I'm home sick with the flu... but that doesn't mean I can't continue to tinker....
Armed with tissues and strepsils I was trawling the net and came across Hubbles famous "Pillars of Creation" image and wondered how a wide field image of mine done a few years ago with my Starlightxpress camera and the 6" Starfire would stack up...after a serious narrow field zoom in
It's a top shot for sure Mike. Even more amazing when you think about how many light years those photons have travelled just to hit your ccd sensor.
This post has me reminiscing. Remember the comparison photos that Irwin once posted, one of his Mars images and a Hubble one? Extraordinary. Makes one wonder what he would be producing with today's technology.
(sorry to hijack this thread btw)
Not a bad comparison Mike. Shows you are not that far away from the wonders exposed by hubble and considering hubble doesn't have an atmosphere and all the problems and abhorations it creates your version is really good. Consider what you might achieve with a longer and narrower focal length scope. The wide field is still a much more pleasing image in my opinion.
Here's a story with a message for you Mr Sidonio. A couple of years ago after dusting off the old 60mm tasco and revisiting the universe after 10 years or so, I grabbed a copy of S&T,flicked it open, and there it was... The "eye of god" Helix nebula by Mike Sidonio.I stood there for several minutes totally mesmorized by what I was looking at ,its beauty and wonder just blew me away! Anyway, the newsagent guy reminds me I,m not in a waitingroom,so I buy the mag and go home.The rest of the mag is also fantastic, but that first foray back to the darkside,via your incredible image rekindled a love of the sky I had truely missed. This image also screams of "going there",but I for one would like to see heaps of new stuff from you ,so get well and MAKE some time! cheers and headsup
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 )
Here's a story with a message for you Mr Sidonio. A couple of years ago after dusting off the old 60mm tasco and revisiting the universe after 10 years or so, I grabbed a copy of S&T,flicked it open, and there it was... The "eye of god" Helix nebula by Mike Sidonio.I stood there for several minutes totally mesmorized by what I was looking at ,its beauty and wonder just blew me away! Anyway, the newsagent guy reminds me I,m not in a waitingroom,so I buy the mag and go home.The rest of the mag is also fantastic, but that first foray back to the darkside,via your incredible image rekindled a love of the sky I had truely missed. This image also screams of "going there",but I for one would like to see heaps of new stuff from you ,so get well and MAKE some time! cheers and headsup
Wow, cool story Darrell, glad to have helped ya back into it
I know, I have been pretty slow this year...only 5 images taken so far ...combination of things, mostly due to weather and without an observatory in my backyard (or one at all!) it is the degree of fuss necessary to actually get out and image that is to blame
And for old times sake, here is that "Eye of God" shot
I remember the evening I grabbed the 2 hrs of Ha data for that too, it dropped to -7degC at Mt Campbell Observatory and I was setup outside in the open, not inside the observatory, at the finish everything, and I mean everything - computer, my chair, table the scope mount etc was coverd in ice
Mike
Nice pic there Mike, but Green?, Purple?, nah, Blue .
Blue on a cheapo SCT and wobbly mount, not flash, but wait till I get the new AO set up cranked up ,
Ah see? Told ya Fred, a long FL is just cutting down on the lovely expanse or sky you could be getting aaaand with no net gain in detail
Love your colours, narrow band is certainly the way to go to sharpen up the details, the AO might add a bit too..? Look forward to seeing your "taken through a stabilised dunny roll" images
As you're not well Mike, I think I'll let you get away with such a repro/comparison activity - under any other circumstances, I'd probably hang it on ya!
After all, being sick and not going to work provides a great opportunity to collecting data, especially considering you've got narrowband filters...so arr what moon? Don't tell me you're still watching the guide star like a hawk during your data acquisition. Go back inside man. Put you're feet up for a while and keep warm.
This is a nice comparison - I like it, however at times I see it as doing disservice to your work. Your image has a warm fuzzy feeling no matter which way you look at it. You'd be better off making a comparison with a ground based instrument IMO. Each to their own. I've only ever made one comparison to a Hubble image and I've sworn, I'd never do it again, how does one make a fair comparison? Yes, you've proven that Roland makes fine refractors, but I could have drawn that conclusion simply looking at one of your other images!
Hope to see some new images from you soon. The remedy to flu like symptoms is a good dose of photons.
As you're not well Mike, I think I'll let you get away with such a repro/comparison activity - under any other circumstances, I'd probably hang it on ya!
After all, being sick and not going to work provides a great opportunity to collecting data, especially considering you've got narrowband filters...so arr what moon? Don't tell me you're still watching the guide star like a hawk during your data acquisition. Go back inside man. Put you're feet up for a while and keep warm.
This is a nice comparison - I like it, however at times I see it as doing disservice to your work. Your image has a warm fuzzy feeling no matter which way you look at it. You'd be better off making a comparison with a ground based instrument IMO. Each to their own. I've only ever made one comparison to a Hubble image and I've sworn, I'd never do it again, how does one make a fair comparison? Yes, you've proven that Roland makes fine refractors, but I could have drawn that conclusion simply looking at one of your other images!
Hope to see some new images from you soon. The remedy to flu like symptoms is a good dose of photons.
Cheers
No complicated agenda here jase, I'm not deluded into thinking my images are as good as Hubble shots far from it but I actually find making these comparisons results in noticing the finer details in my image. In the big scheme of things, yes, compared to Hubble shots my image looks very ordinary but as I've said before I don't "present" my images in a grandios fashion, I just do what I do, sometiems they are quite good sometimes they are average, sometimes they are B&W sometimes they are crops and if making a lighthearted comparison with a HST shot tickles my fancy, hey I do it ...I do try to do good work but I am not a total perfectionist. I probably have a broader base for what I find appealing or interesting in an image compared to you..? I don't mean that in a derogatory way either, I am just a bit more of an imaging mungrel than you .
If I actually had a backyard, light pollution or not, yes I would be doing exactly as you suggest but alas I canna see tha stars from here me hearty
Why do the stars in these images not match?
Some do, but then there are lots that don't.
Hi Simon
I have used different filters to Hubble, Hubble uses narrowband filters so some stars may be bright through RGB filters but nearly invisible through a narrowband filter. The stars in Hubble shots can be tiny too if they are faint and wouldn't show up in such a low res presentation, at the original full raw processed size they are probably more noticable.
but that doesn't mean I can't continue to tinker....
.
)
,
...I do try to do good work but I am not a total perfectionist. I probably have a broader base for what I find appealing or interesting in an image compared to you..? I don't mean that in a derogatory way either, I am just a bit more of an imaging mungrel than you 
