Horsehead with a 60mm Telescope

[ausastronomer (John Bambury)]

Hi all,

As you probably know I am not an imager at all but a good friend of mine in the USA (Kevin Dixon) regularly sends me some of his new work for comment on.

I am attaching a link to Kevin's latest image of the Horsehead taken with a 60mm Tak refractor to show what can be done with a small telescope.

http://www.kevindixon.westhost.com/H...NBI-FS-60C.htm

CS-John Bambury

[iceman (Mike)]

Just stunning.

That's some serious equipment used there too.

[ving (David)]

who said an 80mm/f5 was the min for astro pic!!

brilliant!

[Striker (Tony)]

Very nice image...whats mapped colour mean...would have been intersted to see in true colour...great detail though.

[Itchy]

Originally Posted by ving

who said an 80mm/f5 was the min for astro pic!!

brilliant!

Only if its not a TAK! and I agree: Brilliant

Cheers

[mickoking]

A few years ago I was looking into buying a 60mm Tak, after seeing that photo I might have to look again.

[johnno]

I Agree,
Stunning,
Thanks for the link John.

Regards.
John

[Rodstar (Rod)]

After 20.5 hours of imaging, you'd want it to be ****** spectacular! That is a quite extraordinary result.

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Jaw dropping.

[asimov (John)]

Thanks for posting!

[Itchy]

Originally Posted by Striker

Very nice image...whats mapped colour mean...would have been intersted to see in true colour...great detail though.

Hi Tony

Mapped colour refers to a false colour image. These images have been taken using narrow band filters (usually Ha, OIII, and Sulpher (I think). The Ha is "mapped" to the green channel, OIII to Blue and Sulpher to Red (from memory, so I may be wrong). If I have is correct, they call this the "Hubble Palette" as many hubble images use this same false colour mapping.

cheers

[Thiink]

If you were forced to own a 60mm refractor, you wouldnt have to look much further than a Tak! That picture is awesome.

I wonder if my little 60mm DSE could produce similar results? Ving your mission is to attach your wobbletronic to the new mount and attempt the Horsehead.

[DRCORTEX (Lance)]

Beautifull - but I can't see me nudging my dob around the sky for so long. I think I'd probably do a better job for myself using crayons.


I'll leave the astrophotography to pro's like this guy for now.

Regards,

Lance

[avandonk]

It is very simple folks, take pictures at a delta of 8nm at H alpha wavelength and your signal to noise is unbeatable even when the Moon is full. Repeat for OIII and H -beta and then generate a false colour image. Lovely pictures and they are just as relevant as 'full' colour astrophotographs as colour does not exist, astrophotographs should convey information and as long as the filters and or wavelength ranges are quoted it is just as real.

Bert

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

You could even map the filtered exposures to their actual colours and get a fairly accurate coloured representation of the object. Nothing wrong with filters. The world with my sunglasses on is just as real as the world without them when I'm half-blinded by the Sun and cannot see it very well.

[avandonk]

Human 'colour' vision is just the ratio of the relevant wavelengths as seen by the three receptors in our eyes at high light levels. Low light vision relies on a totally different system and is perceived as black and white.


Colour is not an inherent property of any light frequency. Colour does not exist.
The fact that you exist is because one of your ancestors could see the predatory animal/human in time to save him or herself. Perceived colour gives added contrast and detail so adding hopefully to survival.

Bert