Rodd

This was my last hoorah. Only posted because I was asked not to leave. I don't have anything better to offer than this--and I probably won't anytime soon. What more do you want, a couple of pretty decent images and a pretty cool bit of acquisition and processing. If anyone needs me I am on Astrobin under RAD...always willing to share data and give CC when asked. I am no longer following this thread, so no need to respond for my sake. I can't take the stress, SGL brings me down. Life is hard enough. CS to all.

Then you are all set. I don't advise trying to do it in one session, as that would entail a switch and we both hate switches. But with a little planning, you are bound to image something at 800mm and the same region at 318...or even 500...at a later date. That's what I did. I went through my library and found images I shot long ago that I had revisited at a longer focal length. There were 7 or 8. Now I plan on planning for it. I have been shooting with the TOA for over a year. I plan on switching to the FSQ as soon as I finish the Helix. I am sure I will have more overlapping datasets after the switch. Unfortunately I shot a lot of galaxies so there might not be as many as I would like. It is sort of a long game approach I suppose. I am never satisfied with a result and tend to revisit data sets perpetually as I improve--this is just one more tool to amp image quality.

All you need is the .6x reducer--which will work on both FSQs. That way you shoot at 318mm and 600 mm? (not sure what the FSQ 130 native is. the TOA is 1,000, but the FSQ 130 is 600-800 I think

BTW--here is the original sh2-132 after the longer focal length data was added. I thought it a bit too garish. But it does look better on my cheap screen, so who knows.

No need. With that FSQ 130 you can shoot a widefield at F3 if you have the .6x reducer--which is what I use with the FSQ 106, and then you can shoot with the 1.6x extender and if the seeing is good, you will get a benefit. It might not be like Olly's addition of a 14" to a 140mm (Meade and TEC 140), but all it takes is an edge. I am the same way--I shoot with a scope for a year or more. These images represent data sets collected more than 1 year apart, and for sh2-132, almost 3 years apart. You know, the C11EDdge is only $3,500...other scopes of similar size and price abound.--not a huge investment (I know, if the bus cost a dime and you only have a nickle...you'r walkin). having a second longer focal length scope makes sense if you have an inclination to shoot galaxies at a longer focal length. The TOA 130 does a fine job with larger to mid sized galaxies--but to get the smaller ones, more aperture is really needed. I don't think I could stand only 1 scope--2 is perfect, The fact that I have 4 is me losing control.

That's it really--just that. The images look so much better on a high resolution monitor. The difference is very noticeable. On my el-cheapo screen at work I have to say....eh. then again, that goes for the whole image

I thought I would share this with those of you who have an interest in bringing out details n wider field shots. I suppose if one has a 24" scope and a really big sensor, there would be no need fr this approach. But if you are not fortunate enough to have something like that, this works quite well as a substitute. One neddn't have 2 scopes--one scope and a reducer will work. But I think having two scopes is better., specially if one is bigger aperture...otherwise, we may get bogged down in the quagmire of the focal reducer.....debate. Heaven forbid. To prevent that, use two scopes of different apertures. It doesn't take much. I used a 4" refractor and a 5" refractor. The 4" refractor was reduced to a focal length of 318mm (and one at 432 mm) and the 5" refractor was native at 1,000mm. I am not sure of the limits, i.e. how much of a difference in focal length can be tolerated by the software. I think quite a big difference if you use the right approach. I think the big issue is registration. If the bsoftware can't register the two images, all bets are off. Pixinsight has done pretty good--I'd say about an 80% success rate. After registration, you use the higher focal length image as a mask and replace that portion of the data using pixel math--or a portion of it. In actuality I think its a blend of datas unless you keep replacing several times. Another important thing is to keep the two images similar in brightness. Well--thats it. I have wanted to do this for A LONG TIME and could not figure out how. I finally was able to do it. Here are two examples that I consider my best in terms of impact to the image and overall image quality. Now, the proud folks at PI will tell you that this is blasphemey, for they regard it as "painting". I don't see how rendering an image using this method can in the remotest be considered painting.--no more so than using a bit of moise contrl, or sharpening, or even a simple crop. One stays true to the data. The photons are going exactly where they belong. There is no tricks with palette (`other than wnat is normally done to either image). It is simply a chaoice of hardware. Next they will say if you use a really big scope and a truly massive sensor with small pixels to achieve a wide field image with superior resolution, t'would be a capital ofense. No sheffif in town, bubba, so I couldn't have shot one! Sh2-132: The wide field was taken with a Televue np101is rduced my .8x to 432 mm (with STT-8300). The head, or core, was taken with a TOA 130 native and the ASI 1600. 3nm filters were used for both. First image is the before, and second image is the after. IC-1396. The widefield was taken with the FSQ 106 reduced by .6x to 318 mm and the Elephants Trunk column was taken with the TOA native--The ASI 1600 was used for both with 3nm filters. First image is before, second image is after.

I appreciate that Mark...you will get there!!

Yes--when one of those images gets a top pick or image of the day it drives me crazy. For a bit of fun I posted an image of M51 taken with a 5" scope but cropped and framed it to be just like the Liverpool Telescope data that is commonly processed. I called the image "Not the Liverpool Telescope". This after a long and argumentative thread on the forum. https://www.astrobin.com/jl4uqj/F/?real=&nc=user

Thanks Doc.

Thaks Pryce. Your post was very enjoyable. It will be with me for a time--as I digest it

Thats how I do it. AB for posting and library--SGL for discussion and help and, well, you know. the problem is the repsonse of SGL is tepid. i will write a huge paragraph of explanation with some unusal aspect--and no one comments and few like. As I said--it is stressful for me. Maybe its my fault at not being able to handle my expectations and letting it bother me. Perhaps when I have grown and matured I will once again begin posting. I take AP very seriously. Posting an image on SGL is a big deal for me. Call it a weakness.

I do not have a problem helping others. But its a two way street. I would much prefer if no-one looked. If I look at an image--not a lot lately becuase the milk is souring for me--but when I do, I either like it if it is really good, and possibly make a comment. Or, I like offering CC. rarely do I look at an image and dont like or comment--sometimes, but that is when the image already has a lot of comments and it is not that important for me to chip in. I will miss the discussions about "issues" related to imaging.

Well, therein lies another point. This applieas to Astrobin as well (eveen more so). 80 people have looked and 3 have liked. A good image? to me, if 1,000 people look at it, no onecomments and 5 like it--why post? On astrobin its even worse. I supposedly have 250 followers or something--yet only 80 people have seen? I know for everyone I follow TI get email confirmation of their posting. Things have gotten better at Astrobin for me. But I just do not understand how an image will go from 80 looks and 75 likes (a great ratio) o 200 looks and 76 likes. Popularity. Some people on AB get hundreds of likes for star fields. Nothing against starfields, but they aren't exactly Olly starfields or really amazing images (forget the names of the folks--you know teh ones).

What you say is true--but good images from good imagers are invariably "liked" copiusly--the "affirmation" of which I speak. But I do not want to turn this into a like referendum. As far as Astrobin goes--yes, there are issues with likes and IOTD and TP--all of that. I never really considered Astrobin a place for real cconversation--comments yes, but not forum type discussions. i always used SGL for that. But, Astrobin has an extremely valuable quality for me--its a great library of my images--all in one place. Excpt forr the crash--which I hope doesn't happen again--Astrobin is a platfrom that I value even if no one ever looked or liked. SGL is another matter--without teh people, whats the point?