Ngc 55

[Martin Pugh]

.....and thanks again!

Tim - no, cant fit an AOX into the optical train of this scope without losing the FW. I took a closer look at my final full scale TIF. You may be referring to what looks like diffraction spikes off the larger stars, but this scope doesnt have a secondary, but on the original Lum FITS they do appear a little 'spiky' and I guess that's because they were 20 minute subs. On a 12" f3.8 scope those artifacts are probably going to show up.

cheers
Martin

[topheart]

Thanks very much Martin.....no worries!
Cheers,
Tim

[Paul Haese]

Nice scale Martin. Detail in the galaxy is nice.

[ericwbenson (Eric)]

Originally Posted by Martin Pugh

.....and thanks again!

Tim - no, cant fit an AOX into the optical train of this scope without losing the FW. I took a closer look at my final full scale TIF. You may be referring to what looks like diffraction spikes off the larger stars, but this scope doesnt have a secondary, but on the original Lum FITS they do appear a little 'spiky' and I guess that's because they were 20 minute subs. On a 12" f3.8 scope those artifacts are probably going to show up.

cheers
Martin

Hi Martin,

I wonder if those little spikes come from the sensor, specifically the microlenses? The KAF3200 (similar pixel size 6.8 v 6um) showed them quite easily when using a refractor or SCT, but usually only in the vertical direction. They usually get buried buy the secondary mirror diffraction when using a Newt/Cass, unless one rotates the camera 45deg. So in principal if you rotate your camera 45deg the 'microspikes' should rotate too.

Since the KAF16200 is relatively new, perhaps no one has noticed it yet since they haven't done deep enough subs, such as 20min at f/3.8?

Cheers,
EB

[Flugel88 (Michael)]

Nice NGC 55 Martin fine detail and colour is very pleasant

[Martin Pugh]

Thanks a lot. Yes Eric, I was forgetting about the effect microlenses can cause so its most certainly that.

Cheers
Martin