Had a nice Saturday night a week or so ago, camped in the new tent and braved the cold.... Along with the cold was some pretty darn good seeing too. This is now equal sharpest stacked data I've been able to capture, 26 minutes under 1.1" seeing. Collimation is slightly off but it isn't really noticeable (is noticeable on individual subs).
Hey Col, Nice work!
Can you (in layman's terms) explain the most relevant numbers table in the second photo?
He is imaging at an image scale of 0.4"/pix, his software is telling him the max FWHM (of that star with square around it) in the x direction, is 2.94pix, so we have 2.94 X 0.4 = 1.176" and a FWHM in the y direction of 2.58pix or 2.58 X 0.4 = 1.032" so suggests, essentially pretty close to 1 arc sec seeing...very cool
Hey Col, Nice work!
Can you (in layman's terms) explain the most relevant numbers table in the second photo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
He is imaging at an image scale of 0.4"/pix, his software is telling him the max FWHM (of that star with square around it) in the x direction, is 2.94pix, so we have 2.94 X 0.4 = 1.176" and a FWHM in the y direction of 2.58pix or 2.58 X 0.4 = 1.032" so suggests, essentially pretty close to 1 arc sec seeing...very cool
Great shot Col
Mike
Mike got it in one. The highlighted numbers are the reference stars and the box says that the average of 6 stars have a diameter of approx 2.7 pixels at 0.4"/pixel or about 1.1" seeing.
He is imaging at an image scale of 0.4"/pix, his software is telling him the max FWHM (of that star with square around it) in the x direction, is 2.94pix, so we have 2.94 X 0.4 = 1.176" and a FWHM in the y direction of 2.58pix or 2.58 X 0.4 = 1.032" so suggests, essentially pretty close to 1 arc sec seeing...very cool
Great shot Col
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atmos
Mike got it in one. The highlighted numbers are the reference stars and the box says that the average of 6 stars have a diameter of approx 2.7 pixels at 0.4"/pixel or about 1.1" seeing.