Hmmm, I see what you mean now, sorry, I scrolled down and found the reference....
Not sure what it is, this was taken in March 2013 and it definitely looks starlike, I havent processed this in anything like CS5 or Startools with any sort of clone brush or anything, so perhaps it is a variable star in the "blob" of the baby's rattle?
I revisited the data I took in March when I realised it was NGC2438 and did a quick and dirty curves on it, so whatever it is, could be as it was captured.......
spooky, maybe it IS a variable star causing the proto planetary you so eloquently captured....
On a side note, geez my stars suck, I really must try harder...
Fantastic detail in NGC 2438 Mike. Makes it look a bit like the Eskimo. A couple of years ago I found another brighter planetary on the outskirts of the cluster, well outside the field of your shot. Image here
Looks like M46 is planetary central.
Fantastic detail in NGC 2438 Mike. Makes it look a bit like the Eskimo. A couple of years ago I found another brighter planetary on the outskirts of the cluster, well outside the field of your shot. Image here
Looks like M46 is planetary central.
Yes I was aware of this but as you say outside teh FOV but I hadn't realised the Calabash Nebula was the faint thing I had picked up (but nearly smudged out )...now I do
Excellent Mike. Lots of detail visible in such a small object, well done.
Steve
Hey cheers Steve, yes I was happy with that aspect too. At F3.8 I am working at just 1120mm FL so seeing and guiding are critical to take advantage of the small pixels in the SX camera (image scale: 0.83"/pix) and thus get high resolution results and although I have had better seeing the OAG guiding was very good for this data Except perhaps in really good seeing (which is very rare across most of OZ) I seem to be able to simulate results of a much longer FL scope and I guess that was the whole reason for going down the Starlightxpress route in the first place ...not that I wouldn't like to upgrade to a slightly larger compound scope in the near future too...and stop just simulating
Hey Mike, for NGC 2438, why exposure times were you using, and what camera?
Cheers.
Erik
Hmmm? Ah huh! who didn't read the image credits then huh?? All the details are under each image ...oh but not my my actual sub lengths ...which were 10min for Ha and OIII and 5min for RGB
Your "simulating" looks pretty "real". Would something like a 2x Powermate work in your system?
Ross.
Cheers Ross and yes I have thought of that, obviously can't use the Wynn corrector then but since my chip is relatively small the aberrations may be acceptable...?
Hmmm? Ah huh! who didn't read the image credits then huh?? All the details are under each image ...oh but not my my actual sub lengths ...which were 10min for Ha and OIII and 5min for RGB
Mike
Thanks Mike I must be going blind, or I'm skim reading! Or I just looked at the pretty picture and didn't read the text
That's a great capture Mike; stars are all round with good colour and you've captured some faint stuff in the planetaries as well
I'm not sure about adding a 2x powermate though; at 0.84" per pixel you've probably captured all the detail that the seeing will allow!
That's a great capture Mike; stars are all round with good colour and you've captured some faint stuff in the planetaries as well
I'm not sure about adding a 2x powermate though; at 0.84" per pixel you've probably captured all the detail that the seeing will allow!
Cheers Dave, 12" at F3.8 certainly picks up stuff fast, so 11hrs through her is mega data through say a 4" at F7.5 ...and yes I considered that about the image scale but I guess extreme imaging is...extreme imaging (just ask Fred) ...probably won't be doing it any time soon though
ya spaz! 
)...now I do 
All the details are under each image 
...oh but not my my actual sub lengths 
