Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
Nice one Erik.
* Perhaps add a gradient that approximates atmospheric extinction... easier said than done. You couldn't just reduce the intensity of the stars, it would also require reducing their apparent size to remain consistent with the rest of the shot. The simple way to do it would be to progressively reduce their number as you approach the horizon. (delete the brighter ones whilst reducing the overall number and consider whether the background galaxy on the far left would actually be visible)
* Maybe consider adding distortion (spherical surface rendering) to the star field reflected in the surface of the domes.
|
hmmm, good suggestions, but I'm not sure I really would know how to do either! I am not a user of photoshop unfortunately (or fortunately?!) Maybe some rainy day I might learn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clive milne
Incidentally, I am curious to know if you (or Mark) have kept a record of the astronomical seeing conditions at Arkaroola and whether your experience is consistent with the figures measured during the site evaluation of Mt Searle by the ANU? It seem like a phenomenal site.
best,
c
|
Well, Mark uses a TAK106 with STL11K, his sampling is 3.5"/pix, he has great seeing pretty much all the time. With my setup at 0.53"/pix I can still get mushy data. However due to my interminable equipment bad luck (well it seems that way to me at least), I have not had enough telescope time to make a long term judgement about the validity of the published data. Let me say that I can make deep images with 1.8" overall FWHM fairly easily, 1.5" has been possible (the Antennae for example), on good nights I will observe 1.3" for multiple long exposures. All of these numbers are obviously not at zenith, but generally > 60 deg altitude. I have, while doing testing/collimation on the scope, been there to witness ~0.9" on some shorter exposures. Our site is not the highest peak in the area (we picked one that had a road to the top) so I would think we get worse low level seeing than Freeling Heights due to turbulence coming off the other peaks, however the mid level and high level jet stream stuff would be consistent for both sites.
I have the paper by Wood (1995) but not the paper by Hogg (1965). Do you have the later? I have also found a paper by a masters student, Hotan (2012), but I can find serious deficiencies in the results.
Cheers,
EB