Quote:
Originally Posted by marki
Sorry Marc I cannot agree. The C11 will always pull in more light than a 80mm apo and also has a greater capacity to resolve. It stands to reason 40 mins of data is going to provide a brighter image.
|
Yes, Mark, I agree - the C11 pulls more light in than the 80mm. Yes it has a greater resolving power. Yes the image is brighter as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marki
The image I have posted is pretty much as is, stacked with noise filter run over it. You have been far more aggressive in your processing.
|
No at all- Actually,
no noise reduction or deconvolution was applied to this image which consist of approx. 15 subs of 120s. Just stacking and STD sigma reject. It was taken under very dark skies. I had enough signal to overwhelm any noise, but brightness is not the point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marki
FYI my image scale is 2.3 arcsec/pix and obviously I cropped the image as it was taken before I got a flattener. My point being that with the QHY8 on the back of my little apo with similar exposure time the detail and smoothness was far less then the 9.
|
With an image scale of 2.3asp vs. 3.1asp on my shot you should have room to get finer details than the shot I posted. The shot I've posted has a similar or very close screen resolution (dpi) as the shot you've posted.
Not criticising any of your shots guys, don't take me wrong.
I'm advocating the use of an OSC here and trying to show it stands on par with a similar size chip mono sensor.
My reasoning is based on image scale and details extracted within the same image scale.