Quote:
Originally Posted by Hagar
I really can't see much diference between these two images...... The second one has a hot pixel...... That is how hard it is to pick a diference. Background brightness makes the two images appear diferent but that is about it. At best the second image has a little more contrast between stars with the bright stars standing out better against the star field.
Now tell us which one is which.
|
Hi Doug, the one with Bratislav in the name is his, the one with my name in the name is mine, I suppose I could have been very cunning and swapped them, but I didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bratislav
Just one note - Stuart used the adaptive optics (I don't know at what guide rate). Mine was guided via separate scope at 0.5 Hz. The sub is pure raw, no dark/flat/bias applied and no sharpening of any kind - straight out of the camera.
|
From my very poor memory, I think that I was using something about 1-2Hz, there aren't many good guide stars in the region, so I may have also been in the 0.5Hz region as well, I should write this stuff down somewhere. The background difference may due to the fact that your sub is not calibrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by multiweb
Altough those pictures are very close you can see the RC has rounder stars and better overall field off axis. In this particular case.  |
That could be the influence of the AOL. I also had to crop off the outer bits of Bratislav's picture to match my FOV, so we should be getting the central, best part of the illuminated circle.
Cheers
Stuart