Galaxy in the deep south - now with Hubble comparison :-P - Page 3

strongmanmike (Michael) · #41 09-09-2016, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Placidus

Yes I can see those two. So nice to see that you got the same answer as the "answer in the back of the book", not just for the two galaxies but for many other features.

Yeah that's why I like doing these comparisons, many small and/or faint often non descript features we might pick up in our data can be clearly identified in Hubble data.

Mike

Atmos (Colin) · #42 09-09-2016, 11:15 AM

That's why I like to compare my results against other images, good way to check whether I've got some bad flats, so long as their flats are good too

multiweb (Marc) · #43 09-09-2016, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Cheers Mark but nah, FL for FL sake is an essentially foundless belief that bounds you to the drudgery of mega data because of the generally associated slooow focal ratio involved, seems almost a matra for some though

sigh...just no tellin some

. For genuine improved resolution it is image scale that you need and that can be supplied without an increase in focal length

....of course above all it is the seeing that needs to be good (and the optics), without good seeing, hey, then a 20" will not out perform a 12" at the same image scale, as far as real detail and resolution goes (not perceived resolution and detail - they are different) ...anyway that's my theory and I'm sticking to it...until I get my own LF scope one day of course, then it will become my mantra too

Mike

Agreed about aperture but if you stick a barlow in there you'll still have a little more pixel to play with per second of arc. Easier to process and abuse with deconv IMHO. BTW you should jump on that old Q in the classified. You won't look back.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #44 09-09-2016, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by multiweb

Agreed about aperture but if you stick a barlow in there you'll still have a little more pixel to play with per second of arc. Easier to process and abuse with deconv IMHO. BTW you should jump on that old Q in the classified. You won't look back.

Yeah probably but 0.42"/pix (2X barlow) is getting pretty over sampled but not a bad idea to try...just can't be bothered reconfiguring everything...which I think I've banged on about before too

lazy...

Yes saw that N Q and while tempting I don't have the dosh just yet unfortunately and the latest Q is shorter and takes the 645 reducer which is the only one that will cover my 16803 chip.

Mike

Slawomir (Suavi) · #45 09-09-2016, 05:05 PM

Pretty cool comparison Mike. Quite striking how stars get enlarged by the atmosphere, as opposed to crispy pinpoint stars in the Hubble image. As for overall detail, I reckon a few extra hours of exposure and you would be able to close the gap even further

gregbradley · #46 09-09-2016, 06:08 PM

At least your image got the whole galaxy. Somebody had a bite out of the Hubble one!
Greg.

Windston (Dan) · #47 09-09-2016, 08:48 PM

Wow! Love it! Great image Mike, the depth is unbelievable!

astronobob (Bob) · #48 09-09-2016, 09:17 PM

Mighty Fine Image there, , proudly brighter at the outer ring than the hubble version aswell !
Gotta say its a unique form and more intriguing than the average galaxy, Mike, Damn fine astro-imaging

& write-up's you do

strongmanmike (Michael) · #49 09-09-2016, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slawomir

Pretty cool comparison Mike. Quite striking how stars get enlarged by the atmosphere, as opposed to crispy pinpoint stars in the Hubble image. As for overall detail, I reckon a few extra hours of exposure and you would be able to close the gap even further

Cheers Suavi, yeah there was a reason NASA spent the billions it has on Hubble

As for more exposure?...every man has his limit

besides probably a case of diminishing returns and too many nights wasted for little gain when I could be imaging something else

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

At least your image got the whole galaxy. Somebody had a bite out of the Hubble one!
Greg.

Yeah I had to take the same bites out of mine in Photoshop, just so they would match

Quote:

Originally Posted by Windston

Wow! Love it! Great image Mike, the depth is unbelievable!

Thanks a lot Dan, glad you liked it

Quote:

Originally Posted by astronobob

Mighty Fine Image there, , proudly brighter at the outer ring than the hubble version aswell !
Gotta say its a unique form and more intriguing than the average galaxy, Mike, Damn fine astro-imaging

& write-up's you do

Thanks Bob, yeah for a rather "simple" galaxy really, it has something special huh? The various elements, subtleties and the whole field, seem to just work for a pleasing scene

Mike