Looking good so far Colin, just need more data (same old story, right? You can never have too much data).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Still not sure why but the G/B had FWHM of 3.8" while 10 minutes later I was getting FWHM of 2.4" in Ha to the East. Still not sure whether it was local seeing towards the south or HORRIBLE tracking. Had to blur the R channel from 2.5" to 3.8".
|
I'd be guessing tracking issues, potentially balance related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
I didn't think it was going to be overly difficult being Mag ~9.5 or something. Picked it because it was large  |
I never really trust anything referring to the brightness of a DSO, especially when it's just a mag that's provided. Admittedly, this could be due to ignorance, but I've found many times that objects which should be similar in brightness are
very difference, and this is going off surface brightness, not magnitude, which should theoretically be a better measure. Not sure why that is.
I found this galaxy reasonably difficult, partly because of the density of stars... I wasn't able to process it to a point that I was happy with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Thanks Russell. I would definitely wait for a dark site trip, the difference I have noticed from taking it at Heathcote with the moon around and down in Melbourne was staggering.
|
Out of curiosity, how does your dark site on a full moon compare to Melbourne? I've always wondering if, having fairly dark skies, my full moon nights could be no worse than a suburban non-full-moon.