Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffkop
Wish I knew more about this whole subject to provide you another objective point of view from the technical aspect ... So all I can say is .. "AWESOME IMAGE" .. and I dont care from where it all came from OR that I cant at this stage offer any more comment than that.
If I can log into my "local" astro-forum and view an obviously very professional quality picture then more's my luck !!!
My experience at IceInSpace is enriched by the visual plethora presented in all its forms and my knowledge base is extended by the forum members.
Keep'em coming Jase
|
Thanks Jeff. No need for technical critic - the image is what it is. Pleased you liked it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Jase...clearly a great image. But to be frank, (you can take it ) not as good as I would have expected from a 24” RC in pristine skies with a back illuminated CCD. (hey.. I image from crap skies with a similar, albeit smaller...50% smaller... back illuminated rig, so feel just a little qualified to comment thusly....)
I suspect the decision to bin the data 2x2 for extra signal gain, while still giving good sampling also did not allow significant oversampling: with a view to heavier de-convolution...i.e. an image with a little more “snap”
But I have to ask..why narrow band? RGB gives such cool colours within the Helix. A personal choice to be sure, but unless you want to make a science statement, natural beauty sometimes suffices.
None the less... the result is clearly in the imaging stratosphere. Your image processing is excellent. |
Cheers Peter.
So the 24" RC with back illuminated CCD and dark skies is not as good as you expected eh?...Did you give any thought as to where the Helix is from Rodeo, New Mexico? I should add that it crosses the meridian at 40 degrees. Enough said. I'm collecting data for another target which I feel will show its capabilities - just waiting for the monsoon season to finish before I complete the data acquisition.
At 1x1, .57 arcsecs, the data is indeed oversampled and would need some heavy deconv work. 2x2 delivered what I believe better sampling considering the target. Why not narrowband? I think narrow fields go well with narrowband. Thanks again for your comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroJunk
Very nice Jase,
I don't often browse here, but I'm glad I did!!!
Remote imaging is the future of amateur astronomy - we are finally getting access to the instruments we deserve, and using them we can drive forward 'the science' en masse.
For me, it matters not who owns/sets up the equipment - the skill is in the photography. But don't get me wrong, if you are using the best, then it has to be a damn good image
Keep it up ! |
Thanks AstroJunk. Couldn't agree more with your note on remote imaging. It will progressively become the new world order as our suburban skies get brighter and brighter. Thanks for checking the image out - pleased you liked it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
I don't need to expand my mind at all but thanks for the suggestion 
Why would you buy time on a 6" APO when you have a $500,000 24" robotic RC at your disposal???
Hey, by the way, I am going to access the UK Schmidt (I have the money and the contacts now) to gather some data on some faint Cirrus around the SCP, I should be able to produce a really nice amateur image with this equipment too...  
Mike |
Simply, different targets require different instruments. The 24" RC is great for deep space work, but if I wanted to use it to image the pelican nebula, I'd need to perform a mosaic. Clearly, it comes back to what you are trying to achieve with the equipment and target combination. I've bought time on a remotely controlled FSQ before (and I actually own one, so go figure), so I can't see why I wouldn't want access to a 6" APO to nail some targets. Look forward to seeing your faint Cirrus post here.
