Three Images in one night!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by RB

Now that deserves one great big Greek "opa" !



RB

Geiá sou!

Originally Posted by LewisM

Good stuff indeed, and I agree with the others.

M20 though... looks like something I'd do (maybe not even that good)

He he cheers Lewi

Geee, that bad huh?...gulp

Seriously though...the conditions were rubbish buuut I needed a fix

At least it is better than this recent APOD

Mike

[Elio]

Great result in that conditions, I know you are capable to make it better

Looking that APOD-M20... your could be selected for APOY

[Rod771 (Rod)]

I think they're pretty darn good. Especially the Ghost of Jupiter image, that's a cracker!

We gotta deal with what mother nature dishes up. I think if we held out for a cloudless night with no moon and perfect seeing (and not a school night ), the withdrawals would be insufferable.

Nice work Mike! Glad you got your fix

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Elio

Great result in that conditions, I know you are capable to make it better

Looking that APOD-M20... your could be selected for APOY

He he, "Image of the Year 1995" yeah baby

Originally Posted by Rod771

I think they're pretty darn good. Especially the Ghost of Jupiter image, that's a cracker!

Cheers big ears, I was happy with that one

We gotta deal with what mother nature dishes up. I think if we held out for a cloudless night with no moon and perfect seeing (and not a school night ), the withdrawals would be insufferable.

Eeeexactly aaaand I have always had no problem posting less than perfect images (I have a few ) I know the good ones inevitably come along

Nice work Mike! Glad you got your fix

Me too

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Just reworked the Jewel Box to bring back some of the star sparkle and improve the contrast just a tad, the cluster stars in the first version were a bit flat and I've added a 100% close up crop too, to peer deep into the cluster

Jewel Box

100% crop

It really is a gem

Mike

[RickS (Rick)]

Two out of three ain't bad, Mikey The Ghost is my pick but the Jewel Box is very nice too. M 20 isn't that terrible either. Both jets are clearly visible so better than a lot I've seen...

Cheers,
Rick.

[LewisM]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Geiá sou!



He he cheers Lewi

Geee, that bad huh?...gulp

Seriously though...the conditions were rubbish buuut I needed a fix

At least it is better than this recent APOD

Mike

That APOD is 1995, so lets not get too judgmental ;-)

Still, like I said, your M20 is better than my confuddled bat guano B-)

[alistairsam]

Got to love that F3.8.
Sweet results Mike, only issue I could find, and I had to look ..

typo - "Guide Camera: Starlightxpress Loadstar "



you seem to favour the SX694 a lot more than the big 16803. How do you think it would've turned out with the FLI? just curious...

Cheers
Alistair

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by RickS

Two out of three ain't bad, Mikey The Ghost is my pick but the Jewel Box is very nice too. M 20 isn't that terrible either. Both jets are clearly visible so better than a lot I've seen...

Cheers,
Rick.

cheers Ricki, you're just being kind

Yes the Ghost came out nice I think

Originally Posted by LewisM

That APOD is 1995, so lets not get too judgmental ;-)

Still, like I said, your M20 is better than my confuddled bat guano B-)

Hey even for 1995 it is still rather crap, imagine going back in time with our gear now and submitting

Originally Posted by alistairsam

Got to love that F3.8.
Sweet results Mike, only issue I could find, and I had to look ..

typo - "Guide Camera: Starlightxpress Loadstar "



you seem to favour the SX694 a lot more than the big 16803. How do you think it would've turned out with the FLI? just curious...

Cheers
Alistair

Sorry..what';s wrong with that?

As for the ProLine16803, well, the field of view would have been MUCH bigger that's for sure has twice as big pixels compared to the SX ...it will be coming back when I eventually get a longer FL well corrected instrument ...or if that takes too long I may well put it back on the AG12 but I will need to get a MMOAG fitted

Mike

[cometcatcher (Kevin)]

The thing is Mike, you got the best images possible under poor seeing and moonlight. For that you get nothing short of 10 out of 10. That skill is needed for comet hunting. Comets don't wait for ideal conditions, we often have to image them under moonlight, low altitude, bad weather, twilight, poor seeing, the works. This is why you need to join us comet hunters. You would be great at it!

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by cometcatcher

The thing is Mike, you got the best images possible under poor seeing and moonlight. For that you get nothing short of 10 out of 10. That skill is needed for comet hunting. Comets don't wait for ideal conditions, we often have to image them under moonlight, low altitude, bad weather, twilight, poor seeing, the works. This is why you need to join us comet hunters. You would be great at it!

Cheers I'll think about it, thanks for the support

Mike

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

New improved Trifid processsing

[alistairsam]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Sorry..what';s wrong with that?

Mike

Loadstar -> Lodestar

The new improved trifid looks great. A lot of us would be chuffed with that.

cheers
Alistair

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by alistairsam

Loadstar -> Lodestar

The new improved trifid looks great. A lot of us would be chuffed with that.

cheers
Alistair

Ahhh didnt evun realize theer wos a diffrunt speling

[marco (Marco Lorenzi)]

A very nice collection of images Mike, my preferred one is the jewel box. The Ghost of Jupiter looks very detailed (now you should try to go deeper to show the external halos) and the Trifid needs much longer exposure but, hei, with those weather conditions is already a great catch

Ciao
Marco

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by marco

A very nice collection of images Mike, my preferred one is the jewel box. The Ghost of Jupiter looks very detailed (now you should try to go deeper to show the external halos) and the Trifid needs much longer exposure but, hei, with those weather conditions is already a great catch

Ciao
Marco

Cheers Marco...just about to build the new observatory so imaging may be interrupted

Mike

[David Fitz-Henr]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Cheers Dave, I guess the 12" and F3.8 helps to be able to gather enough image density to get three images in a night...and they are bright objects too of course.
Mike

Actually, this raises an interesting point in that angular pixel size also needs to be factored in when talking about f-ratio speed when imaging. How do we compare your system at f/3.8 and an angular pixel size of 0.84 arc seconds per pixel with say mine (at f/4.8 and an angular pixel size of 1.22 arc secs per pixel).
The following formula could be used to better represent an effective "f-ratio" that can be compared (at least for extended objects such as nebulae):
New f-ratio = Optical f-ratio / (arc-secs per pixel), so:
Mike's System Effective "f-ratio" = 3.8 / 0.84 = 4.5
My system's Effective "f-ratio" = 4.8 / 1.22 = 3.9

which makes your system effectively slower than mine! (so you did a better job with lesser (what's the opposite of mega - mini?) data than you thought )

Of course, to more fully compare different systems (in general terms at least) you need to consider other factors such as quantum efficiency, camera noise, etc ...


Post edit: Actually, I just realised this only works comparing equal apertures ... I'll have to rethink something for different apertures ... probably should just be aperture x (arc-secs / pixel) ...

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by David Fitz-Henr

Actually, this raises an interesting point in that angular pixel size also needs to be factored in when talking about f-ratio speed when imaging. How do we compare your system at f/3.8 and an angular pixel size of 0.84 arc seconds per pixel with say mine (at f/4.8 and an angular pixel size of 1.22 arc secs per pixel).
The following formula could be used to better represent an effective "f-ratio" that can be compared (at least for extended objects such as nebulae):
New f-ratio = Optical f-ratio / (arc-secs per pixel), so:
Mike's System Effective "f-ratio" = 3.8 / 0.84 = 4.5
My system's Effective "f-ratio" = 4.8 / 1.22 = 3.9

which makes your system effectively slower than mine! (so you did a better job with lesser (what's the opposite of mega - mini?) data than you thought )

Of course, to more fully compare different systems (in general terms at least) you need to consider other factors such as quantum efficiency, camera noise, etc ...


Post edit: Actually, I just realised this only works comparing equal apertures ... I'll have to rethink something for different apertures ... probably should just be aperture x (arc-secs / pixel) ...

Hmmmm? So you are saying because the pixels are wider they are collecting more flux or photons per unit time directly proportional to the F ratio? Seems too simplified to me ...Ray?

Mike

[Elio]

Originally Posted by David Fitz-Henr

...
The following formula could be used to better represent an effective "f-ratio" that can be compared (at least for extended objects such as nebulae):
New f-ratio = Optical f-ratio / (arc-secs per pixel), so:
Mike's System Effective "f-ratio" = 3.8 / 0.84 = 4.5
My system's Effective "f-ratio" = 4.8 / 1.22 = 3.9

which makes your system effectively slower than mine! (so you did a better job with lesser (what's the opposite of mega - mini?) data than you thought )
...

I think you should consider the T-Stop also, and much other details as you said...

I don't trust that big pixels lower the f/ratio in this way, sure you lost details in good seeing condition, dont'you

[David Fitz-Henr]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Hmmmm? So you are saying because the pixels are wider they are collecting more flux or photons per unit time directly proportional to the F ratio? Seems too simplified to me ...Ray?

Mike

Originally Posted by Elio

I think you should consider the T-Stop also, and much other details as you said...

I don't trust that big pixels lower the f/ratio in this way, sure you lost details in good seeing condition, dont'you

What I was trying to say was that pixel size is just as important as f-ratio in determining the speed of a system. So, given the same quantum efficiency / camera noise / optical transmission / etc (I know, I know, they're all important too) that, for instance, a 12" f/4 system with 5 micron pixels is the same as a 12" f/8 system with 10 micron pixels, so just talking about f-ratio can be quite misleading.