T'was just a bit of playing around with a runny nose
The Hubble shot is several degrees of magnitude better of course but I like doing these comparisons because it tends to make you notice details in your image that you would otherwise have glossed over.
I know Doug, 1140mm FL is pretty short but considering this, the detail is still quite satisfying and probably still holds its own even with that revealed in many much longer FL shots probably?
Humi-ve (U'll be back)
, The stars haven't moved, it's the narrow band filters Hubble used, some stars are invisible while others are enhanced, my version is basically a visible light image. The star images in Hubble's version are well...100% diffraction limited too so can appear as very tiny dots at this image display res.
Oh well...hmmm? what else can I tinker with? (Oh O, I hear the groans...ah too bad
)
Mike