T'is the season...

[LewisM]

...for M42 :P

Took the data I collected the other night, threw out the ONE shot that seems to have caused the "soft" focus look to the stack (slight motion, not blur), restacked. MUCH happier with this result!!!

Tried layering a good core shot, but it looked fake, so rejected that idea. I LOVE how this Vixen splits those close doubles so finely and distinctly (not visible in the original stack) - the wonders of fluorite and a precision made scope :) Next time, I will use my Hotech field flattener, as there is some distortion near the edges as expected.

Now to keep adding to this one. I want the full dust cloud, not just the whispy bits there now...

Better resolution: http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/6375/m42redux.png

[jjjnettie]

:) Very nice work

[LewisM]

Thanks JJJ.

Pretty happy myself for only now 20 minutes worth of subs! :) I also simplified my workflow ENORMOUSLY, and now it just rolls off the press so to speak. SO few fiddling steps no - I put that down to a superb telescope, a wonderful mount (I got lucky with my NEQ6 I think!) and a great camera. Starting to think of NOT going CCD!!!

Add in 10 more darks, flats and bias and at least a full 2 hours of data, and it will really stand out and SMOOTH out.

[rolls05]

Beautiful. May I ask if both the 80mm and the 102mm give roughly the same fov.? I mean would they both look about the same in the frame as it were.Or would the 80mm look more widefield. I think I said that right. Just that I'm still thinking which one,you know?

[LewisM]

I owned an ED80 until 2 days ago. GREAT little scope, but if you do any visual, you will be disappointed (whilst sharp, the images with all but high magnification are SMALL)/Nice wide FOV with it, but small image.

It has been said that 102mm is a "sweet spot" for refractors. I tend to vehemently AGREE, having owned both much larger and smaller refractors. I think anything above 102mm, you go reflector/cassegrain, andyhting below is pure refractor. I also owned a 100mm Skywatcher, and whist reasonably good, it was not QUITE right.

It was a LONG and expensive road arriving at my final telescope choices - Vixen FL102S refractor (no longer produced, now a highly sought after classic) and a Vixen R200SS f/4 astrograph reflector (more than 20 years old, and no sign of ANY mirror deterioration whatsoever).

I am still getting used to the R200SS. It is finicky in the extreme, but the images are superb - it is my dedicated wide field and FAINT platform, whereas the refractor is DSO, planetary and visual.

[MrB]

Very nice Lewis, tho the background appears to have a red cast on my monitor?
BTW, the linked version is the same resolution.

[LewisM]

Simon,

Yeah, red cast on my desktop comp too - GRRR. I will re-do my laptop calibration.

BTW, focuser posted. I will need to rethink my "postage included" for things west of Vic from now on. OUCH Australia Post!

[ourkind]

That's your best yet Lewis, very nice resolution, now you have me rethinking my scope collection. Though I wish you'd post a larger version. :sadeyes:

[LewisM]

I wish I knew how without killing the resolution!

Anyway, blame Simon - I went and redid it, AGAIN, and did change the core to show the Trapezium - hopefully, it looks passable. I love the way the dust popped this time!

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/638/m42redux2.png

Make sure the link image is at FULL size, otherwise it looks out of focus :)

[MrB]

Background is much better, seems to have brought out a little more nebulosity around the running man too.



It wouldn't fit in a 3kg padded express bag? Last time I got one of those it was ~$13.
I wish Ron would get his website up again, I need to order an adapter for it now :(

[DJT]

Great image there. Lots of fun watching someone get to grips with a new scope. Happy imaging!

[jjjnettie]

You know there is a lot more data in that image than what you see at first glance.
I hope you don't mind....but.... I had a little play around with it in Photoshop, stretching it further in Curves and Shadows and Highlights.
add more subs into the mix will help to make it more silky smooth.

[LewisM]

Oh I know JJJ, but I decided to leave the peripheral out until I get MORE data, because, as it is, it looks pixelated. The png at the link is BETTER - less pixelation (loss-less format), compared to the directly posted jpeg above.

So, for now, I stretched it as far as the smoothing would allow. Plus, stretching it further reveals the darned paint flecks that fell on the sensor from the old ED100 (now cleaned off, CAREFULLY)

Extrapolate my data ALL you like, PLEASE! We can all learn from it.