Deep-Sky Objects Through a Telescope. Expectation and Reality

I compared pictures of galaxies and nebulas taken by the Hubble Telescope and a small amateur telescope. The telescope view of our Universe is INSANE!
Support our channel ➜ www.donational...
Subscribe and you will get a free ticket to Mars ;)
█▀▀ █──█ █▀▀▄ █▀▀ █▀▀ █▀▀█ ─▀─ █▀▀▄ █▀▀
▀▀█ █──█ █▀▀▄ ▀▀█ █── █▄▄▀ ▀█▀ █▀▀▄ █▀▀
▀▀▀ ─▀▀▀ ▀▀▀─ ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀ ▀─▀▀ ▀▀▀ ▀▀▀─ ▀▀▀
----------------------------------------------------------------
FOLLOW ALL OF THESE
• Facebook ► / 337497880834110
• Instagram ► / mykhailo_vic
• Discord Server ► / discord
• Twitter ► / mykhailovic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Music:
Until Sunset - Katamaran
#telescope #andromeda #space

[@MinhInc]

Nothing is more beautiful than universe.

[@giananias0687]

only me

[@MinhInc]

@@giananias0687 - you are also part of beautiful universe.

[@4cthel3g3nd7]

True

[@mrx-ij8bj]

Because there is nothing but universe..

[@MinhInc]

@@mrx-ij8bj true, but we are not because of universe, universe is because of us.

[@EragonXavyer]

Amazing how we can see objects millions of miles away with a Telescope but we cant see Mount Everest from every place on Earth.... You get that Flat Earthers ???

[@Celeron525]

Lol, dont even waste your time with Flat Earthers. I'm starting to think they are just trolling, hard to believe people can be that dumb. They'll never get it no matter what lol. There's a reason the front end of the Concorde jet had to droop down haha.

[@mikcurius3779]

u cant see either the depths of the oceans..i dont think u will put the blame on flat earthers also!

[@EragonXavyer]

@@mikcurius3779, we cant see the depths of the Oceans because the Sunlight cant penetrate that far and the pressure is really strong down there. Only a few man made submarines and aquatic robots has been able to go that deep.... It has NOTHING to do with earth's curve or "flattedness" !!! We are talking about telescopes, thats what this video is for.... I can see F**kg Mars who's 30 million miles far from me with my cheap $80 telescope from Amazon but cant see Cuba from my house in Florida who's only 300 miles south.... Why ??? I dont think the depths of the Seas is the answer !!! 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[@mikcurius3779]

@@EragonXavyer its not the curvature either

[@guymcphee2518]

wow you can see through fog and rain and pollution huh?

[@ahmedovomike6507]

Did you just compare hubble telescope with your telescope ???

[@ch.roughhabit5002]

hahahahaha dude

[@GoldSrc_]

No he didn't, this video just shows what your eyes should see, in which case this video is correct.

[@hojosconsal9913]

@@GoldSrc_ no

[@ms2k7Gaming]

@@GoldSrc_ if you get a half decent camera with a really powerful zoom lense you can take pics and see colours

[@justice_edits]

Waiting for James webb telescope *_*😋

[@siriusspica559]

Astrophotography vs visual observing you should say.

[@detectiveamevirus8]

Yeah long exposure vs pupils human

[@HeraldandGerald]

Finally someone said it. With the right gear and hours of exposures combined with post processing, images like the left ones are attainable. More work, but better reward.

[@astropear6294]

ASI1600mm vs a human eyeball 😂

[@joshdartist]

Bingo.

[@cw6136]

You nailed it. This video is gives ppl the wrong impression.

[@yaboi7914]

It's still breathtaking to see a nebula or star cluster through a telescope, even though it isn't as detailed and colorful as the photos taken by the Hubble space telescope. I jump from happiness when I look at a faint cloud, knowing I'm seeing another world, another masterpiece from the universe itself.

[@worldfulloftoys4025]

So true a hate it when people complain about not seeing things as well as the Hubble or James Webb telescope because the act so entitled and like the got scammed just because it is not as good as the best stargazing telescope on earth

[@RapperLilDownSyndrime]

@@worldfulloftoys4025shit is ass

[@trackaholic]

Expectation: $$$$$ Reality: ¢

[@lintangtimur6599]

😂

[@LaurentBessondelyon]

@lRaziel1 Wrong! My equipment : telescopius.com/profile/Laurent_Besson/equipment Result : telescopius.com/pictures/view/49446/deep_sky/andromeda-galaxy/by-laurent_besson No telescope, just a camera

[@calopsitamalucabird9434]

@KimuTone unfortunately

[@calopsitamalucabird9434]

@@LaurentBessondelyon Nice, but still this camera is pretty damn expensive

[@justallama1447]

@@LaurentBessondelyon wow that is awesome

[@atticantraverse6101]

I live in a small town in finland where the street lights are turned off after midnight. The andromeda galaxy (M31) is visible right above my house around this time of the year.

[@VeryInterestingChannel]

That is very cool! Your town is a really good place for astronomical observations

[@worldwidewonders681]

Finland in general is a good place for astronomical observations aroind the tampere and orivesi regions lappland is also good ..

[@halildonmez3005]

Lucky i'm living in a city were i don't even see vega

[@PriyaCreationsFun]

What ? Galaxy ? Really ????? 😵😵😵😵 Are u kidding or what ????

[@PriyaCreationsFun]

@@halildonmez3005 which city ? Vega is easily visible with naked eyes from here my city Kota in India 🇮🇳

[@RamaKrishna-bi9bz]

Video title should be: "Home user's $300 telescope vs $300M Hubble telescope".

[@scott_meyer]

You can get excellent photos as an amateur. It takes a good stable EQ mount for long exposures.

[@pulsarsbeam6411]

@@scott_meyer personally I've gotten really good planetary images from a mead 50mm. I wish I had a sensitive anuff Camera to use with it. I can definitely resolve most of the M objects with my own eyes.

[@GRBtutorials]

No, it should be “Human eye vs. very long exposure with a camera”.

[@sportsfails4998]

Juicy John people do expect Hubble-grade images from amateur telescopes though

[@superswag3252]

Dude 100 mm is more like a toy for 50 bucks

[@559ACM]

I've been interested in the universe since as far back as I can remember. I'm now 27 and I just purchased my first telescope. It arrives tomorrow; I'm so excited!!!! Lol

[@GoldSrc_]

Have fun exploring the universe, the Orion nebula is pretty cool but it will look like a grey smudge unless you do long exposure photography. Still, amazing to see for the first time.

[@healwithquran5032]

Which telescope did you ordered ? I am also an ameature space wanderer and want to buy my first telescope but there's soo much to know before buying if you can help me ?

[@joep1551]

@@healwithquran5032 go to High Point Scientific's Website. They have everything you need for visual observation or astro photography. Just by selecting a scope and reading the description and specs a lot of your questions will be answered. Or if you want, you can call and speak to someone who could assist you with selecting the right telescope for your needs.

[@GoldSrc_]

@@healwithquran5032 STAY AWAY from the the PowerSeeker 127, it's not really bad, but it uses a design that is not made with quality lenses, and it's annoying to collimate. A 90/800 refractor or a 130/600 reflector are decent starter scopes, for the mount, an Alt-Az/dobsonian mount is easy to use but you can't track objects in the sky. An equatorial mount takes a little bit to understand how it works, but it's easier to track objects in the sky as they move, just stay away from scopes with EQ1 mounts, an EQ2 mount is a better mount but not the best, if you have the money get an EQ3 at least. But, if you don't want to spend 200-300 dollars in a decent starter scope, buy some 10x50 binoculars, a 10x magnification might not be ideal for planets but it helps you learn the night sky, but if you really want a decent starter scope, something along what I mentioned is a good start. Do not buy any scope that tells you it gives "500x magification" because it's a lie, most scopes can't even go beyond 250x magnifications in perfect skies.

[@stephenjones9746]

@@healwithquran5032 You could google your nearest astronomical society too, they are always willing to help newcomers, and will probably invite you over to try some of the members telescopes. Just don't buy any Chinese rubbish, usually sub-standard optics to keep the price down.

[@MezBlade]

This is what happens when you spend $20 on a telescope

[@kenny7385]

Nop.. Even with the most expencive telescope U cant see galaxies etc like U see them on the pictures..

[@MrTot117]

@@CaptainZuul Hey, that's not bad at all !

[@nerdothn892]

@@CaptainZuul impressive I saw the picture what telescope did you use I want to get my self one

[@CaptainZuul]

@@nerdothn892 I posted my gear and how i did it in the comments of the reddit post. For that image i didn't use a telescope, only a telezoom lens which i borrowed from a friend. The lens is over 10 years old and you can probably buy a better one for 50$ used.

[@princeghimire5837]

😂😂😂😂savage .....truth

[@michaelmcfadden4397]

this video lowered my expectations dramatically as a new astronomer and then when i saw Jupiter with 5 of it's moons, and Saturn I realized this hobby is a rewarding experience of research and patience. If you want to take amazing pictures you need to spend lots of money but you can see incredible things with a telescope in your back yard.

[@halildonmez3005]

I only spend €120 and i made cool pictures

[@Gezielthuler]

Vai depender do tamanho do espelho do seu telescópio. Se for pequeno vai ver pouca coisa.

[@offraed6156]

Don't be put off by this. Much of this is incorrect. Yes you do see less than any photo by a telescope because a photo sensor collects and builds up light into an image, including colour. However, any half decent telescope will show more than shown here. Just get out of a city and you will be amazed what you can see.

[@AndreSantos-fx3er]

Hubble telescope vs Potato telescope 👌

[@kovelli6711]

Andre Santos my telescope is 44 mm higher than his but potato isn’t that far off. It depends on the light pollution

[@aswinottapilavil495]

The pictures are just taken using a camera! I think the reality part is what you can see with your eyes. With a good enough camera you can shoot similar pics using a decent telescope (the expectation ones).

[@mullvinayak]

Tachanka And mine is 40 below his! sigh😓 What can I see from that in the middle of the city

[@pulsarsbeam6411]

@@kovelli6711 44mm? Thats less then 2 inches. I used a 50mm as my first telescope. very fun. untill i got a real telescope and found out the 50mm was a toy.

[@kovelli6711]

pulsar's beam I meant it was 44mm higher than his

[@bromixsr]

The first time I saw M42 was through a pair of binoculars. It was dim, blotchy, and in black and white....that being said it always feels so much better to look at an object with your own eyes than via someone else's photographs.

[@tiramizu8519]

true if possible I would look to it with my own eyes

[@Fortnte123]

​@@tiramizu8519 wait is red light pollution zone high light pollution

[@paulstone472]

I have been an amateur astronomer for many, many years. I enjoy showing others the wonders of the heavens almost as much as I enjoy observing myself. But everyone I give a tour of the sky to gets the same lecture about expectations..."This is NOT the Hubble Space Telescope". But I still find most people enjoy it very much. Why? Because of the realization that you are seeing these things with your own eyes. They are right there. All you have to do is look. It's even more impressive when you get the realization of just what you are looking at. I show people Andromeda and their faces really light up when you explain to them that they are looking at an object that contains 1 trillion stars. You just don't get the same experience looking at photos.

[@bigbluewhale3957]

well said

[@kencur9690]

I find the “you are looking millions of years into the past” line to be more fascinating.

[@IzzatZubir]

This is very true. The reaction when people see tiny little saturn with its rings, is very much different when they see me showing them saturn through HST.

[@Joshwiththefries]

Definitely, and even though it doesn't look as spectacular as the images people know, seeing the small little view of the object through a telescope really makes you feel the massive vastness of the universe vs seeing the blown up image version

[@DarkStar666]

If you want to get closer to "Expectation" here what you need to do is: #1 get a motorized EQ mount (my very basic one was about $300 + $150 for motors, $800 to $1200 are better, and $1600 things start getting decent) #2 get a decent camera with an intervalometer (mine, Sony A7II, was about $1000 but you can get good dedicated one for $500) - MUST shoot RAW #3 get a decent quality 50mm - 70mm - 80mm APO refractor for starters -- remember that bigger isn't always better -- you'll need and want a RANGE of focal lengths to best capture different objects -- at the low-end you start with the BIG things like the Orion Nebula, the Moon, etc... and then you work your way down... if you start with the $1600 mount it will last you a LONG time of getting more expensive optics... if you start small like I did then you'll have to upgrade the mount sooner. #3 learn how to very carefully polar align your setup #4 get into very dark and clear skies #5 take a LOT of 30 second long exposures at 800 to 3200 (like 30 to 100's) #6 learn how to use "image stacking" software like Registax / DeepSkyStacker / GIMP + G'MIC / etc Then you take your 30 exposures and you stack them and you get something pretty amazing if you did everything well. Eventually you'll want to add a guide scope for better tracking -- you'll need to match that to whatever mount you have. I can't use it on my cheap mount so I'm more limited and need to upgrade. If you really want to bump it up a notch, expect to spend $1500 on mount (like EQ6-R Pro, $1500 on optics triplet or quad APO refractor maybe at 80mm or 102mm, $500 on autoguiding scope and camera using PHD2 software, $200+ on filters, power tanks ($200-$600)... I'd stay expect to spend a good $6000 for an Intermediate astrophotography rig. And it goes up rapidly from there.

[@astropeeks4210]

Hey! Can you tell me where you learned Astrophotography? I bought my mount (unmotorized, so I know I am limited to short exposures) , telescope (and I know which DSLR camera I want to buy, but haven’t bought it yet) and now I am stuck. What am I doing next? Just hitting the long exposure button on my DSLR and setting the ISO? I’m confused lol Thank you a lot!

[@dr8964]

spot on comment. exact expense of a decent intermed rig b/c I know first hand. Not a cheap hobby, but cheaper than motorcycles or cars or probably even straight up photography.

[@Autz64]

I assume that your avatar is the result of this process?

[@cruznunez1910]

@@astropeeks4210 its possible to photograph some objects with only your dslr , i took a photo of the orion nebula through my dslr & it was okay tbh i didnt even stack them either , focus on buying a star tracker first(400-700$) & then use your dslr for the rest , if you have a big budget. , buy a star tracker (good ones) & buy a refractor by the same name of the star tracker , you should also buy a dedicated astro camera when you start buying expensive scopes , once your done , connect everything & boom , but if i were you id stick to dslr & star tracker only rn so you can get some dope photos of basic galaxies & nebulas

[@rodsmolter5046]

Astrophotography creates some amazing pics but I'd rather spend that money on a large dob and see things through the eyepiece in real time. $6000 can get you a nice 20" obsession on the used market.

[@savarese7695]

I have a relative who leaves in the countryside, I went a year ago to visit her and it was the first time I saw the sky without light pollution, it was beautiful.

[@noahjavier7496]

When you got Telescope from your birthday.

[@takasmaka820]

Expectation 🌍 Reality:🗺

[@MoaiMann]

@@takasmaka820 sure kid

[@bo64hellfire]

@@MoaiMann it only takes a few moments for the slow kids to start screaming about flar earth 🤣

[@bo64hellfire]

@@takasmaka820 do you prefer 409 or windex?

[@MoaiMann]

@@bo64hellfire I've done this before I'll do it again. Tell me exactly how the earth is flat and I will try to understand your side

[@starbase1127]

Well, as a serious amateur astronomer for over fifty years I applaud the intent of this video. That is, what you can see thru an amateur telescope is not nearly what long-exposure photos and Hubble images reveal. That said, The "reality" images shown here somewhat understate what a 4" aperture scope can reveal from any modestly dark site. Also - most amateur telescopes these days are generally in the 6, 8, or 10 inch aperture - much more powerful than a 100mm (4inch) scope described here. But don't expect to see real color in M42 without a 20 inch or so scope. Our eyes just don't detect color (especially red) at these low light levels.

[@Ayce47]

Hi! I'm planning to buy a telescope after i finish college, and i would like to save some money to go full blown into this. If you don't mind, do you have a photo of what looking trough a 1000 euro telescope with the naked eye would look like? Both for something like saturn and a deep space object? thank you kindly

[@starbase1127]

Hello Iacob, For the planets, what you see thru (say) an 8" scope under good seeing conditions is actually better than many amateur photographs. But technology is catching up here by stacking hundreds or thousands of video images and fancy processing. For much dimmer deep sky objects (galaxies etc) long exposure photographs show much more than can be seen by naked eyethru the scope. That said, what this video shows is basically correct for small (4") aperture telescope on deep sky objects. But larger scopes (8" and larger) can show maybe twice as bright and extended galaxy and nebula detail under dark skies. However, I would never expect to see red color as implied in one picture in the video. Some very bright planetary nebula you can detect faint green or blue. But overall, for a 4" scope near the city the info in this video is quite correct. My recommendation for very enthusiastic novice in your situation is an 8" dob of f/6 or so. In USA this costs about $400-$450. This would be a wonderful general purpose (planetary and deep sky) telescope that will fit your needs for many years! : ^ ) Best regards - Dave

[@Ayce47]

@@starbase1127 Thank you Dave for your swift response. What you said is giving me quite a lot of hope. I have a class 2 sky about 2 hours away from me(i hope this is what that is called, as i checked it on some site.) Just another quick question, when you look trough a telescope, how big is an object? For example, a bright nebula, or Saturn. Like, if you extend your arm outwards, is it as big as a nail?(when looking trough the telescope i mean). I have never looked trough a telescope in my life, all i've seen are hubble pictures, and "live" videos of people recording raw telescope footage, and when i saw that janky, blury "live" video of something barely resembling Saturn i was blown away, almost spilled a tear. It felt so real, i can't wait to be able to see it for myself.

[@starbase1127]

Iacob,How big are objects? Depends entirely on the eyepiece and magnification used. Big nebulae can fill the eyepiece field of view. Galaxies are generally. And planets tend to be the smallest in the eyepiece field, but can be very sharp. Clearly, you need to find an experienced amateur who can show you these things thru a scope so that you understand what to expect. Find a local astronomy club, university observatory which has public viewing with their telescopes, or friend with a scope. The current pandemic will make this a bit difficult for a while. Don't buy any scope until you have looked thru many different telescopes. Good luck. Dave.

[@Ayce47]

@@starbase1127 Thanks Dave! Best of luck to you too!

[@sunside79334]

plejades actually are utterly awesome to observe in clear winter skies on northern hemisphere off light pollution even with good binoculars, no need for a telescope. you could even get the hint for the nebula embedding the "baby" stars...

[@vampy625]

true

[@jjmcwill1881]

I would have never expected any of the expected pictures and I dont even have A telescope.

[@thisperson345]

I still think it's absolutely amazing that we can see literal galaxies from earth like there's planets, moons, stars, black holes and maybe even undiscovered space objects and we can literally see it from our tiny little planet, hell maybe there's even life in these galaxies but our technology holds us back from discovering it

[@tony-pc4kd]

Expectation : Hubble telescope Reality : Banana telescope 😶😶😶

[@detectiveamevirus8]

He use 4inch scope that mean cost around bellow 120 dollar

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

@@detectiveamevirus8 you don't need a large scope to capture great images. I've got a 3" or 80mm refractor that I'd use 100% of the time for imaging over my 10" dobsonian. The guy just doesn't know how to image. Most of the "expectation" images were probably shot using small refractors. A 100mm refractor isn't small at all for imaging.

[@detectiveamevirus8]

@@NG-VQ37VHR :-!

[@ronysetiawan7184]

these expectations will be realized with astrophotography which costs are not cheap and the process is not easy

[@pulsarsbeam6411]

Astrophotography has a very expensive start up cost. But that's mainly for deep sky objects. Planetary photography is way more cheap these days. I've taken some great pictures of Saturn for under $60. You can even get good shots of mars with it's ice caps resolved using a freekin $20 webcam.

[@allnamesaretaken]

There are two types of people in Astronomy. Those who use their equipment to observe the cosmos and those who use the cosmos to observe their equipment. Astrobiscuit has done pretty damn good things on a very low budget on his channel. He is not the only one doing it. The biggest lie in Astronomy is that you need to spend a fortune to get great results. The second biggest lie is that its difficult. You only have to be interested and have a bit of patience. Its not the 60s or 70s anymore.

[@valentinotera3244]

The post-process is FRUSTRATING, not hard.

[@simpleastrophotography1301]

The song is: Until sunset by Kataraman for anyone wondering :D

[@night_sky_and_me]

Was searching for this comment 😄

[@jupiter3678]

I took 1 Year To Search For The Name Of This Song. It Was In The Description

[@f4ucorsair153]

1. Darker skies 2. Bigger aperture 3. Comfortable observing chair

[@carlosramos-yf8ns]

This video is about visual observing (reality) vs astrophotography (what people expect to see). I remember vividly when I bought my first scope back in 1990 (Czech refractor AZ 56/801), how amazed I was with Moon and Saturn vistas through the eyepiece, as well as how disappointed I was with M42, M31 and so one... Only few months later I will learn what long exposures mean and how much human eyes are insensitive to the spectrum...

[@fm1_bot7]

Hey man! as a beginner astrophotographer, i really would like to ask you some questions about observing deep sky objects.

[@Z-add]

That banana telescope has done a good job. I need to buy 100 banana telescopes and image the same region and stack the images.

[@tbled007]

I have to say this is the first video, that I've seen, that gives you a realistic perspective of the night sky. I can not express enough, for newbies like myself, that videos like these should be fire first things to watch when starting to do anything with the word astro in it! Great work, look forward to more vids like this!!

[@namelessking8914]

Costumer Expectation vs Costumer Budget *or* Profile Pic. VS Tagged Pic

[@argentorangeok6224]

Who's wearing the costumes?

[@notangel.zenith5934]

Here I am happy that I was able to see Comet Leonard with my phone.

[@Fuar11]

In a blue zone I took my 5" reflector with stock 9mm eyepiece, pointing it at M51 and saw the thing take up the entire FOV. Idk what you're talking about.

[@followthestars3781]

lol

[@MarioRossi-kw4ee]

Yeah yeah, and I saw the USA flag on the moon with a binocluars...

[@hugocampos1391]

I dont know if you know that for example the photo of m31 has an exposition (time doing photos) of 3 hours. If u take a single one you wont see any detail.

[@NGC6144]

Not quite. A lot of detail can be seen in a short single exposure of a few minutes. But, many of them are taken totaling that 3hrs to average and increase the signal to noise for a smoother looking image that can be manipulated in post processing i.e. contrast, color balance, etc. Light form the celestial objects varies and the electronics in digital cameras produce "noise" that can be subtracted and/or averaged out in the raw frames.

[@gabrielblackwell3432]

@@NGC6144 got this down to a t. When I shoot astrophotography I'll set my iso down to about 800 to 400 and take about a 2 minute shot and i will get tons of sky.

[@madagoselis]

I really think you should add "thru 100mm telescope" in the title to not discourage people :D with larger aperture you can see more and for deep space objects ussualy 200mm aperture is recommended as minimum for visual observation :)

[@zainua3638]

Thanx, you just talked me out of ever buying a telescope; just saved me a lot of money.

[@karolitadotcom]

Yep. I just spent the money and started wondering why all I see are dots in sky 😭

[@detectiveamevirus8]

@MrEd315 i wish can buy 16 inch dob or 20

[@muayboran5152]

Hi, so those who say that all NASA and Huble images are fake are the ones who have no idea of the universe. Thanks for sharing those images through your telescope.

[@linecraftman3907]

Exactly that. Most of the photos aren't even in visible light

[@ianmeade7441]

Most of these look great through my telescope. The orion nebula looks absolutley fantastic.

[@jcwoods2311]

Whatcha ya got Mr. Meade? A HUGE Takahashi? Lol! Just a curious watcher.

[@winntercs2718]

1:44 still looks good though

[@ChillingwithMalc]

That's when you wish you spent the money on an astrophotography scope set up to take pictures with.

[@Booboobear-eo4es]

The M13 globular cluster was the first thing I saw with my new Celestron 8 inch I bought several years ago. Sometime later I saw M42. Both were quite a beautiful sight and I was not disappointed.

[@o0L4nc3r0o]

These are so correct :) I do some backyard Astrophotography with my DSLR, a 250mm lens and a tracker. I have taken pictures off all of these shown. Solution is stacking! Like 50 images, and then combine them with darks and flats ;)

[@sahiljain675]

Where can we see the images?

[@jcliff8415]

it sometimes depend on your location... you can only see clouds at night when you live in countries near the Arctic...

[@ir8free]

also humidity and light pollution due to the atmosphere ruin views.

[@LesDempseySoloLesta]

Thank you for what amounts to a public service. Too many people get the astronomy bug, looking through photos online and then they get their first telescope and are very disappointed. We need to appreciate what we can actually see and find the beauty in it.

[@toastmantoasty]

Removing the atmosphere Pros: We get to have truly awesome, Hubble mosaic-level views of DSOs through our scopes. Cons: We all immediately die of asphyxiation.

[@VeryInterestingChannel]

That's why launching telescopes into space (like Hubble or JWST) is the best solution

[@benjaminsmuda7214]

The title must say Astrophotography with procesed vs non-procesed images

[@Talal189]

Totally agree

[@MinhInc]

Looks like some stars in sky are actually bright center of a Galaxy.

[@kyles5513]

Beyond our galaxy every star is another galaxy, billions of other galaxies with billions of stars which millions of those stars have planets and there is a pretty dam good chances a shit load of those planets harbour some kind of organic chemistry generating life

[@kyles5513]

@Nilsber in other words the probability of life elsewhere is pretty dam likely. (I'm not great with words)

[@kyles5513]

@Nilsberif you look beyond our galaxy there is nothing but more galixies. Billions of galixies.

[@kyles5513]

@Nilsber you're not getting it man, I fucked up by saying stars. That's not what I ment. What I ment is every fucking thing OUTSIDE of our galaxy are more galixies and not just stars. They look like fucking stars until you zoom in with the fucking hubble and notice they are NOT stars but fucking galixies. Understand what I'm saying?

[@MinhInc]

@@kyles5513 - true, stars can not be that big that any one can see through naked eye when their distances are unmeasurable. It has to be a cluster so that net size should be proportional to their distances and we can see. There is architecture here. Its not simple.

[@Integral77777]

Thank you for sharing the reality to the folks. As an amateur skywatcher, I have 150mm telescope. Those images are taken with a good telescope + motor+a good camera with long exposure in an area without light pollution. Everyone shd know before buying a telescope. It costs a little and requires experience.

[@Immortal_BP]

get a tracking tele, then attach a nice camera and let it be exposed for a long time, you will get the expectation you desire :)

[@awekeningbro1207]

Now this explains why i don't see shit like nebula, galaxies in night sky like they do in movies

[@nicolaslarge8622]

Something which is missing in this video is the most fundamental thing to understand what this is about: A clear statement that this is comparing the result of Astrophotography (images acquired using a camera with long integration times) vs the result of Visual Astronomy (direct observation though a telescope eye piece). Astrophotography and Visual Astronomy are indeed 2 different things. The Description of this Video is (1) VERY MISLEADING and (2) WRONG : "I compared pictures of deep-sky objects taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and by a small amateur telescope." implies that he is comparing Photos from Hubble (WRONG) vs photos from an amateur Telescope (MISLEADING). I take pictures of these objects from a small 61 mm refractor scope all the time (www.astrobin.com/users/Nicolarge/). I understand the purpose of the video, and the intentions are great, but it is very misleading in the way it is presented.

[@avesh002]

This is like comparing final boss with little level 1 boss

[@aerions]

With an 8 inch telescope under dark skies I could clearly see the spiral arms of the whirlpool galaxy last night ... was truly amazing ! And the Hercules cluster looked better than it ever has before under the dark skies

[@aerions]

@@virtualhustles6916 was in a 2/3

[@CrazyZoomNikonP]

*Very cool. I bought a camera and brought the car closer, which made the license plate visible from a distance of 1.22 km*

[@carlosrobertolozanoperdomo3203]

Interesting, I can see Andromeda Galaxy much better with my 10x50 binoculars. Also Pleyades and Orion nebula.

[@shankars9698]

Have once seen the sombrero galaxy through a celestron nexstar 8 and it was magic. Was very faint but could distinctly see the shape.

[@tesla_3_performance]

What I learned from this video is to not waste my time getting a tele because it will never come close to what I am hoping to see.

[@ayounglivelysoulinanoldtir3512]

my brother is a keen amature astronemer. he has lots of different astronomical telescopes because he sayes that different types of telescopes are better for different things. one sort might be best for planets & the moon, an other sort for galaxies, another sort for deep sky objects, etc.

[@frostyspree255]

The reality is still very cool and kinda like it more because it makes you realize how far everything is

[@minishark7630]

Actually the m42 is almost like in the expectation one with my telescope, but grey PD: I have a 130mm Celestron nesxtar slt . It's my baby

[@robinbennett3531]

hashtag metoo

[@domi9322]

Adrián Nice I own now a 11“ Edge HD with CGX-Mount I started with the Evolution 6“

[@rubenhayk5514]

professional pictures are nice but watching stuff yourself is more magical.

[@Talalpro_1]

You can take like Hubble telescope pics just by picturing long exposure and stacking

[@zyclonic5287]

Your right

[@Rocky-hm2ho]

I have a 80 dollar telescope and I expected to only see the moon and maybe Jupiter as a little point but I actually saw a big Jupiter and even Orion Nebula! It was stunning sadly I haven’t observed the sky since then cause where I live the sky has been cloudy for over a month :(

[@mel_163]

How's that telescope? I'm pretty curious

[@robinWrath16]

3:12 wait... In my country there are only stars can be seen 😂 like 16.. but in the image wow... Amazing sky!!!

[@grim-senpai7040]

That photo was taken with the Hubble telescope, and you're drawn with a telescope between 100 and 500 mm. It's a miracle you even saw him.

[@icyxxxxx]

That’s comparing a Hubble image with a normal 6 inch telescope 😂

[@Noneon867]

I hate my neighbors I usually observe at 8 pm and the light from their house is all open it's so hard to focus because of them

[@TheShadowless]

You can add a black hole to the list now. That was a huge step for all scientists and mathematicians!

[@TheRecocebo]

thank you. you saved me from wasting time on searching for a good telescope. so I see there is none but hubble

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

This is the problem with this video. The guy is either not explaining this correctly or he doesn't know what he's doing. The image in my account pic was taken from my driveway. All of the "expectation" pics he showed, were taken by amateurs with small telescopes. None were from hubble. All you need is a small scope, a camera, and to know how to use them and you can get those "expectation" images.

[@SpaceFactsmedia]

It does not matter on how big the telescope is. It dose for dimmer objects like whirlpool galaxy. But the thing that truly matters is the exposure, cameras and the mount.

[@helenabartels9760]

I can see MUCH better images than "reality" on this from my light polluted backyard with 10x50 binoculars! And yes, I also have several telescopes, from 70mm to 12' homemade dob, and owned a 16" previously.

[@detectiveamevirus8]

How about 250mm diameter? Dobsonian

[@realflow100]

lol what a joke i can barely see pleiades cluster with 80mm telescope and andromeda galaxy and orion nebula are invisible completely.

[@detectiveamevirus8]

@@realflow100 you live in low light polution

[@realflow100]

no i live in high light pollution i cant see any deep sky object except for andromeda with my telescope i can just barely make out andromeda in the night sky. its very faint though with my telescope. i can barely see more than 20 stars at night

[@detectiveamevirus8]

@@realflow100 cheated use goto telescope

[@wesleydonnelly2141]

With patience, a half decent camera and a decent large aperture (say, 10+ inch's) Telescope, one can create amazing images of DSO's. It's an Art Form of sorts, as you have to be well practised in Astrophotography, but near Hubble like images can be produced by a "BackYarder". I've seen them myself. Obviously, to get the perfect image, you need all the stars to be aligned (Pun VERY MUCH INTENDED! haha) That is, you need perfect seeing conditions, your Telescope and camera/equipment needs to be functioning perfectly, you need your tripod/Telescope stand to be super rigid and stable, and you need your GPS/Alignments etc to be perfect so your tracking of DSO is perfect and not a frame out of focus! It's deffo doable folks!

[@pulsarsbeam6411]

I've also seen allot of astrophotography done professionally. Mainly from 16" cassegrain telescopes. Those guys go hard in what they do. It's not impossible anymore to get close to Hubble in your own back yard. Allot of people forgrt that Hubble is a science instrument. The days of visable light space telescopes are coming to a end, due to the advancement of ground based telescope's. And I can see in the near future amuture telescopes will offer adaptive optics.

[@wesleydonnelly2141]

@@pulsarsbeam6411 Couldn't agree more with your comments! Ground based, commercially available Tech is now catching up with Multi Million Dollar Space based Tech...

[@nyali2]

M45 you can see better with the naked eye during the winter from my balcony, than this picture you have provided.. 🤣

[@luiscarlostabian2192]

Thanks for the comparison, it made me appreciate hubble telescopes more

[@juicereacts77]

This beat is wavy

[@calmanxiety1]

I really want to find out what it's called

[@jamesbrown3697]

Question is what type of telescope are you using????

[@cindylopez3541]

That's a great question!

[@mcdj1468]

My question is where can I get this telescope? And where can I find the link?

[@qw3rtypd4ng3r]

No, I do not expect my $1000 telescope to see what Hubble sees

[@pnkknndy9672]

idk what type of telescope you have, but I could see pleiades much better than this just with binoculars lmao

[@superswag3252]

100 mm dude wtf is that you should take at least 300 mm diameter and 1500 mm facal lenght if you wanna see something...

[@DoktrDub]

Andromeda galaxy is about 5 times as wide as the moon from our perspective, but the low light doesn’t make it visible with the naked eye, at least 9/10 depending on location and even then... it’s very faint

[@waterproof4403]

wow

[@TheDahminator]

bro i literally saw Andromeda galaxy with my binoculars. your telling me your shit telescope cant see anything

[@chilangowave1744]

Give us a second part!

[@Sabre912]

expectation can become a reality with an SCT" or RASA SCT"

[@InterplanetaryLuis]

Yessir

[@NG-VQ37VHR]

Edge HD with hyperstar for the win. Galaxies and wide-field with one scope.

[@frlano8245]

Galaxies: I feel like somebody is watching me

[@ir8free]

honest presentation of what our eyes see through the eyepiece

[@sssukaPSN]

These "reality" pics look like you're using a 50mm telescope at low power. A decent 5 inch or more at low power would show you a lot more details, not astrophotography detail but more than this

[@t0lex14]

Yeah, and even more with decent eyepiece and filter

[@realflow100]

Orion nebula with my 100mm orion skyscanner barely looks like the "red" zone picture its very faint where i live due to light pollution its even fainter and more fuzzy and blurry looking. can BARELY see the curvy shape with averted vision and 40x magnification. It looks differently colored to me though. like a faint green-ish blue color because only the core of the nebula is just barely visible.

[@sssukaPSN]

@@realflow100 make sure your mirrors are aligned correctly and you are using the correct eyepiece (not to high/low power). In my 114mm starblast I see A LOT of detail in the orion nebula in light pollution.

[@realflow100]

@@sssukaPSN I'm not able to align the mirrors any better. the big one is glued in and not adjustable in any way. and the small one is as good as it could get with a laser collimator Its an 100mm orion skyscanner F4 focal ratio telescope. with 20mm and 10mm eyepieces but I also have 32mm and 4mm eyepieces for wider view. and for planetary views I can make out the bands on jupiter and rings of saturn ok-ish. I also have a 2x barlow and 5x barlow but i dont really use them for anything. for me 40x gives me the best view of orion nebula. not too much magnification or too little. and its bright enough to see as much as I can. All I can see is a few stars. and very faint hazey glow in the core. and VERY VERY FAINT curvy shape only visible with averted vision. just barely perceptable. Andromeda galaxy is just a tiny faint fuzzy dot even at the lowest magnification i can use. 32mm eyepiece. or 20mm. about the same. cant see orion nebula or andromeda galaxy naked eye with or without averted vision. the only thing i can see is the pleiades naked eye with averted vision. just barely able to make out 5 stars in pleiades with a lot of glances.

[@sssukaPSN]

@@realflow100 you need to invest in something a little bigger like the 130mm reflector orion offers. I went from a 114mm to a 250mm and it makes a world of difference I also have a 90mm a 70mm and a 50mm all refractors that I just cant use because my 114 and 250 have spoiled me. The fact that you cant align the primary mirror on your reflector kinda worries me.

[@brucelamberton8819]

@0:58 Messier 13, the Great Globular Cluster in Hercules (which you have misspelled BTW) is NOT the easiest globular to observe - this is only applicable for the northern hemisphere. Omega Centauri and 47 Tucanae, which are visible from the southern hemisphere, are both larger, have many more stars and are a couple of orders of magnitude brighter.

[@pulsarsbeam6411]

I live in the northern hemisphere. m13 is one of the lower magnitude objects in the messire catalog. Even being a brighter object. It's hard to see with the naked eye but not impossible on a very dark night. Even my smallest telescope, A 49mm refractor 600mm focal length. gave me a nice view of the cluster. I hope to see the southern sky one day. Especially to see the magellanic clouds and Alpha Centauri.

[@VeryInterestingChannel]

Sorry, but I live in northern hemisphere and m13 is one of the easiest globular to observe (it is very bright)

[@ch003pe]

This is very true some people buy a telescope and think they are going to see a lot even with a expensive telescope not like the pictures,

[@detectiveamevirus8]

You can see colour deep sky object but need large telescope like 20 inch dobsonian or 16 inch dobsonian

[@tombic6373]

I have a comment and a question. My comment: This video is a must watch for anyone thinking about purchasing a telescope. My question: Why should I buy a telescope after watching this video which tells me that even a medium size telescope will produce an image that likely will fall short of expectations for many sky objects? This video likely saved me a bundle of money. Because in the next few weeks, I had planned to order an expensive telescope (an 8” cassegraine), a set of eye-pieces, a German equatorial mount, tracking and stacking software, special astro camera, filters, and all the rest. And with all this gear, I had planned to photograph the heavens while riding out the current coronavirus pandemic at home. Also, I have a second reason for deciding on no telescope purchase which this video has confirmed: That’s because last week I took photos of the conjunction of Venus and the Pleiades using my Nikon camera and an ordinary tripod, the results of which tell me there is no need to purchase a telescope. The photos I took of the conjunction of Venus and the Pleiades look as good as the photos that were posted this week on KZbin by amateur astronomers using expensive equipment. I don’t see much difference between their images taken through a telescope and mine taken through my camera. My photos compare very well with the images that two amateur astronomers took that appear on KZbin. I took my photos using an old 80-400mm Nikkor zoom lens, I observed the 400 rule for exposure, and I processed the pics using Lightroom and Photoshop. I live in the DC suburbs with significant light pollution. I just can’t justify purchasing an expensive telescope and all the accompanying enhancements. If I am wrong, please let me know because I am honestly very disappointed that I am not going to buy that telescope and gear.

[@MEEMOSS77]

Tom Bic try and view saturn’s rings with your dslr camera....you need a telescope to do that with unless you have a really large telescopic photography lense for your camera

[@tombic6373]

@@MEEMOSS77 Thank you for the suggestion--I am trying to persuade myself to make the telescope purchase.

[@infomation1526]

"Telescope:100mm" But what 100mm the focal length or aperture?

[@gagauddas7010]

I think aperture

[@marioq70]

100 mmm is to short to be the focal, so is the aperture.

[@infomation1526]

@@marioq70 thanks

[@VeryInterestingChannel]

Apperture - the main characteristic of any telescope

[@latouselatrec]

4inch scope

[@yanetsandrita9433]

I time travelled all the way from family guy universe to ask you for the name of that song.

[@petergriffin396]

There's my little guy!

[@judd0453]

It,s darude sandstorm

[@yanetsandrita9433]

You poor fat bastard, you.

[@RAGEMASTER1]

Stewie Griffin darude sandstorm

[@skysurfer4547]

Until Sunset -- Kataraman

[@sabernathy5465]

And this is why I went into astrophotography... especially with being in a heavily light polluted area.

[@juggernautjoe3981]

Viewing deep sky objects though a telescope, it's in most cases not the visible beauty that stands out most.. But knowing how long the fotons have traveled to be captured in a 'light bucket' and focused on your very eyes.. That you take a moment and think about what object you're really seeing, and realizing how incredible it is what you see, and that you can see it at all is what's most inspiring to me. Astrophotography is really cool and get's you a much clearer 'picture' indeed. But you'll have to spend at least 3x more to get such a result, compared to a standard telescope setup. And I compare it a bit to either experiencing a concert and living the moment, or filming it to get a clearer look afterwards. I love seeing distant galaxies through my telescope and seeing real top grade pictures of those afterwards to let the awesomeness of it all sink in and appreciate what you saw even more! Don't let these before/after discourage you

[@infomation1526]

What about reflector telescope?

[@pulsarsbeam6411]

That's probably was a reflector telescope. Any refractor telescope, bigger then 80mm, usually starts to get expensive.

[@SupahStar247]

Your channel deserves more subscribers and your videos deserve more views and likes. You make the objects in the void of space cooler, more interesting, and closer.

[@skypowergb3842]

i tried to see m42 with 60mm refractor i can see stars but nebula is visible just at brightest part , (sky should be class 5 but i think it is class 6 or 7 , i cant even spot m31 with naked eye even though it should be visible)

[@kennethschultz6465]

NAKED EYE Vs OPEN SHUTTER time Eye looses every time Som on like you are any scam artists dream

[@michaelangelo041191]

That planetarium lied to me when I was a kid.

[@filmmakinggod_72]

Do you know anything about astrophotography? Or photography? Lol as sophisticated as our eyes are they aren’t able to handle all of that light which wouldn’t allow our brains to create an image like the one you have under “expectation” .. that’s why we use dslrs and ccd or cmos cameras to take long exposures “gather as much light as possible” to see things in great detail or take very short exposures and just stacking the images to achieve those types of pictures..the photos from nasa are very real but post editing is necessary to get those images we see so people automatically think it’s fake because of it but they don’t understand photography

[@RoobieRhoo]

Yes, technically correct. Our eye cannot build up a charge of electrons over time. However, our mind can build up an image of various scenes observed over time. So, the brain can do a form of image integration, just not in the way you describe, of course. Because we cannot integrate like a digital or photographic emulsion, we cannot see images made that way. Those expectations. But, the eye, as deficient as it may be compared to photography, has some advantages in dynamic range over very short "exposures." That gives nebulae a certain innate beauty of it's own. Just different media, different results of the same object. But, yes, definitely not photographic.

[@cesaralexandrefernandes1103]

Its takes hours and hours of exposition to take a stunning photo like expectation ones. a lot of job are envolved!!!!

[@ch.roughhabit5002]

this comment got some balls

[@gabrielblackwell3432]

Sorry dad I didn't realize you were the god of asrtophotography

[@VeryInterestingChannel]

Thanks for your comment! Yes, I do. I know that our eyes couldn`t see Deepsky objects like in NASA`s images. But the main idea of this video is just to show the beginners in astronomy what they really could see with their telescopes (4 inch for example), because I knew several people who thought they would see colorful photos of galaxies like Hubble sees. And with this video I just wanted to show them the truth

[@Fuar11]

I've seen andromeda in light pollution orange zone

[@neumoi3324]

The pictures in expectations are taken by regular astronomical telescopes and enhanced by false colour and noise reduction techniques.