M83

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by alpal

Also - a 12" can trump a 20" if the seeing is better & adaptive optics are used.

When was the last time you used a 20" scope?

Having first hand experience with an Alluna RC20 (no-AO) to my RC16 (AO) and even more so AP 305mm AO).....sorry... I disagree

Close...but it can't (OK I concede crappy optics to boot ) Planewave CDK's are anything but.

There is enough BS here already (without mis-information)

[stevous67 (Steve M)]

I'm just wondering what happened to the P Ward comparison of the Alluna Vs the Hubble image of the Eta Carina close up?

I think its worthy of this conversation? But where did it go?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by stevous67

I'm just wondering what happened to the P Ward comparison of the Alluna Vs the Hubble image of the Eta Carina close up?

Why? .....is it not on the server?

[stevous67 (Steve M)]

No it is not Peter, and not on your started post list?

It would be intersting to include that comparison on this off thread topic comparing apperture differences.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

When was the last time you used a 20" scope?

Having first hand experience with an Alluna RC20 (no-AO) to my RC16 (AO) and even more so AP 305mm AO).....sorry... I disagree

Close...but it can't (OK I concede crappy optics to boot ) Planewave CDK's are anything but.

There is enough BS here already.

Dear Peter,
I have looked at Jupiter & Saturn through a
classical Cassegrain f/13.3 20" scope manufactured by Carl Zeiss at
the Auckland Observatory.
Amazing view but it wasn't twice as good as a Celestron C11 that was there outside the observatory.

Dawes limit tells me that a 12" telescope has 0.38 arc seconds of resolution.
A 20" scope has 0.23 arc seconds of resolution.

If you were trying to split a double star only one arc seconds apart -
in excellent one arc seconds seeing - the results would be the same -
neither scope could do it.

The larger scope has more light collecting power - so it goes deeper given the same time.

cheers
Allan

[clive milne]

Paul, any question of impropriety would be easily resolved if you uploaded the original files to drop box ---all of them--- (assuming they were in a format that included the appropriate image origin meta data) along with the processing work flow.

Anything less would be fuel to the fire, imho)
It is not a trivial accusation that has been levelled at you, after all.

What better way to set the record straight?

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by alpal

Dear Peter,
I have looked at Jupiter & Saturn through a
classical Cassegrain f/13.3 20" scope manufactured by Carl Zeiss at
the Auckland Observatory......
Allan

This needs a whole new thread to discuss properly...but in a nutshell I disagree.

The higher flux and more stable focal-plane position from a large aperture
invariably delivers sharper/deeper images.

If you want to start a new thread..sure...happy to discuss further.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by stevous67

No it is not Peter, and not on your started post list?

It would be intersting to include that comparison on this off thread topic comparing apperture differences.

Que?? Just clicked on the link

http://www.atscope.com.au/BRO/gallery376.html

It's still there...suggest you contact your ISP.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

This needs a whole new thread to discuss properly...but in a nutshell I disagree.

The higher flux and more stable focal-plane position from a large aperture
invariably delivers sharper/deeper images.

If you want to start a new thread..sure...happy to discuss further.

Dear Peter,
Let's leave the discussion here for now.

I noticed you ignored the reference to Dawes limit?
That's the real point of what I wrote.

When you see what Rolf Olsen achieved with a humble 10" f5 Newt:
http://www.rolfolsenastrophotography...ield/i-6RGLbJp

it's more about integration time than how large the aperture of your telescope.
The larger aperture is not giving more resolution unless you're in the Atacama desert in Chile.

cheers
Allan

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Paul, any question of impropriety would be easily resolved if you uploaded the original files to drop box ---all of them--- (assuming they were in a format that included the appropriate image origin meta data) along with the processing work flow.

Anything less would be fuel to the fire, imho)
It is not a trivial accusation that has been levelled at you, after all.

I agree.

"Only fraud and falsehood dread inspection. Truth invites it"

[gregbradley]

Wow, I am a bit nonplussed by this thread. A prominent previous Malin award winner who routinely puts out high end images with superb resolution has accusations that he used someone else's data. He also has 2 remote observatories setup in an area with excellent seeing.

I think the Moderators should've stepped in here earlier as we obviously have a troll that has snuck in who is trying to invalidate Paul's excellent continuous work.

I don't believe Paul needs to do a thing to respond here. This image is totally in line with his previous work which is routinely sharper than what I have gotten in the past with my CDK17.

Moderators???

Greg.

[clive milne]

I understand what you are saying Greg, but with all due respect
I don't believe Paul should be denied the opportunity to respond with real
data to erase any doubt (should he choose to) and silence the critics.

It would be an interesting insight into master class processing at the least.

[Paul Haese]

I have uploaded my masters on drop box and 1 tiff of the decon lum master.

This is how I did this roughly.

I did a decon in CCDstack2. I used positive constraint with 100 interations with a matrix radius of 4, sharpen count of 2, biases subdivision of 4 and PSF fit to Moffat checked. Then I saved that decon image as a tiff and masked the galaxy into a non decon lum image in photoshop.

Next I did another mask and selectively sharpened the dust lanes etc with a plugin called Image Magic. Once I did that I did another mask and did some contrast control of the brighter sections and around the dust lanes.

I added this to the RGB data set and did final colour and saturation.

I just want to say that this is just outrageous to be accused of this, I am totally shocked. So being a well established member of the astronomical community with a reputation for producing sharp images is not enough to give me credit. I am totally disgusted. If I was always producing fuzzy images and then suddenly produced a really sharp image it would be fair enough to question my image but this is not the case.

Link to drop box below

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hb9fplwkr...vg4MGOWwa?dl=0

Please let me know if you cannot open the link, this is my first time using drop box and do not know if anyone access it.

[Paul Haese]

Just in case people cannot open the folder link. I think this allows people to open the link and download the file.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s765u339ad...aled.TIFF?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cdzzjv1re2...20Lum.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/np6amt8u0i...20red.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gblioskg3y...green.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xkj8maf7hm...0Blue.FIT?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrsnm7dtm2...0lum.TIFF?dl=0

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

couldn't open it Paul - asked me to log on.

This has been a despicable and grubby exercise. It seems that your only fault is that you use a GSO and, since some people have the religious belief that GSO optics is inferior, clearly you must have cheated. What crap.

Can you try now Ray? I have allowed anyone with the links to open the files.

[Shiraz (Ray)]

It is still asking me to sign in - I have never used drop box either, so maybe am doing something wrong

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

couldn't open it Paul - asked me to log on.

This has been a despicable and grubby exercise. It seems that your only fault is that you use a GSO and, since some people have the religious belief that GSO optics is inferior, clearly you must have cheated. What crap.

There has been jealousy I've noted that Paul has made outstanding pictures from his GSO scope.
In this case he's gone head to head with a scope costing US$ 32,500
https://www.optcorp.com/pi-cdk20-20i...telescope.html
using a GSO scope costing only EUR 3,500.
http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/tele...bon-fibre-tube
which is only 1/8th the price.

Paul has done well without spending a fortune.
I actually had a GSO 10" f4 Newt. mirror that I had to return as faulty once so GSO does seem to be bit of a hit & miss affair.
In this case Paul got a top RC mirror.
I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

cheers
Allan

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by Shiraz

It is still asking me to sign in - I have never used drop box either, so maybe am doing something wrong

Hmmm, I have allowed anyone with the links to view either the folder or the images. I don't know either. I have only ever downloaded images from drop box in collaboration with others. If someone know they can certainly inform me.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by alpal

There has been jealousy I've noted that Paul has made outstanding pictures from his GSO scope.
In this case he's gone head to head with a scope costing US$ 32,500
https://www.optcorp.com/pi-cdk20-20i...telescope.html
using a GSO scope costing only EUR 3,500.
http://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/tele...bon-fibre-tube
which is only 1/8th the price.

Paul has done well without spending a fortune.
I actually had a GSO 10" f4 Newt. mirror that I had to return as faulty once so GSO does seem to be bit of a hit & miss affair.
In this case Paul got a top RC mirror.
I wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.

cheers
Allan

Thanks Allan for the support.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Wow, I am a bit nonplussed by this thread. A prominent previous Malin award winner who routinely puts out high end images with superb resolution has accusations that he used someone else's data. He also has 2 remote observatories setup in an area with excellent seeing.

I think the Moderators should've stepped in here earlier as we obviously have a troll that has snuck in who is trying to invalidate Paul's excellent continuous work.

I don't believe Paul needs to do a thing to respond here. This image is totally in line with his previous work which is routinely sharper than what I have gotten in the past with my CDK17.

Moderators???

Greg.

Thanks Greg for the support.