Ngc 1792

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

This was a quickie done last night. I've never imaged this galaxy before and I thought I would get it before it got too low. It was a hot night with pretty poor seeing. NGC 1808 is only about a degree away and these two would make a good subject for a mosaic.

Cheers

Steve

http://members.pcug.org.au/~stevec/n...L6303_RC14.htm

[multiweb (Marc)]

Nice colours and details nonetheless.

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Nice colours and details nonetheless.

Thanks Marc. Not the prettiest galaxy out there but still a worthy target.

[gregbradley]

Yes not necessarily photogenic but nicely captured and processed.

Your STXL6303 gives very clear images. They have a nice solidity to them.

Greg.

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Yes not necessarily photogenic but nicely captured and processed.

Your STXL6303 gives very clear images. They have a nice solidity to them.

Greg.

Thanks Greg

[RickS (Rick)]

Bright but only quite small. Nicely done, Steve.

[LucasB (Lucas)]

Really loving the small target shots you are producing as they are something not seen too often, especially with how well you present them. Nice detail and colour.
Lucas

[alpal]

Hi Steve,
That's quite a good result.
I recently imaged it's neighbor NGC 1808 &
found after looking at this pic on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61197697@N00/8272097094/

that I could have just fitted both galaxies in my FOV.

cheers
Allan

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Very nice quicky Steve ...although that's still a nights worth of exposure there the stars look good in this one Is that a cropped frame? It looks like a small galaxy but LEDA says it is 5.6' X 2.9', where are you getting your galaxy sizes from..? Perhaps you might be quoting the visual sizes..?

Mike

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

Very nice quicky Steve ...although that's still a nights worth of exposure there the stars look good in this one Is that a cropped frame? It looks like a small galaxy but LEDA says it is 5.6' X 2.9', where are you getting your galaxy sizes from..? Perhaps you might be quoting the visual sizes..?

Mike

Thanks Mike. These days a quicky for me is just one night. That frame is only very slightly cropped to align all the channels.

Generally I've been getting the sizes from Hartung (second edition) so they are probably visual.

Originally Posted by alpal

Hi Steve,
That's quite a good result.
I recently imaged it's neighbor NGC 1808 &
found after looking at this pic on flickr

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61197697@N00/8272097094/

that I could have just fitted both galaxies in my FOV.

cheers
Allan

Thanks Allan. That flickr image sure is wide field! I could probably mosaic 1792 and 1808 myself if I had the patience because they are only about 1 degree apart.

Originally Posted by AstroAussie

Really loving the small target shots you are producing as they are something not seen too often, especially with how well you present them. Nice detail and colour.
Lucas

Thanks Lucas

Originally Posted by RickS

Bright but only quite small. Nicely done, Steve.

Thanks Rick

[alpal]

Thanks Allan. That flickr image sure is wide field!
I could probably mosaic 1792 and 1808 myself if I had the patience because they are only about 1 degree apart.

Hi Steve,
It would be good to do one day.
There is a pic here where both just fit in the frame.

http://hawastsoc.org/deepsky/images/col/ngc1792.jpg

I checked & my 8" f6 Newt. would give me almost identical framing.
According to CCD inspector my flats are down 10% in level in the framing area
& the FWHM is not quite as good as the center area.
It will change from say 2.5 to 3.0 arc seconds.
The final image won't be as good as single galaxy centered frames.
Still might be worth doing to get 2 galaxy's for the price of one.

cheers
Allan

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by alpal

Hi Steve,
It would be good to do one day.
There is a pic here where both just fit in the frame.

http://hawastsoc.org/deepsky/images/col/ngc1792.jpg

I checked & my 8" f6 Newt. would give me almost identical framing.
According to CCD inspector my flats are down 10% in level in the framing area
& the FWHM is not quite as good as the center area.
It will change from say 2.5 to 3.0 arc seconds.
The final image won't be as good as single galaxy centered frames.
Still might be worth doing to get 2 galaxy's for the price of one.


cheers
Allan

It certainly would be a good duo to record. I have a NGC1808 image taken with the 12.5". Maybe there's some way of knitting the two together.

[alpal]

Originally Posted by Stevec35

It certainly would be a good duo to record. I have a NGC1808 image taken with the 12.5". Maybe there's some way of knitting the two together.

Good - I look forward to seeing that.

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Nice to see some new galaxies, and that's certainly a beautiful image of one. It looks rather pretty to me, with lots of detail and knots in the arms. Well done Steve

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Nice to see some new galaxies, and that's certainly a beautiful image of one. It looks rather pretty to me, with lots of detail and knots in the arms. Well done Steve

Thanks Rolf

Originally Posted by alpal

Good - I look forward to seeing that.

Won't be happening anytime soon Allan. I estimate I would need at least 6 panels for a reasonable mosaic with my FOV.

[marc4darkskies (Marcus)]

A subtly beautiful and well executed image of quite a small object (5.6 x 2.9). Given it's size you've teased out some really nice detail & colour. It might not win any galaxy beauty contests - it's rather homely - but when you think a bit about what you're looking at, it doesn't really matter! Nice one Steve!

Cheers, Marcus

[Stevec35 (Steve)]

Originally Posted by marc4darkskies

A subtly beautiful and well executed image of quite a small object (5.6 x 2.9). Given it's size you've teased out some really nice detail & colour. It might not win any galaxy beauty contests - it's rather homely - but when you think a bit about what you're looking at, it doesn't really matter! Nice one Steve!

Cheers, Marcus

Thanks Marcus. It's surprising to me that this one isn't imaged more.