Observing colour through telescopes

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PEGELLA
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Colour Telescopes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ability to observe color in deep sky objects (DSOs) such as nebulae and galaxies through telescopes, specifically focusing on the minimum aperture size required for visual observation without the aid of photography. Participants share personal experiences and insights regarding the visibility of color in various telescopes under different conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that a telescope aperture of at least 10 inches (254 mm) is necessary to begin seeing color in DSOs, while others have had varying experiences with smaller apertures.
  • One participant notes that only high surface brightness planetary nebulae show color, typically turquoise, under good sky conditions.
  • There is a discussion about the challenges of astrophotography, including the need for longer exposure times and the difficulties associated with larger telescopes.
  • Some participants emphasize that visual astronomy may require transporting equipment to darker sites for better visibility of colors.
  • Personal anecdotes highlight that individual vision can significantly affect the perception of color through telescopes, with age being a factor in color sensitivity.
  • One participant mentions successfully observing color in a small 60mm telescope, indicating that color perception may vary widely among users.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the minimum aperture size needed to observe color in DSOs, with no consensus reached on a specific size. The discussion also highlights varying experiences with color visibility based on individual equipment and conditions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the subjective nature of color perception, dependence on personal vision, and the variability of observing conditions such as sky darkness and telescope quality.

PEGELLA
Messages
11
Reaction score
2
Excluding planets and given normal dark skies, what minimum aperture size of a (non-refractor) telescope is required to just start getting hints of colour in deep sky objects like nebulae and galaxies? I mean in real time, unaided eye, no photography.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
My practical experience with my own telescopes tells me that anything 10 inches (254 mm) and below yields virtually no color for deep sky objects. My largest is a 10 inch Newtonian and I can't remember seeing any color in any DSO's except perhaps M42.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, russ_watters and davenn
^^What Drakkith said ^^
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
I have used 38 to 60 cm telescopes under good skies and only planetary nebula with high surface brightness will show a color and it is always turquoise since the eye is the most sensitive there. Maybe a hint of turquoise in the center of the Orion nebula.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and Drakkith
Thanks for the comments. Any idea of how long an exposure time would be required to record colour from some of the larger, brighter DSO like M42? Using a 12 inch - 16 inch scope and a simple DSLR camera hook up?
 
PEGELLA said:
Thanks for the comments. Any idea of how long an exposure time would be required to record colour from some of the larger, brighter DSO like M42? Using a 12 inch - 16 inch scope and a simple DSLR camera hook up?

Not long at all. Perhaps as little as a few seconds depending on the camera's sensitivity, the surface brightness of the target object, and the f-ratio of the telescope (perceived surface brightness is determined by the f-ratio, not the diameter of the scope). But you probably don't want to use a 12-16 inch telescope for astrophotography if you're just starting out. The focal lengths of these telescopes is so large that it's difficult to record exposures thanks to the high zoom. Any little error in the tracking of the mount, the alignment of the scope, or other issues like wind is magnified by high zoom levels. It is MUCH easier to use a small, short focal length telescope starting out.

Also, once you get into imaging, you can do stacking and processing, which means that even short exposures can be added together to get the equivalent of a long exposure.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
PEGELLA said:
I mean in real time, unaided eye, no photography.
PEGELLA said:
Using a 12 inch - 16 inch scope and a simple DSLR camera hook up?
You have moved the goalposts a bit here. We are discussing two vastly different issues now.
PEGELLA said:
given normal dark skies,
And what do you mean by that? Normal skies are only dark skies for some very lucky people.
If you want to do visual astronomy you will probably need to transport your kit to a suitable site. That could mean you would see things for which you would need a camera to use from your back garden.
I bought a 200mm Dobsonian Skywatcher (second hand for less than £200) which was good enough to see some definite colours (of course the Orion nebula but some others and some delightful contrasting colours of adjacent stars). Some pretty stunning views from my home (no street lights) I used a friend's 150mm Newtonian but that was noticeably worse for visual). The eyepieces supplied with most cheap kits are pretty disappointing and do not do justice to a fair quality parabolic reflector. I spent a fair bit on some 2inch eyepieces and I have never regretted that as I still have them and use them with my 120mm refractor. The stars look tiny which, to my mind, means that the resolution and flare are good.
If you start to go into AstroPhotography you will end up spending a lot of money, take a long time setting up all your kit each time and every free hour tinkering with the hundreds of images that you take. (Just letting you know - it's a brilliant hobby but very demanding.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark
sophiecentaur said:
If you start to go into AstroPhotography you will end up spending a lot of money, take a long time setting up all your kit each time and every free hour tinkering with the hundreds of images that you take. (Just letting you know - it's a brilliant hobby but very demanding.)

This, a thousand times!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: collinsmark
I see color in my 1974 60mm Montgomery Ward f11 scope with the 0.965” Huygenian eyepieces. Albireo is beautiful!
 
  • #10
While not a star, I was able to pick out the colour gradients of Mars in my scope well enough to illustrate it.

I drew them by hand, then (afterwards!) checked on NASA's site for what Mars looked like at the times of my observtions.

Rather pleased I was:
pic_marssketch.jpg


(If I'd partially masked the aperture to bring down the light level, I might have picked up even more detail. Maybe next time.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #11
Seeing colour through a telescope mis depend a lot on the individual's vision. As you get older it gets worse and worse and worse. Damned young whippersnappers can see and hear stuff that just totally passes me by.
 
  • #12
Of course the original question was about DSOs like galaxies and nebulas.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K