Exceptional detail, Peter. Kinda sick of Eta though
Me too....I suspect it's been imaged with a FSQ/AP/Synta/Celestron/Meade/Royal/Cave/Tasco/TMB/Planewave/Orion/etc.
many times before now ....maybe even a KAF16803 chip
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewisM
I'll get there with my 85mm...mark my words
It's just gonna take 6X as long, and I might yet need an H-a filter...
H-alpha...and don't forget to photoshop
Quote:
Originally Posted by batema
Amazing images Peter.
Mark
Ta muchly. Pretty much all in one place now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
I've used your Alluma Ha as a benchmark since you posted it, tried to get close but I cannot quite get there with my tiny 5"
You've set some very nice benchmarks!
Benchmarks? Too kind. Nothing wrong with a good 5" either.
Too kind...all re-treads I know....but, like Ayers Rock (or Uluru, depending on when you went to school ) it is one of nature's spectacles that drags me back time and again
You are setting a new benchmark for quality on this forum.
Ross.
Too kind Ross. The standard of some of the images on IIS has been going
up like a homesick angel of late. (e.g. M&T's and Paul's recent narrow field work)
Was the FSQ data blurred at all for the 16" data?or did you only sharpen the 16" data?It's not what I would call a subtle blend....more of a high impact blend.
Was the FSQ data blurred at all for the 16" data?or did you only sharpen the 16" data?It's not what I would call a subtle blend....more of a high impact blend.
Ta Louie...the FSQ data and RC16 data was "as is" i.e. no blur or sharpening.
While it is a great wide field scope, the intrinsic resolution of the FSQ is simply limited by its aperture...it is just 4" after all.
BTW it's easy to see when a low res image has been "enhanced" with other data ....stars become remarkably smaller and fainter than elsewhere in the field.