MarsG76

Looking good...

Thats close.. very smooth.. perhaps the NR is a bit heavy but the detail is still there.

Welcome to SGL...

Thats pretty cool, makes the nebulae look a bit weird but cool....

Definitely. Some amateur images today a way, WAY better than the pros upto the end of 20th century....

I think we're all picky about our work.. simply we are comparing our images to the Hubble (whether consciously of subconsciously) and are always critical about our pics, but ultimately there is hardly any difference and the differences that are there are only visible because of the side by side comparison.. individually they look the same.. Compare your photos from astrophotos published in books mid 1990s, pre hubble era, and you'll realize just how good amateur astrophotography has become.

Yup.. GIMME!!!!

OK OK... so I just mopped up my drool and mumbled "gimme"....

Yes, but thats a very heavy crop, you're only keeping 25% of the frame and stretching it to the original size, in this case yes, it would be softer but I'm talking about only cropping maybe 10% from the edges... I attached the crop I'm was trying to explain.... losing some of the data isn't that bad.

A heavy duty alt-az mount on a wedge.. no meridian flip imaging all night long.

It shouldn't make a difference if your original image resolution is high enough. Lets say you lose 10 or 15% from the edges from a 12 or 15 megapixel photo... no matter what, the website will still downscale the image to display on a screen..... effectively downscaling it to 1-2 megapixels... Unless I'm missing something with what astrobin does with the images.

Yes, as in that the contours look sharper comparing, say, 500mm focal length and 2000mm focal length.. the 2000mm FL images do seem to have a soft focus filter effect through them... I guess that is the fact that I'm magnifying more through the atmospheric distortion.... It's got to be since my tracking is at or below the arcsec/pixel resolution.

The lower the focal length the sharper the image will look when you zoom in... but I'm not saying to rescale the image, just simply crop the final processed image.... a 4000x3000 image might become 3300x2200, so still should look great.

Hi Rodd, the tracking you need is to be around the resolution per pixel to have the best quality that the seeing will allow you to capture.... for example, I'm currently working on a close up of M17 and basically my pixel resolution is 1.16"/pixel at 2032mm focal length through the C8... and PHD2 is reporting average RMS of between 0.8" and 1.13" so I know that I shouldnt have any drift or motion blur to my subs... so needed tracking accuracy is a combo between the scope focal length and the sensor pixel size....

If any mount feasable than something like a JTW OGEM or Fornax 100 mount.... 100Kg payload should negate any need to upgrade ever again.

I guess the view would be the same... no need to go into the cold outside either.

I like this one... the "subject" stands out among the busy surrounding... I think you should crop out the left and bottom edges that are dark and almost look like a half vignette and have the nebulosity edge to edge in the whole frame... like in top right of the frame.

I sure did.. and it's already in action..

Very nice..

Selective masking in photoshop will allow you to do that.

Best viewed through a telescope specifically designed for looking through using only the left eye, but with a right eye eyepiece.

I too am surprised just show much detail can be squeezed out of a video that at first glance looks like there is nothing useful there....

WOW, just WOW!!! the detail in those images!!... What size scope are you using?

Great gas giants.. well done.

Fantastic image... on my screen the original, first posted, looks awesome.