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.

laser_jock99

Daily Mail- "stunning nebulas from garden shed"

Recommended Posts

I wonder how much he sees when observing / imagaing from inside his parents conservatory?

Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diffraction spikes with refractors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail!?

Don't believe a word of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humph.....

Where's the filter wheel? I see an Atik camera but no wheel, yet those images are in Hubble palette.

I agree, don't believe *anything* in the Wail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take this as a defence of the execrable pile of poop that is the Daily Wail.

Part of the issue is that this article is syndicated from an independent news agency (swns.com). They exist to produce column inches and will churn out any old muck to satisfy the demand.

The amateur astronomer in question was probably over the Moon to be interviewed and to get into a national news. He will have little control over the final content. Plus the syndicater will have hired a jobbing photographer that was probably on piece-work. He/she wouldn't have given a jot about the factual accuracy of the images.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not someone I have come across, and not a member of the Cotswold AS AFAIK.

RikM gets some pretty good shots from Gloucester, so can be done...

/callump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funilly enough, I have seen people add diffraction spikes, because they feel it is pretty.

I've heard of it, too.  I believe there's even some software that will ruin your images in such a manner should you wish to do so :D

These don't look as though they've been added that way to me though.  On the brighter stars there aren't just four spikes, but some smaller ones as well that might be due to other components of the optical train.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard of it, too.  I believe there's even some software that will ruin your images in such a manner should you wish to do so :D

These don't look as though they've been added that way to me though.  On the brighter stars there aren't just four spikes, but some smaller ones as well that might be due to other components of the optical train.

James

Just convolve with a diffraction pattern of your choice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spikes look like real ones - there are chromatics in them too. The focusers are also not motorized.  He probably has two rigs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread goes off the rails - REPEAT: Daily Mail!

Sleep easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just disappointed that the subject of the article wasn't a bikini clad beauty!

Sorry, did I say "disappointed"? I meant "surprised", yes that's it, I was surprised.... :)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread goes off the rails - REPEAT: Daily Mail!

Sleep easy.

Maybe it should have been more appropriate in the Daily Star !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spikes look like real ones - there are chromatics in them too. The focusers are also not motorized.  He probably has two rigs. 

Easy to make artificially, just use a different kernel function and convolve each channel separately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just disappointed that the subject of the article wasn't a bikini clad beauty!

Sorry, did I say "disappointed"? I meant "surprised", yes that's it, I was surprised.... :)

yeah... i only got into astronomy for the bikini-clad beauties... it's been a lonely hobby so far :sad:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks hocum to me.

Hubble pallette. ... no way did he go from 400quid scope to that rig in a couple of years without doing some serious lottery wins.or some serious thuggery.

That atik camera is worth more than my whole rig.

I don't think there is an amateur scope in uk that can capture that detail in a few nights unless he imaged all night and slept all day .

the stacking and processing would add a week too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks hocum to me.

Hubble pallette. ... no way did he go from 400quid scope to that rig in a couple of years without doing some serious lottery wins.or some serious thuggery.

Thats a bit strong. It's very doable

That atik camera is worth more than my whole rig.

So?

I don't think there is an amateur scope in uk that can capture that detail in a few nights unless he imaged all night and slept all day .

Yes there are.

the stacking and processing would add a week too.

Not at all. A good few hours, but not a week (unless it was me processing it!)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All more than doable, especially as he says he has had five scopes in three years, it's only money and time (though clear skies are a little harder to come by!). The problem is that his 'observatory' is a 'conservatory'...! Nice jaunty angle from the snapper though. What I really love are the comments below the article - reasoned debate at its Mail best!! I quote "Oh shut up, I suppose you still use a horse and cart to go to the supermarket for your shoping".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the Wail got some of the nomenclature correct..

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Amateur-astrologist-s-images-captured/story-22317480-detail/story.html

:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

It's no wonder that swathes of the population are so ignorant if they are relying on sources like this for their daily news!

There'll be an astrology website somewhere with people ranting about how journalists can't get their terminology right: "We're in the business of making serious predictions about peoples' futures, not taking daft photographs!"

James

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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