Help Needed In Finding Planetary Nebulas.

[Suzy]

Hi all,
I've not yet been able to find a Planetary Nebula. I have a 6" scope :astron: and have failed trying to find the Crab and more recently the Bug nebula (tried for a long time on that one). :mad2: Perhaps my aperture isn't big enough or I'm not looking well enough, or I'm not using the right mag., or do I have to have a dark sky as opposed to suburbia :shrug: I have found other nebs, just not the planetary ones.

Are there any out there at the moment that are fairly easy to spot in my 6"? Any help my way would be much appreciated. I can't wait to see one of these! :D

[mental4astro]

The Crab is a difficult object at the best of times. It is very faint, and even in my big dob, 17.5", it is difficult and unimpressive. Technically, it is not a Planetary Nebula, but a supernova remenant.

Try this Planetary, near the southern Cross: NGC 3918

It lies just to the right (west) of the Southern Cross, within Centaurus, and most star charts will show it too, easy to find too.

The first time I saw it I was taken aback at how bright AND how blue in colour it is.

It will be a stunning object in your 6".

[Lismore Bloke]

Alexander is right. The Blue Planetary (3918) is quite bright and the small blue disk easy to spot. The Bug is fainter but should be visible also. here are a couple of charts that might help. I draw imaginary lines from one star to another to help find things.

[[1ponders]]

You could try the Saturn Nebula between Capricorn and Aquarius or the Eight Burst nebula (ngc2132) between Antila and Vela. From memory they are moderately bright as well

[Robh]

The Ghost of Jupiter (NGC 3242) is bright (Vmag 7) and 25 arcseconds in size. It has a lovely bluish-green colour.
See map ...

Regards, Rob

[Liz]

Great Q Suzy ... I have seen a few PNs, but dont routinely look at them, but will check out the ones mentioned, thus far. ;)

[Suzy]

Wow! Gosh, thank you guys for your help so far. I'm so excited, I can't wait for the weather to clear up so I can have a look at the ones you'll have suggested so far.

[Blue Skies]

You've got make them 'blink' for you, as sometimes they're stellar in their appearance and look just like a star. You make them 'blink' by looking straight at them - and they should disappear - then look away - and it should pop back into your averted vision. They're often very diffuse and faint and not picked up by the cones in the centre of your eye, the bright light and colour section, but the rods that detect shades of light around the edges of your eye should see them.

And they often have a distinctive blue-green colour to them, at least the bright easy ones do.

I doubt your 6" would get the Crab unless you were in a good dark sky, it can be an *ahem* of a difficult object at the best of times.

[jjjnettie]

The Ring Nebula M57 in the constellation of Lyra is an easy one to find.
A bright little smoke ring sitting 1/3rd of the way between two bright stars. Though at the moment it's a morning object, best seen after 1am.
Once you've found The Ring Nebula, it's only a short star hop to The Dumbell Nebula M27.

[RobF]

One suggestion I'd make Suzy is to check out the freeware version of Astroplanner (http://www.ilangainc.com/astroplanner/). Gives you an instant idea of when an object is visible, how bright, type (galaxy, neb, planetary, etc) and all sorts of other goodies (like programming in your own visible horizon). Freeware comes with Messier and NGC catalogues. Glen Cozen's "All Sky Messier Catalogue" includes quite a few of the bright southern planetary nebs that Messier didn't/couldn't see - you can load up custom catalogues.

Once you've found something, you can make notes on what you saw too....

[Suzy]

Thankyou for that wonderful tip Jacqui. I didn't know they could be this difficult, but am very keen to give them a go all the same. Okay, will give up on that Crab, won't waste my time on it anymore!

Should I drag these PN's in with a 22mm Lvw Vixen, or do I need to up the power more to search for them. They sound so tricky.

Thankyou everyone for your help.

[Liz]

Absolutely!! Ring neb is a beauty, and easy to see. Lyra is rising a bit earlier each night - it was quite high in the sky when I was out the other night. The Dumbell is also great!!

[sjastro]

Suzy,

You should consider purchasing an OIII filter.

The filter is remarkable for picking up very faint planetaries in light polluted skies. Brighter planetaries can become spectacular objects with this filter.

Regards

Steven

[Suzy]

I have a UHC filter on the way to me. Will this help?

[renormalised]

Another good piece of kit, apart from an OIII or an UHC filter is to forgo looking through your eyepiece and purchase a GStar camera. They're a very sensitive, low light video camera designed for astronomy that allows you to see things directly that you normally wouldn't see through an eyepiece. You can also use them to take piccies as well:) If you're interested, goto here... http://www.myastroshop.com.au/products/gstarcam.asp. Steve Massey, the guy that owns and runs MyAstroshop, will help you a lot with anything to do with the camera (anything to do with anything, really) and he's a great guy too:). With the GStar, objects like the Crab, which are buggers to find at the best of times, will be easy targets...the Crab shows up very clearly onscreen and you can even see the pulsar powering the neb' at its centre, as well. Your 6" will have no trouble doing this with the camera attached to it. Actually, the camera will allow you to see objects that you normally wouldn't see in your scope as it will virtually double the aperture of your scope....you'll routinely see stars down to 15-16 mag through your scope with the camera, even in moderately light polluted areas (your scope should be able to pick stars down to about 12.5-13 mag without assistance at a reasonably dark site). They come in two flavours, mono or colour and for their price, I think they're great value. I own one myself, JJJ has one and there's a few more of us that also own a GStar. There's also another camera called a Mallincam that is of the same type as a GStar...can't remember who owns one here, but I know one of the guys here at IIS has one...but it's more expensive than the GStar and they're Canadian. Another thing they're great for is when you have family and friends over. You can connect a GStar upto a TV/Monitor and have a little "show and tell" session in your backyard!!!:) Great for school outings and star parties too:). So, think about it, have a talk with Steve and the others here that own one. See if it fits the bill for you and go from there:)

[renormalised]

Oh yes....the UHC and OIII filters block the light at the wavelengths that come from artificial light and enhance the light coming from nebs and such. You'll notice quite a difference when you add one to your light train:)

[sjastro]

The UHC will help but it is nowhere near as effective as an OIII filter.

The OIII filter will remove light pollution and naturally occuring sky glow.
A terrible filter to use for star clusters, galaxies and reflection nebulae but ideal for OIII emission objects such as planetaries and emission nebulae.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Oh...BTW, you can attach the OIII or UHC filters to your GStar as well, if you like:)

[astro744]

A 6" telescope is more than enough for the Crab Nebula (M1). It is about a degree away from Zeta Tau. Scan around and you will see it. However strong city lights will make it more difficult.

Most planetary nebulae are small but some like the Ghost of Jupiter and Saturn Nebula are large and bright enough to be seen easily. The Helix nebula is huge too.

[jjjnettie]

LOL @ Carl
You're pushing her over to the dark side now.
But he's right Suzie. If you want to see faint fuzzies live on your telly or computer sceen, the Gstar-Ex is the way to go. No more squinting up to an eyepiece.
Here's a link to an article about beginning Astrophotography using a Gstar.
http://www.ioptron.com/images/up/ATT_iOptron_Article.pdf

[renormalised]

How appropriate, I have the "Imperial March" from Star Wars playing on iTunes:):P

Suzy...the power of looking through an eyepiece pales into insignificance, when compared to the Dark Side of the Force (***heavy scratchy breathing***) :fight:

:):P

[erick]

Suzy, if you are chasing Planetary Nebulae, you should get an OIII filter to help. Bintel sell a GSO 1.25" OIII for $89. You may find it cheaper or pick one up in the classifieds. Slip it in and hold it between your eye and the eyepiece when you think you have the PN in the field. The stars will dim, but the PN will not dim as much and is contrasted against the stars.

Yes, over the next month or two, the Ring Neb is the one to go for. Easy to locate. The Blue Planetary eluded me for quite a while. It is a difficult star hop from Delta Crucis, but once you reach it, it is very clear. You'd think you are looking at Uranus or Neptune!

Here is an unexpected one. Go looking for Messier 46 (NGC 2437) open star cluster in Puppis and you get a surprise (it is NGC 2438!)

[jjjnettie]

Yes!! M46 is a real treat. It's a beautiful open cluster, but look a little closer.:eyepop: :thumbsup: :D

[mental4astro]

Suzy- strength lies within yourself. Those who are weak relie on the dark side of give them false eyes. Make the force your friend. It will reveal its true beauty if you listen to it. (*** exit left of stage- crunching gravel heard as Imperial Forces approach***)

[renormalised]

Fluke Skytripper, you' will not elude me next time!!!:):P

[Suzy]

Alexander and Carl.. you'll are so funny! :lol:

[renormalised]

He does not know the true power of the Dark Side:):P

Seriously, it's amazing to be able to see stars you'd have no chance of finding normally through an eyepiece just pop up into view...and with the colour version of the camera, they've reported seeing colour in many of the brighter DSO's, live onscreen.

[ausastronomer]

Hi Suzy,

With only 6" of aperture the UHC filter is a better choice than the OIII filter IMO. The OIII is a much harsher filter than the UHC and will provide an overall significantly dimmer view than the UHC filter. This applies even moreso if your skies are less than pristine, in terms of light pollution. In addition, the UHC is more flexible than the OIII and will work on a wider range of targets. True the OIII will improve "some" planetary nebula more than the UHC, but overall the UHC will provide a noticeable benefit over the OIII on more targets and a wider range of targets.

The planetary nebula that have been recommended to you are all ideal targets for a 6" telescope.

NGC 3918 (Blue Planetary)
NGC 3242 (Ghost of Jupiter)
NGC 3132 (Eight Burst)

These are all easily visible in a 6" scope from 1/2 decent skies without any filter. You just gotta point it in the right place and the finder charts provided to you will help enormously.

Cheers,
John B

[Brian W]

Hi Suzy, Later on don't forget M-57.
Brian

[Liz]

Hey Suzy ... many PNs to have a search for, very exciting!! Look forward to you finding your first ... whether it be for the dark or the light. ;)
Great to hear John's thought that the UHC was better for you, cos thats what you have bought. :thumbsup:

[sjastro]

Filters are selected on eyepiece FL not aperture. The Lumicon UHC filter in light polluted skies is designed for an exit pupil range of 1-4mm, the OIII 2-5mm.
So for example, using a f/6 scope, the recommended eyepiece FL range for the UHC filter is 6-24mm, the OIII filter is 12-30mm.



For light polluted skies the opposite is true. The bandpass of the UHC filter is 22-26nm, the OIII is 10-12nm. The OIII will reject more light pollution and significantly improve contrast in light polluted skies for planetaries and emission nebulae. The apparent gains of using a wider bandpass UHC are lost in the reduced contrast of light polluted skies when compared to the OIII filter.

Regards

Steven

[ausastronomer]

Steven,

It's obvious you have done some extensive internet research on these filters and the numbers would appear impressive and authoritative.

I can't match the informativeness of those numbers because all of my filter research has been done with the filter on the end of an eyepiece, stuck in a telescope, out under the stars. I can't find those numbers out in the bush in the dark. I have been doing these same "low tech" filter evaluations for a lot of years and they work for me.



I don't dispute the fact that certain filters are designed to work at certain f-ratios and with certain exit pupils. This has nothing to do with my statement that an OIII filter works better with larger aperture telescopes, than it does with smaller aperture telescopes.

To quote respected US author Phil Harrington in edition 3 of "Star Ware" Para 2 Page 221, "Owners of medium and large aperture telescopes should also give consideration to an OIII filter"

Copied straight from the website of the Binocular and Telescope shop in Sydney:-

http://www.bintel.com.au/Filters.html

Click "Astronomik Bandpass Filters" then click "OIII filter"

Astronomik Profi OIII
Product information:

The Astronomik OIII filter is designed for visual observation of gas nebulas and planetary nebulas. Due to the extreme small band pass of the two OIII- lines, the filter will produce a relevant increase of contrast even under best observing conditions. At faint super nova remnants and faint planetary nebulas the Astronomik OIII filter often makes the gain, that decides if the object can be seen or not.

The best focal ratio for the use of this filter is 1:4.5 to 1:6. The field of application is from 1:3,75 up to 1:15. Loss of transmission and colour displacements, that appear at other filters, emerge with the Astronomik filters only at extreme light intensive focal ratio of 1:3 and bigger. So you can see widespread objects in the whole field of view and not only in the middle.

The OIII filter is to be used from a aperture of more than 6" (15cm) on. At smaller instruments there is not enough light available for a sensible use. Many experienced Deep- Sky- observers rather use the OIII filter at instruments with more than 10" (25cm) despite the smaller field of application than the more versatile UHC filter.

Directly from the Oceanside Photo and Telescope Website (OPTCORP) in the USA

http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=105-156-823-826-1622-1893

Astronomik OIII Filter for Visual Use - 2" Mounted

This Astronomik OIII Filter is made for visual observing of gas and planetary nebulae.

This model is mounted in a 2" metal cell.

With a FWHM of ca. 15nm, the Astronomik OIII Filter transmits at nearly 100% in the OIII line.

On larger telescopes (10" & over), this may very well be the filter of choice for deep-sky observing.

Astronomik OIII Filters are best on telescopes of at least 6" of aperture.

Astronomik 2" OIII Filter for Visual Use
From the start, the Astronomik OIII filter has been very specifically designed for the visual observation of gaseous and planetary nebulae. The extremely narrow pass band of the two OIII lines brings a substantial contrast gain to these lines even under best observation conditions. On faint super nova remnants and faint planetary nebulae the Astronomik OIII filter will often make the difference as to whether the object can be seen or not!

The optimal aperture ratio for the use of the filter is 1:3 to 1:15 with apertures of more than 6" (150mm). Transmission losses and chromatic distortions, which arise with other filters, occur with Astronomik OIII filters only when extremely bright aperture ratios of 1:3 and more come into play. The Astronomik OIII filters thus can expand the view of dispersed objects, generally speaking, to the whole visual field of view of the eyepiece and are not limited to only the center of the eyepiece.

The information on both the Bintel and Optcorp websites looks like it's a direct spiel from the filter manufacturer (Astronomiks in Germany).

Just wondering why, "if you're right and I'm wrong", the filter manufacturer agrees with me and further, why the largest astronomical dealer in Australia and one of the largest in the USA, post incorrect information on their website?

Cheers,
John B

[sjastro]

The key point here is observing planetaries in light polluted skies.
There is absolutely no doubt that an OIII filter will outperform a UHC filter under these conditions.
Do your filter evaluations include light polluted skies? If not you cannot assume that relative filter performance is equivalent under different sky conditions.



The proof of the pudding is in the eating and my own experiences support the Lumicon site that exit pupil diameter is more important than aperture.

I have used a C5 SCT (5 inch) and a OIII filter. The objects are enhanced even though the background is dark. The primary role of aperture is to define the field in which the object resides.
For example if I wanted to observe the planetary NGC 2438 in the cluster M46 then aperture will clearly play a role in defining the field. If I was only interested in the planetary then aperture is less important.

With the same scope the Helix nebula observed in surburban Melbourne under magnitude 4.5 skies with an OIII filter is more conspicuous than without a filter under magnitude 6.0 skies (my current site).

People should not be discouraged from using OIII filters on small telescopes.

Regards

Steven

[Suzy]

John & Steve I thank you for your input regarding filters, though I do remain a bit confused. Whilst this thread was going, I had actually bought a UHC filter from doing previous research on it prior. Though not sure how it will go with my 6" dob. It arrived today, and when (if) the weather ever clears, I'll give it a run and see how it goes.
I did come across this article a few days ago, it's interesting reading on filters. It's written by David Knisley. Though the review only mentions the studies were done on apertures of 8" and up (so I don't know where I stand), but it makes note of exit pupil. It also lists which nebulas perform best for each filter. You guys will make more sense out of this article than I will as you'll are more experienced in this field.
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/raycash/filters.htm

[astroron]

Suzy, When the weather clears up:rolleyes: you will be able to give us your opinion :thumbsup:
Cheers

[astroron]

Suzy, if you want to look at pretty pictures, download them from ICEINSPACE Or Hubble, or other fancy telescopes:P:thumbsup:

[sjastro]

Hello Suzy,

A UHC filter is better than nothing. At a dark site a UHC would be the preferred filter, at a light polluted site an OIII filter is the way to go due to increased contrast.

Ultimately it depends on where you observe. Can you see the SMC from your site?

Regards

Steven

[Suzy]

No Steven, Can't see the SMC. I can see the Tarrantula Neb, but not the LMC that it resides in. I have given up trying to find galaxies from my back yard. Each time i get packed up ready to go to a dark site, the weather changes drastically.

[Suzy]

They keep trying to pull me over to the dark side Ron... they nearly had me again, and I had to stay strong! I have to keep repeating to myself at least 100 times a day, "I am a visual observer!" I like what Alexander is doing with sketching, think I might like to have a go sometime. Though he has an upper hand on some serious aperture :confuse3:

[marki]

Large aperture counts for little in light polluted cities, what do you get? A better view of the street lights:P. A small scope with a camera will always reveal more celestial delights in the city than a large scope using the mark I eyeball. Unlike the others I don't think using a camera is cheating nor do I accept the "darkside" label. If anything you would be moving to the bright side i.e. you can actually see something ;).

Mark

[RobF]

That's the beauty of it though - as long you you feel like a young kid with an ice cream cone, its enough to be just having fun whatever it is you're exploring or trying at that moment.... :thumbsup:
(whether that's learning the sky through a dob or taking postcards with a camera)

[renormalised]

A camera, like any other instrument (including the Mark 1 eyeball), is just another means of observing. It's not cheating, and if using a good camera like a GStar allows you to see more than you normally would, then all the better for it:)

So Suzy, get that GStar or whatever one you like and get to looking:)

[Suzy]

I feel that pull again :confuse3: I'm going back to that site yet again to check out the gstar thingy.:prey2: Whichever I go, I am having so much fun! Marki does make a good point.

[renormalised]

You also have the ImageSource DBK/DMK (https://www.bintelshop.com.au/welcome.htm)cameras as well, or the Flea3 (http://www.flea3.com/)

[RobF]

I'm sure Jeanette would be happy to show you her GStar in action one night if you asked too S
(apologies JJJ if you no longer have one...)

[renormalised]

Jeanette still has one, I believe.

[mental4astro]

Suzy, the LMC is enormous, compared to the Tarantula. When you scan the surrounds of the Spider, and you notice all the mottling and clusters that surround it, you are looking into the LMC.

The best way to see the LMC and SMC is with binos. They are too big to apprieciate with a telescope.

I use 50mm binoculars to locate some of the brighter galaxies, like Sombrero and M83. From a dark site, even Centaurus A is visible in a 6X30 finder!

Back to the theme of this thread, try planetaries neat through a scope. Filters a fine, but you will still see them without filters. The planetary I suggested near the Southern Cross is bright enough to view even now during full moon. The added plus is that it is not too near to the moon either. Try for it this weekend. I know you will find it.

[astroron]

Suzy, sell your telescope, and buy some astronomy DVD's with lots of beautiful Picture and sit in your lounge room and watch them with a nice warm/cold cup of something. :P
You will get the same effect as with the camera's, but without the cost of telescope , eyepeices warm clothes and other things we need to do for observing,you will miss the discomfort of the Mozzies, cold nights . hot nights.
Most astro imagers never look through their telescopes, after all, all they are only Telephoto lenses when attached to a camera.
Whilst you are faffing about with polar alignment, cable, focus, computers and other parafanailia? the night sky is rotating and the wonders are lost in the glaire of the bright lights, Red and white,also computer glaire
Then your core begins temperature rising because this thing or that is not working, and you have wasted a whole night for very little gain and you have seen nothing:mad2:
Just a few points to help you decide about going down the imaging road;):thumbsup:

[renormalised]

Easy save there, Ron....two scopes. One for piccies, one for lookies:)

[astroron]

As I said MOST astro imagers never look through thier scopes, there may be some but not many:(

[RobF]

Fair go Ron - we haven't all got easy access to your clean fresh air and beautiful dark Cambroon skies - not to mention that 16" dob :violin:

Next best thing on my surburban patio is a beer while waiting for the qhy9 to cut through Stefan's sky needle light polution. :P :D
I always dig out my eyepiece case when there's visitors over too - honest!

[renormalised]

True, and I think you loose something by not having any visual experience.

Most professional astronomers have never looked through a telescope...many of them can't find their way around the night sky, which is something you'd think they'd be able to do.

[sjastro]

It's appears to be worse than my observing site when I lived in Melbourne. The SMC was invisible, the LMC was barely visible.

From your backyard the UHC filter will help, but the OIII will do a better job on planetaries.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

As an astro imager are you telling me you can look through them.:shrug:

[astroron]

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN:(
I DID NOT MEAN AT THE SAME TIME AS YOU ARE IMAGING:rolleyes:

[ngcles]

Hi Suzy, Steve, John & All,

Re: the opposing views of Steve and John on the use of OIII -v- UHC in small apertures. My experience leads me to agree with John's posts on this issue 100% and I really can't add anything useful to them. (I seem lately to be endorsing what Bamo advises here on IIS quite a bit, but here again, I believe he is right on the money. :thumbsup:)

For visual use in 'scopes <25cm go for the UHC. Same goes for the very narrow band-pass H-Beta filters -- you need significant aperture at the right exit pupil for them to work well in my experience. If you've got 10"+, buy the UHC first and the others later if you feel you need them. I've got 1 1/4" OIII and UHC, 2" UHC & H-Beta.


Best,

Les D

[sjastro]

Anyone care to place a bet:).

The primary objective of any LPR filter is enhancement. A LPR filter is only as good as the brightness/darkness of the sky background.

The brightness of the sky background is related to the exit pupil not the aperture. The larger the exit pupil the brighter the background.

Exit pupil = aperture/magnification.

Let's suppose I have a 250mm aperture scope at 50X magnification.
The exit pupil is 250mm/50 =5.0mm.

A Lumicon OIII is designed to operate in the exit pupil range 2-5mm in light polluted skies.

Doubling the aperture will not improve image enhancement, it will be in fact be a lot worse as the exit pupil = 500mm/50 =10mm.
The background is now so bright that image contrast is lost.
I need to double the magnification as well. Since increasing magnification
spreads out the photon flux from an extended object, I'm not gaining anything by increasing aperture.

As I mentioned in a previous post, using a larger aperture will result in more stars in the background.

Regards

Steven

[Liz]

Whooaa ... whats this thread been up to while I have sleeping in my bed?? :rolleyes: :help:
Suzy, some great info re filters, but you have bought one, so dont worry about any more for awhile. Add it to next years list. :)
Re cameras - give it a miss for awhile too. ;) Down the track it may be something to look into. Most of us give it a go, but they can be fiddly and frustrating.
Follow Alex's train of thought, go for that PN, and I will too, though may wait a few days for Moon to quieten. Theres a lot out there to observe!!

[renormalised]

Suzy...caaaaaaammmmerrrrrraaaaaa!!! :):P

[Lismore Bloke]

Suzy - keep the faith - resist the call to the Dark Side.
You don't need a caaaaaammmmeeeerrrrraaa!;)

[Starkler]

Agreed and this is exactly why I pipe up when people say big scopes are useless in light polluted places, and better off with a small one.

I say rubbish!

Whilst sky background brightness is a constant vs exit pupil, greater aperture allows the collection of more light from wanted targets allowing presentation at a visual size at which they may be visible.

Light pollution makes small scopes particularly useless in comparison to large ones.

Greater aperture = smaller fov per exit pupil and bigger target!
Less noise, more object!

By the way, I think planetary nebs are a fair dso target for the light pollution affected observer as most are best at high magnifications.

[ausastronomer]

Hi Steven,

I am almost prepared to place a bet that you are an engineer of some description? Further, that your discipline is in a field of engineering other than optics ? Actually, I am picking a mechanical or civil engineer. How close did I get ? :)

Cheers,
John B

[sjastro]

Hello John,

I'm a scientist (applied mathematician) currently on hiatus (probably explains all the bad weather).

Most of my employment has been based on working closely with engineers.

Regards

Steven

[marki]

Ron I always have two scopes setup, one controlled by computer auto routines snapping pics and a second for visual obs. Problem is where I live a combination of LP and heavy particulates (8km from CBD 100m from the freeway) washout and scatter the light from the universe so much that I can rarely see very much at all, even when the moon is not about. I envy you and your clean dark skies but until I retire this will not be possible for me. I agree that getting all the bits and pieces for long exposure AP can at times be tiresome, but most folks seem to have no such problem with video cameras like the Gstar as they have nowhere near the requirements of long exposure AP. I am not sure why visual astronomers are so adament that people who take pics are not the real deal, especially those who are reduced to narrowband images to see anything worthwhile due to the rotten skies they live under. Without these bits and pieces many of us would just find something else to do as starring at the LP and smog domes that encapsulate most cities offers little for an active and enquiring mind.

Mark

[jjjnettie]

The Ring Nebula will take as much magnification as you want, I've found.

Video observing is the way to go if your eyesight isn't the best, no squinting through an ep.

You only need a small aperture scope on a goto alt azi mount, a comfy chair and some form of analog display, either a tv or a laptop.
If you feel like taking an image, just click on the capture button.
Tooooo easy.

[RobF]

I agree with so much of what you say here Mark. It was just a revelation for me how much I could do with a pollution filter and DSLR from the backyard.

However, me thinks Ron is also having a bit of a lend of us here - I know damn well he used to do quite a bit of film astroP in days gone by ;)

[ausastronomer]

Wasn't far out was I :)

Cheers,
John B

[sjastro]

Unfortunately as a scientist working with engineers meant being portrayed as mad as in the Dr Frankenstein mould.........

Regards

Steven

[astroron]

Your Avatar gives some support to the myth:P

[renormalised]

I'm afraid I have the dibs on that one...I've been called a mad scientist ever since I was a small kid:):)

[Suzy]

Whooaah! This thread certainly has been busy in the last 24 hours. You guys were doing my head in with the dark side! I see the light by the way, and I'm walking towards it... What I can't see, I'll imagine, or Google (or Look at Rob's pics, I seem to be stalking his web page regularly!). Thankyou for your views from the dark side though.. but I have much to learn, and I want to maintain visual astronomy. You'll do raise a very good point with being able to see so much more in suburbia. But, I just love the rush I get hugging my dob with my eye jammed into an eye piece feeling like I've just put my head into the window of space, nothing around me except for the pure darkness and wonders of space between my eye and eyepiece. And then whilst your being mesmerised at the wonders and endlessness of space, amongst the eerie strange noises coming from the bushes in the wee hours of the morning, a shooting star with immense speed blazes a trail straight across your eyepiece, and it makes you jump back and you realise how much more aware you are of every sound, as Earth seems so far away...

As for the filters, thank you all for your input. Gosh what an entertaining debate that turned out to be.

And poor Ron copped it by defending visual astronomy- and didn't that turn out into another debate. Sorry Ron!

And then the Planetary Nebs.. Thankyou all for your input. I'm excited that I have a list of what appears to be achievable thru my scope. If only the bad weather would buzz off. I bought a Vixen LVW, and there it has sat for the last week and all I can do is look at it and hold it. My Pentax XW has only seen one good run and I got that a month ago. *Sigh* (we need a "sigh" emoticon!) I think a lot of us here have been buying too much lately, judging by the busy for sale forum here! Stop buying everyone, so the weather can clear!

[jjjnettie]

Visual vs Imaging :poke:..... :fight:
To each their own I reckon.
We all started by looking through an eye piece.

So it was YOU that bought the rain this weekend. :rain: Bad girl.

[renormalised]

You can still observe visually using a GStar...just that you don't look through an eyepiece, but on a monitor:)

However, you have the luxury of running off some happy snaps if and when you like, without having to fiddle about putting a camera into your focuser:) It's already there:)

But it is nice to look through an eyepiece:)

[astroron]

Sit inside watch the Tely, go outside put a camera onto your Tely scope:rolleyes:
and watch the Tely:shrug::lol::lol::lol:

[sjastro]

Sorry for the bias but imaging wins hand down.:)

Here is an image of the planetary Bran A/B which is beyond visual
detection as its surface brightness is fainter than the sky glow from the darkest sites.

http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/bran147c.html

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

:P:P:P Bah Humbug!!!!:P:P:P

[astroron]

Two orange splogges in between a lot of white dots:rolleyes:
All as it's made you is a image processor, you never saw it either:P

[Suzy]

:lol::rofl::rofl: Good one Ron. :lol: Uhmmm... Sorry Steven, but that was a good comeback.

[jjjnettie]

:lol: Oh, you don't have to convince me Steven.

[sjastro]

And there lies the greater satisfaction of imaging and processing over observing, in being able to confirm the existence of an object that visually isn't there.

Regards

Steven

[astroron]

Long may you enjoy imaging splodges in the Night Sky:)
I will just admire the images you and others put up , and continue to enjoy my Observing:thumbsup:
Cheers

[renormalised]

And to add to what Steven has said, even if you could see it what would you see....a greyish blob (maybe with a bit of green in it if it was bright enough). How inspiring!!!:):P

[renormalised]

Surely the old eyes are tiring a bit...can't see as well as you used to...things sometimes look a bit blurry...have to squint at high powers...that's where a GStar and its ilk come into their own. You can still be a visual observer, just using a different method to mark 1 eyeball and ocular:):)

[jjjnettie]

I love my Gstar. :D

[renormalised]

So do I:):)

[astroron]

My observing accuety has not changed,:)
When people come out to Cambroon and I show them certain very faint objects , they say how the Heck can you see that:D
The day that I find I cannot do Deep Sky Observing, I will give it all away and go and put my Rocking Chair on the veranda and think of all the good night's observing I have done in the past and fade off into the night, never to be heard of in astronomy circles again:thumbsup:

[renormalised]

You're lucky, Ron. I have astigmatism and I can't look through ep's for too long before I end up with a roaring headache and sore eyes. I may need glasses to look at a screen, but having a camera I can view objects with is great.

Mind you, my long sight is still as keen as ever:)

[astro744]

I'm with you on this one astroron (that makes at least two of us). I like to observe at the limits of visibility and therein lies the satisfaction of visual observing over imaging, in being able to detect an object that isn't always seen by those with keen eyes and often missed by many.

I go for the really faint galaxies that are there one night and not the next or the one after but then appear brighter than before the following night. The only real diffence being sky brightness but I am yet to get myself one of those sky quality meters to quantify my results. These same galaxies are the ones that appear to some as an obvious smudge when seen yet others will see nothing until their observing skills are honed.

I'm not interested in detail or structure in the object, simply seeing the smudge is satisfaction enough and then I move onto the next object (usually always a galaxy). If I want detail and structure I go to the Hubble web site and do a search.

I'm also with the opinion that large aperture is still better in city lights than small aperture. I once saw the Ghost of Jupiter nebula in a 16" f5 and it was better under city lights than I had ever seen it through my own 6" or 10" under similar skies.

[Suzy]

Well said I say! :2thumbs:

On the flipside, I do appreciate the need for people with eye problems doing imaging. If I couldn't visually scope, I have to admit I would be going down the imaging road (sorry Ron!). I couldn't ever imagine not being able to capture the beauty of the night sky, and if my eyes fail me when I'm still fairly young (which many of us unfortunately suffer from), there is a choice thank goodness!

Having said that, I still believe visual observing is a first choice - as Astro 77 & Ron have said, it's all about the challenge, seeing things no one else can see, pushing your eyesight to its very limits.

That being said, we also own a debt of gratitude for the people that do image, so we the visual observers can see the detail that we don't get to.
I like to do my research on objects before I go looking for it, with the contribution of astro photography, it enables me to have an "awe" factor of what I'm seeing. Someone's got to do it(imaging).

But if there is nothing wrong with your eyes and you are not doing imaging for the purpose of contributing and there is no light pollution in your skies - I say what is wrong with you man!

[jjjnettie]

Be it with bare eyes, binoculars, a scope, through an eye piece or a camera.
I love Astronomy and will get out there and enjoy it any way I can.:)

[renormalised]

I like visual observing too and the challenges it produces but there's nothing as satisfying as being able to take a good happy snap of the object you're looking at and finding things your eyes could never hope to see...especially the colours.

Suzy, next time Jeanette, Paul, Ron and the guys have another shindig up there way, take a drive up to them, say hello and see if Jeanette has the GStar setup on one of her scopes. I think you'll be impressed with what you see and I think it'll convince you to get one yourself:):)

That is, if Ron doesn't superglue your head to the eyepiece of one of his dobs to prevent you from becoming a "heathen" imager!!!:):):P:P

[sjastro]

There are two types of astro-imagers.

There is imager who concentrates on objects that provides detail and structure, and produces a final image designed to maximize the wow factor. This is the most common form of imaging.

Then there is the astro-imager who is challenged by the extreme faintness of objects, where recording an image is much more important than any detail or structure.
This type of imager has a similiar objective with the visual observer struggling to identify faint galaxies in the field. The images are no more than faint smudges.

Here is an example. Until a few years ago the Carina Dwarf Galaxy would have been deemed near impossible to image using amateur equipment.

http://users.westconnect.com.au/~sjastro/carinadwf.html

Regards

Steven