Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_solar_25_winners.thumb.jpg.fe4e711c64054f3c9486c752d0bcd6f2.jpg

jetstream

Members
  • Content Count

    4,821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by jetstream

  1. I see your perspective Adam and respect it for sure. For me the first image isn;t just about the Bubble- Rodd nailed the area surrounding it with draping dust and those pillars... fantastic. My reference is for the whole image, not any single part of it, for me its the whole package and the razor sharpness and brightness of the Bubble itself than wins me over.
  2. No man, they are both great images! I look at images from the perspective of what "grabs" me and holds me- not technical perfection. After you mentioned noise (I presume) I found some in the dust pillars- I enjoy imaging the Aurora and have very limited ability but did learn where noise etc can hide. The whole package of the first image is an attention grabber IMHO. If the first image was in a magazine you would "win" I believe. I look at these images more as art than technically perfect representations. You did not waste 27hrs- but you may have found out what pleases some people more than others. Mind you others may like the second one better!
  3. Ok, I see what you mean, I think. But.. As a non imager and just looking at the image presented here, non full resolution- it is fantastic. If I open up full res and at full mag I see some things. However, for most of us just looking at it, without trying to pick it apart- it is the winner, IMHO. Clearly. Sometimes I think imagers forget most image viewers are not imagers! lol!
  4. No, just the image presented here- I'll check it out.
  5. The top image is stunning and for me wins hands down. My opinion does not diminish the second images excellence however- great work Rodd!
  6. I would like to add my NELM, forgot to last night. I don't spend much time on this and usually use Ursa Minor- which is not near zenith- I must learn some new places to test for this. A glance into the Little Dipper bowl reveal a flick of HIP 74818 which Simbad gives a V mag of 6.68. I feel that it really will be a bit more and hopefully confirmed if I can find a source of stars in a constellation near zenith to use. I post this to reference my views, and can also say that the sky here gets better than this. Last nights level of darkness and trans will show tree shadows on my cars hood from the MW. It is also easy to see out there.
  7. After using the 2499mm fl scope at f4.1 it appears to be very flexible in many regards. It seems that I can use large exit pupils without diminishing some DSO's views, in part because the focal length gives enough image size so there is no degraded views at low power. In the 15" some objects can become small enough to impair views at this level... Up until now I thought the effect was due to the increase in exit pupil, but now believe object size (eyepiece) plays a role. Blackwell etc al apply this effect to thresh hold objects- I think visual object size also has an effect in other circumstances. Just a thought...
  8. I was just using the 30 ES 82 at f4.1 with great results, this gives about 7.3mm exit pupil. The Crescent neb showed really nice fine structure with it and a UHC or OIII. I observed no ill effects with it and it gave VG low power DSO views.
  9. Under better skies tonight the fish on the platter was very distinct naked eye. After using the scope I sat in a lawn chair on the ridge and stared at the brightly structured Milky Way- boy was the huge spur into Cepheus showing well tonight as was the black hole above Caph in Cassiopeia. As a side note NGC 7331 showed very large, perhaps the largest yet and Stephans Quintet really responded to the increase in elevation as well as some good transparency. The 3 main galaxies show as brightish lobes and big, quite a sight really and I was using the Docter 12.5mm/24" dob.
  10. Thanks Stephan any info is appreciated to satisfy my curiousity on the subject. At 56 I see well in the dark and when younger my eyes were really good in the dark, being able to drive boats through remote lakes in the pitch black etc. Passengers used to wonder how I could do it- it was easy- I could see lol! The eye Doctor said my blue eyes might have something to do with it and has an interest in astronomy.
  11. Yes, me too- all mine are standard, in 1/64's - a metric set will fill the gaps nicely.
  12. The 41 Pan is most likely better than the 42 LVW IMHO.
  13. Stephan, have you been observing for a long time? Curious, because as Stu says astronomy might help keep the pupils opening nice and wide. Interesting actually.
  14. I just read the the Panoptic was designed for fast newts (newts in general) and for use with a Paracorr. There may be field curvature issues in some scope types ie fast refractors but not all seem to notice it. I'm looking at the 27mm Pan for my 24" with a Paracorr II. Obviously the 41mm Pan might be different as it seems this fl suits refractors and SCT's.
  15. The TSA 120/Baader Zeiss 2" prism is superb, no detectable scatter using top eyepieces and with razor sharpness. No loss of DSO contrast. However....this is a very well matched system, a good triplet APO at f7.5 that likes the prism. In my other refractors the prism seems to have one small issue or another- false color in the SW120ED on Jupiter for example (almost able to focus out) or a loss of DSO performance in the 90mm SV triplet APO. To the OP, if it were me I would get a good, low scatter mirror diagonal as they are less fussy IMHO.
  16. The Nagler 3-6mm is an indispensable tool here, that being said as aperture increases it loses out in sharpness over Delos, orthos a bit. Seeing has to be excellent to notice it. The Delos is so much easier to use compared to orthos- and I love orthos, even in the 24". What scope is it for exactly?
  17. Congrats! Excellent choice, and I regret selling my Ethos and Delos- my 10E was superb.
  18. Hey Gavin, good to see you posting-great image- I wonder how big the brightest seen is? I also wonder how much Hb and OIII add to it if any.
  19. There is so much nebulosity in the area... I have focused on the Bubble neb itself and am now getting hints of a short section of the actual Bubble. I thought the same thing Peter or that close by LBN but no. Can't wait for my clearest skies Peter, and to nail down the needed eyepiece for this one, I may up the mag a hair, f4 is so flexible. The 17.3 Delos is a strong contender, I might pick one up. Thoughts? Does NV show surrounding nebulosity around the Bubble itself?
  20. My former 10E was a very high contrast eyepiece as was my 8mmDelos- the Delos was sharper (planetary/lunar) and deeper with similar nebula contrast. To my eyes the Ethos/Delos/Nikon HW out contrast the Nagler/ES series of eyepieces. Sounds like you need an Ethos or Delos...
  21. Mine open to at least 6.6mm or thereabout.
  22. More from Mel... "Exit pupil thoughts How to test for exit pupil without ruining dark adaption and causing the pupil to shrink? I test by slightly defocusing the star image so that it forms a disc. Since I can see the mirror's edge, I know that my eye's pupil is not truncating the mirror's aperture. I must place my eye exactly at the correct location centered and above the eyepiece using the rubber eyeguard. I also use the 17mm Ethos with its 3+ degree field of view at slightly higher power where my eye doesn't need to stay exactly centered. The 21mm Ethos eyepiece with this scope gives an exit pupil of 6.4mm. My eye opens to this size. But what would be the consequences if my exit pupil were smaller? If my eye opened only to 6mm then that's equivalent to stopping down the aperture to 5.6 inches, or a drop of about 10% illumination or about 0.1 magnitude. And keep in mind that both the object and the sky background are equally affected, leaving the ratio between the two or the contrast the same. I've not been able to observe this difference. Aperture is an important consideration seting the overall size and weight of the telescope. Field of view is equally important. Try considering field of view first. With this approach you determine the aperture based on the lowest power eyepiece in combination with your eye's pupil, giving the widest possible field of view. This makes the eye the limitation, not aperture, not field of view. That's as good as it gets."
  23. One limiting factor for f7ish refractors (or others) is the lack of Ethos quality hyperwide eyepieces in the 35mm-40mm range IMHO. There is a noticeable increase in contrast when using Ethos over Nagler/ES eyepieces, at least to my eyes. This is in respect to nebula.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.