Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

168 Excellent

About theastrodragon

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So, finally a clear night in Didcot, even if everything frosted over! M96 in Leo, no colour but it does show some nice detail around the core 250mm R/C @ F5.4, SXVR-814. 105x120s (210m)
  2. I think the more blue looks a lot better. The stars and nebula in M45 are pretty blue/white
  3. I'm thinking on getting the Riccardi 0.75 reducer/flattener (the M63 fit) for my 10" RC. Problem is, there seem to be two recommended spacings on the sites selling it, one about 74mm, the other about 88mm - quite a big difference! Also I have been unable to find any data on how precise the separation has to be for the best correction. Does anyone have any actual experience, or some data that is less variant? I'd be grateful
  4. Still no dark and a moon, so time for narrowband and fake colour. NGC6960, the western part of the veil nebula complex (aka the Witches broom) 120mm Tak @ F5, SX 814. 75m H-alpha, 75m OIII. Red channel H-alpha, Green and Blue OIII with a bit of emphasis on the blue.
  5. This is a reasonably large (about 110 arc sec across ) and bright planetary in Aquila. Mix of narrowband and broadband; 40min each R, G, B, and 60 min each H-alpha and O-III Tak 120D @ F7.5, from Didcot over two nights Could do with more photons (can't they all!), but its June and no dark to work with. The image is cropped to keep it at a sensible size
  6. eep! wrong image file! should be the right one this time
  7. I did this originally in RGBHa, but while it gave some good detail, it was too peach. So thanks to the recent good weather, I got 90minutes of L data, which has made a big difference to the look and colour. Its a really low object from Didcot, but the clear nights made a big difference 45x120s L, 15x120s in R, G, B, 45x120s H-alpha 120mm Takahashi APO @ F7.5
  8. This is a really hard target for me - its very low from Oxfordhire anyway, and trees and houses mean I only get about a 60 - 70min imaging window. Even so its only 18 degrees above the horizon. Normally I wouldn't really bother, when we get nice days in the summer the haze typical makes this object un-imageable due to the clag. But the recent fine spell has been different - lovely clear nights, clear down to the horizon. So while its still suffering from the altitude, and lighting made the gradients horrible, I took 4 nights to work on it. 1st night 30m RGB 20m each of RGB 2nd
  9. M17 is a very difficult target for me - not only is it low, trees mean I have to image it when rising. So this was taken at an altitude of 15 degrees, well into the murk. I also have a very limited window of about 90 minutes in time. This was taken over two nights; first 30m each in R,G,B, then on the second night 90m in H-alpha. With the limited photons it was a compromise between the detail and colour - its a bit more salmon than I'm happy with, but given the circumstances I'm not too disappointed. 120mm Tak 120D @ F7.5, SX Trius-814
  10. Getting light at night now, but it did seem a pity to waste the clear nights. This is Abell 1656, the Coma Galaxy Cluster, over two nights Total of 300m luminosity (150x120s), 120mm Tak APO @ F7.5, SX 814, UV/IR filter
  11. I imaged this in January, and while the initial processing was a nice smooth image, it lost some detail. So I redid it to show more of the detail along the disk. Its more noisy than I'd prefer as a result, but it does show a lot more fine detail, it was a very good night (by the standard of Oxfordshire!) 83x120s L, R/C 250mm @ F5.5, SX-814
  12. I only really started to pay attention when I went to unguided exposures! For guided work, +/- 5' in el and az is fine, the only error you'll be left with is field rotation, and unless your doing a really long sequence that's rarely an issue. Unguided work does need a lot more care to be taken with your setup, but there are benefits - for me, the benefits outweigh the care/time needed
  13. I try and get down under 120", preferably closer to 60", but then I'm imaging unguided. This may be of interest I try and get the azimuth as close to zero as possible, but as you can see the ideal elevation depends a lot on what you want to minimise. I usually try and make that err on the minus side, usually around -60". But your mileage may vary.
  14. I'm not sure at what point alignment is 'good enough' for your particular mount. I'd say 6' (0.1 degrees) is a good alignment for normal use, that should give you good enough except for very long exposures.. Closer is better, but at about 2'/120" you get into which particular error are you trying to minimise. The correction is different for minimising different types of drift or field rotation.
  15. Taken after the moon had got low in the west. 250mm R/C, SX-814. 87x120s L Could probably have used a bit more time, getting the detail in the galaxy made the background a bit grainier than I'd like, but hopefully not too annoying
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.