Hi
Went as deep as I could in the wee hours this morning. Got up at 2:30 am and got M42
[IMG]http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5753&st c=1
2 x 60 secs ISO 200, masked with 2 x 120 sec
ISO 800. The resulting image was masked with 2 x 15 mins ISO 1600 for the
final result. Gradient xterminator Photoshop plug-in and Noiseware community
edition used also.
Horsehead nebula
[/IMG]http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5754&st c=1
1 x 15 minute ISO 1600 shot.
Multipurpose Coma Corrector and UHCS filter used on all shots.
10 inch F5.6 newt. hand guided. Unmodified 300D camera
VERY humid, outside of scope had water nearly running off, thanks to a home made dew cap none got inside scope.
Scott
That is an amazing result Scott! It seems that you have mastered this masking method. What is the spectral transmission of the UHCS filter.I assume it is similar to the Hutech Nebula Filter.
Again very nice images.
Man that is one of the nicest images of M42 I have ever seen. The ones that top it are taken with Sbig cameras. You should be very proud of this image, very very nice indeed. Congratulations.
I love the M42. The UHCs filter seems to do a very good job.
I was concerned at first with the amount of noise in the HorseHead shot until I realized that it is only a single shot!
Also the flame nebula seems to have lost it's colour. Is that an effect of the filter too?
Gee they are certainly great images Scott, well done I must say.
And I hear your doing these images with a $1500 camera ? (heckle )
and an old scratchy looking telescope ! (more heckling )
Gee they are certainly great images Scott, well done I must say.
And I hear your doing these images with a $1500 camera ? (heckle )
and an old scratchy looking telescope ! (more heckling )
Paul
Paul please get it right, the camera is now only worth $900 and is superceeded as for his scope it is undercover on assignment at the moment, the army are testing the camouflage capabilities with a deadly weapon of photon destruction i am so proud of his efforts its not funny. he needs to be nominatred for Australian of the Year . Besides its now how you look its whats inside that counts
Thanks all
Yes the Horsehead needs several shots stacked. I only got one before onset of daylight. A drier morning will help too, was very moist.
The UHCS filter does seem to work better on some nebuale than others. Its not that good on blue only nebulae, best on nebulae with plenty of H alpha light in them. Im not sure what the Flame is, emission or reflection, or a bit of both.
Yes the old scope has only had one coat of paint in its life, way back in 1986. Looks like a well used rocket launcher hehehehe.
Heres links to bigger images http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/baader/m42%20larger.jpg http://www.users.on.net/~josiah/baad...l_filtered.jpg (this one reprocessed with "Hot Pixels" to reduce noise a bit more http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/hotpixels.htm
Scott
Nice work Scott... Your skies can't be that light polluted to capture the horsehead like that! I can't do in my back yard.... Although I should try again with the CLS filter.
Top stuff.
Rob
Opps... I see you used the UHC filter on it.. That explains it.
I have just got a CLS filter, and first impressions are ok. Although I think I'll need to double the exposure time to get the benefit.
Cheers
Paul please get it right, the camera is now only worth $900 and is superceeded as for his scope it is undercover on assignment at the moment, the army are testing the camouflage capabilities with a deadly weapon of photon destruction i am so proud of his efforts its not funny. he needs to be nominatred for Australian of the Year . Besides its now how you look its whats inside that counts
Err? I think Scott himself might best explain my comments - which were intended to be humourus. You see Scott and I originally purchased our Scopes about 15 or 20 years ago at about the same time - in fact that's how we first met. He had not long bought his and I contacted him to see what he thought about it. Since then we have seen lots of new and expensive CCD cameras and telescope mounts enter the market. Scott and I tend to have this private joke that some people have spends tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to get the bees knees in ccd equipment etc but the images are not necessarily substainly better than what Scott and I can do with our astro equipment worth only a fraction of the cost. When Scott and I bought the cameras we paid in the $1500 to $2000 bracket - I know their cheaper now.
So I hope that puts you in the picture a little better.
Err? I think Scott himself might best explain my comments - which were intended to be humourus. You see Scott and I originally purchased our Scopes about 15 or 20 years ago at about the same time - in fact that's how we first met. He had not long bought his and I contacted him to see what he thought about it. Since then we have seen lots of new and expensive CCD cameras and telescope mounts enter the market. Scott and I tend to have this private joke that some people have spends tens of thousands of dollars (or more) to get the bees knees in ccd equipment etc but the images are not necessarily substainly better than what Scott and I can do with our astro equipment worth only a fraction of the cost. When Scott and I bought the cameras we paid in the $1500 to $2000 bracket - I know their cheaper now.
So I hope that puts you in the picture a little better.
Best Regards
not a problem Paul, Merely pointing out his $2000 canon is now a bit less for age. i too did not mean to offend but add a humourous twist to his craft.
not a problem Paul, Merely pointing out his $2000 canon is now a bit less for age. i too did not mean to offend but add a humourous twist to his craft.
Yeah, they really have got much cheaper now, haven't they. In fact i reckon next time I have $900 to spare to should probably grab one and remove its filter and use it soley for the 'scope. Hmmm, now you have thinking.
)
)
