Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar
Hi Jase. A magnificent image. I can see by your abridged processing comentary I still have a long way to go.
Pls keep helping us mere mortals, your assistance is truely valued.
Thanks for a wonderful image. You deserve a win.
|
Cheers Doug
More than happy to help out where I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Intersting, so if you had done another 2 frames to add to your current 2 frame mozaic using the FSQ would it still not be a wide field image?.. what about another 4, 5 or 6 frames resulting in a coverage of many square degrees of sky..still not a wide field? What if you had spent several months compiling many 10's of frames and did a mozaic of both the SMC and LMC in the one final image, still done with a "telescope" but certainly now a wide field image surely?  The FSQ is basically a 500mm telephoto lens too huh?
Hmm?..seems it is hard to cover all scenarios/deffinitions in imaging contests?
I think John and David will place it where they see fit regardless of which category you have ticked on the entry form anyway so it doesn't really matter in the end.
Cracker of an image 
Mike |
Mike,
Yes, but as you suggest, the same rule would apply if I had of done a 20 frame mosaic with a longer focal length instrument (say 1200mm) delivering a wide FoV. Would you also place such an image into the wide field category? You can only be guided by the categories they have provided. There is no clarity on what defines wide field other than a camera shot (indicating work with a lens if you want to read into it). You’re right the FSQ is just a 500mm telephoto lens, but if you take this simplistic approach so is any APO telescope regardless of FL – its just a glorified camera lens. So where do you draw the line huh?
As suggested, I think the categories need to be well defined based on focal length (though we’ll end up having this same mosaic discussion again) or sky coverage in degrees for example. I think regardless of the definition, you’ll always have overlap. Still if you ask me, I’d still say the FSQ is a telescope and as such DeepSky category is still plausible. I don’t mind if John and/or David place it elsewhere (they have the final say), actually I hope they do as this will provide the guidance for years to come. I didn’t get to finish my 9 frame Eta mosaic this year, it’s on the cards for next if I don’t get distracted. Thanks again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescope
 and again ...... so many stars ...... the image just glows.
The subtle detail is amazing Jase. Well done indeed !
|
Thanks Steve.
The luminance contained 15min subs which really brought out the galaxy extension.