Mr Squiggle and a high court judge in the LMC

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by GTB_an_Owl

i see a face in the image but not the one you outlined Mike

geoff

Ha ha yeah, t'wasn't me who named this one, was Dopita, Mathewson and Ford at Mt Stromlo who are to blame

However I do see what they saw and so did Lionel, who was pretty chuffed about it at the time apparently

Mike

[gregbradley]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

It's a Berthon-Jones favourite...a Wolf Rayet nebula around BAT99-11

Not so much a long focal length.. but rather a better image scale (which can be acheived in a number of ways ) but more importantly, in better seeing While not bad, the seeing for this data set was pretty average for my site.

Mike

Yes I was thinking that after I posted the comment. Seeing would make or break that as its a rather small object even for long focal length.

Greg.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Yes I was thinking that after I posted the comment. Seeing would make or break that as its a rather small object even for long focal length.

Greg.

Still a lot of confusion out there around focal length, image scale and seeing ...it is image scale that counts, not the focal length. There seems to be this fixation on focal length for the sake of it, like it is some sort of panacea for revealing fine features in deep sky objects when frankly, it simply isn't....in reality if the seeing isn't good enough, no amount of focal length, or aperture for that matter, will help much in this department.

Images from Mt Lemmon, Cerro Tololo and even Sierra Remote et al, are highly detailed, not becasue of the focal length but becasue of the image scale ("/pix) and mostly, becasue the seeing is excellent!



Mike

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

Very interesting collection of space stuff that I was totally unaware of!

I like the natural colour version more, but the original one shows structures more clearly.

Thank you Mike for inspiring us, mortals!

[Slawomir (Suavi)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Still a lot of confusion out there around focal length, image scale and seeing ...it is image scale that counts, not the focal length. There seems to be this fixation on focal length for the sake of it, like it is some sort of panacea for revealing fine features in deep sky objects when frankly, it simply isn't....in reality if the seeing isn't good enough, no amount of focal length, or aperture for that matter, will help much in this department.

My thoughts exactly. I am imaging at 1.33arcseconds per pixel and this is about diffraction limit for my 4inch doublet, and I reckon the detail is not that bad at times, when guiding used to be acceptable and seeing was okay. Perhaps one day I will step up to about 1arcsec per pixel and this is probably reasonable max for suburbs in a coastal location. With my current camera I will get to that resolution at 760 mm FL.

[RickS (Rick)]

I'm a fan of the natural colour version too

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by RickS

I'm a fan of the natural colour version too

Cheers Rick, I think I like it best too

Mike