broken. maybe somethings wrong.? thats awfully blurry not even counting atmo distortion.

i even saw mars white polar cap through that old one. who knows.

[99rhetbaboons]

14 inches!? Jesus! 350mm...! What does that even look like?

[Arlekean]

Lol! That's exactly what I was thinking when I saw that description.

[Kyle10380]

Neat. It's a shame we can't see the great red spot. Good job filming with the equipment you had.

[RJL738]

Thanks for filming this. Jupiter is more than 1,450 times the volume of the Earth.

[TheRealSiguy]

And that's relevant because...?

[arcturus33333]

Great job. I'm amazed to see that much color in the image. I have never seen any color in space except in observatory produced photos. My 80mm refractor won't show any more color than can be seen with the naked eye. I guess 80mm scopes just don't have enough light grasp for that.

[havefaith445]

why is the image a little blurry?

[xbarman]

Seeing

[wagnertasos]

Awsome quality capture man good job.

[Lity10]

Hey guys, I've got a Bresser RB 60-700. Aperture: 60mm. Focal Length 700 mm. Focal Ratio is f / 11,6. What do you think I will be able to see? Maybe Jupiter? :D

[Obli20v]

I was looking at Jupiter tonight using a budget 60mm refractor telescope which has a 800mm focal length. The image was not as magnified as the above, but it was a lot sharper. I think seeing conditions were good at 18:00. I could just make out some colour banding of Jupiter but then again it might have been my imagination! The four moons Ganymede, Io, Callisto and Europa were visible as white dots! Basically, don't expect much (although the view still fascinates me).

[Pingletons]

Yeah, refractors tend to be more sharp than schmidt-cassegrains. I fairly certain you could see at least two of the bands, keep trying!

[umairasim]

Naked eye views are always sharper than the video images..this is because our eyes are constantly adjusting with the blur of atmospheric turbulance. CCDs on the other hand are unforgiving!

[joshig1983]

You can see a lot of stuff with just a 60mm refractor. The moon is obvious. You could see the rings of Saturn, the bands and moons of Jupiter. You could see the phases of Venus. Lots of stuff. If you see some unusually bright star-like things, just aim your scope at them and see if they are planets.

[TotemsNotGood]

no, your ass.

[Lity10]

lol? ass? wtf is with u? get a hobby

[krujjer]

lol, his job is looking at your ass through the celestron telescope. lol

If you are a woman, I´d love to see it too. lol

[XmegaPresident]

Damn that is beautiful!!

[viktorgoa]

can i take picture like this with my celestron nexstar 8?

[zanamjd]

i bought a celestron powerseeker 114 eq, think that might be able 2 spot dis easily?

[chert95]

This is crazy compared to my 3.5" lol.

[y08y]

Most people don't like scopes that huge, it's not the kind of one you like to carry around.

[ahlberto]

do you have used a barlow?

[umairasim]

yeah i used televue 2X

[RJL738]

It's amazing to think you are looking at an object that is almost 1,500 times the volume of the Earth. God is a truly awsome God.

[taqyon]

Nice, but a but out of focus or your collimation is out.

Would love to see the stack of it anyway.

[maphilli14]

Yup, I too think it's off a bit. I'd say collimation. Edges look ok, but some smearing on the planet's details.

[MaiL0MaN5]

jupiter is phat

[kraldankral01]

bu paranın illetinin aq ya.

[liquidus2172]

I can't see my home world!!

p.s: this only for z.o.e fans, sorry!

[NinjaKid3000]

14" wow that must have cost somewhere between: $5000 - 12 000

[umairasim]

I only have the tube of C14..its about $4000. The mount is different (Losmandy Titan)

[acasanova27]

Yup its slightly out of alignment, collimate it.

[rialbb]

14 inch man?? i got a 4 inch dude.

[rialbb]

telescope that is

[CommunistHunter]

That's not what your girlfriend said.

[piratelord99]

monster scope 14" wow

[umairasim]

Yep..it is huge :)

[cyberjalal]

Hi umair do u live in PK ? I m also making a telescope for Planet Observation in PK, but its refractor of 40x, hope will find Jup. easly, i 've software "AstroInfo" in my Palm Device which exactly tells the location of planets etc.

[umairasim]

yeah i am in lahore. Good luck with your project!

[splortz]

Nice, but either seeing was soft or the scope is a touch out of collimation. I know a C14 can deliver stunning images. Keep trying. Seeing has to improve sooner or later. Did you get any Mars videos?

[drummachine9]

1000mm refractor holy shit dude how much that thing cost you. a 150mm apo refractor can cost upward of 8000 bucks only for the tube. i have never heard of a 1000mm refractor. webster make a 1000mm dobson and it cost 65 000 dollars.

[remyworldpeace]

Maybe he means the focal length!

[onekeypianoplayer]

its a reflector!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!

[jmanofrock]

hello, i just bought a telescope.. its is a 1000mm refractor, and i tried to see the plantest with a 10mm eyepeice but was unable too... i just bought a 4mm eyepeice for it. could any1 know if this would work to see saturn or not? thanks so much!

[Zorack10]

What kind of scope do you have? What were you trying to view? Jupiter is very low in the morning(depending if you are in the Northern Hemisphere or Southern Hemisphere)and very hard to view(below Venus in the morning),Saturn should be slightly easier in the morning too.Give your scope time to cool down and make sure it's collimated and Focused :)

[crackerjack113]

1000mm is the focal length not the aperture. the 10mm eyepiece gives 100x so it should be perfect for planets. you're not probably not using your telescope right

[bnegyjr56]

Hi! First, find the planet w/ a low power eyepiece, say in the 20 -40 mm range 7 then switch over to a higher power , like 20 -10mm or even a lower number. Happy Hunting & God Bless!

[reevesAstronomy]

Did you make an image with registax or some other astronomy editing software? It would create a beautiful high quality image. Nice job on the video! I'm hoping to make some with my new web cam too!

[umairasim]

Of course i did; used Registax. Good luck for your webcam!

[murdoc562]

great film, but it looks more like venus. but venus looks exactly like jupiter, just smaller, brighter, and no red spot.

[michiokaku]

great film

[kssvideos]

what eyepeice did you use on your 10" ?

[umairasim]

I did not used any eyepiece..it was a webcam and Celestron 14" scope

[crnisimi]

oh yeah he is naughty ...:P

[der5432]

cool

[Zorack10]

looks like the seeing conditions weren't that great due to either because of local conditions or the jet stream since Jupiter looks like it's boiling(as I've seen through my 10" Classic)

[umairasim]

Seeing was not that bad actually..but you are right about the "dance" of jupiter..eyes actually helps in focusing but ccd is unforgiving!

[mario64bits]

Oh? You used a CCD webcam? Still, incredible to see it so clearly.

[umairasim]

Yep! used Phillips ToU Pro 840..5 frames a second

[joshig1983]

If you think this is clear, take a look at /watch?v=KIxtrcBdY6M . It shows the great red spot very clearly through a 130mm refracter.

[CBozzi80]

Fantastic work!

[quasar273]

Did you capture the Red spot?

[umairasim]

GRS was not visible at the time of imaging.

[Khalidmarwat]

Good video. How did you take this sequence? Could you not show the shadows of Jovian moons passing over the surface of Jupiter?

[umairasim]

Thanks. I used C14 and attached Phillips ToU 840Pro Webcam and used QCfocus for focusing and recording. Moons were not in that position then.

[Khalidmarwat]

I have 8" Meade and ToUcam. Can you teach me to use the stuff?

[icl8038]

fantástica imagen,te felicito.