Tadpoles to Flaming Star (80ED)

[Uranium235]

Blimey, this one feels like its been a bit of a slog as trying to chase weak Ha with the 80ED is rather time consuming to say the least! The problem wasnt with IC405/410, its the fluff in between I was trying to get. And with my camera at f6.38 it was only starting to show when using 20min subs, so it took a while to get a half decent sub count to reduce the noise in that area.

Ive now switched back to the 130 for a much needed speed fix while we still have a clear sky (tonight might be our last night).

Tadpoles to Flaming Star

13x1200 (Ha) x2 panes 1x1bin

80ED (0.85x), Atik 383L+, NEQ6

Setpoint: -25c

Thanks for looking!  

Rob

Fullsize here:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7582/15955166309_1272ba38a1_o.jpg

[PatrickGilliland]

Looking good Rob, that FOV works a treat on a two pane. Tested my 101 last night and it crops a bit of the flaming star, making it four frames for me with too much dead space.

Great job on detail and framing to get all content in.

Paddy

[Martin-Devon]

Rob, that's a stunning image - the tadpoles & flame star are wonderfully clear. 

Martin

[Uranium235]

PatrickGilliland, on 29 Dec 2014 - 10:32 PM, said:

Looking good Rob, that FOV works a treat on a two pane. Tested my 101 last night and it crops a bit of the flaming star, making it four frames for me with too much dead space.

Great job on detail and framing to get all content in.

Paddy

Thanks Paddy, its pretty much uncropped so ive gotten as much as I can out of it.

What about rotating your camera by 90deg?  You might get it in two, its worth checking the Stellarium ocular plugin or another prog that gives you a framed FOV for your setup. Downside is, you will need new flats!

[Uranium235]

Rob, that's a stunning image - the tadpoles & flame star are wonderfully clear. 

Martin

Thanks Martin

I think the 80ED has a bit of a grump on now ive put the 130 out again, its sobbing in the corner saying "you only talk to me when you want something....wahhh!"...lol

[PatrickGilliland]

No that would crop more unfortunately. Had I have done my homework and realised the proximity of 405 to 410 then may have just been able to do. So fresh redo or 4 pane. Both sound like a slog at the moment. Teach me for not doing my homework first. All down to you I am afraid

Paddy

[Barry-Wilson]

Excellent sharp image Rob.  Shows me what to aim for with my own mosaic.

Barry

[Welrod50]

I absolutely love shots like this - superb depth and looks like something you might see in our own night sky next to the moon!

Brilliant.

[Uranium235]

Thanks guys, Im in half a mind whether to set up again for tonight. Not sure though, the sky looks a little bit dodgy at the mo.

[swag72]

I love the field of view on this one. On a personal note I feel that there's too much sharpening showing around the tadpoles - The stars are looking quite crunchy. Perhaps it's a result of jpeg compression?

I feel bad being the first person to say anything other than good stuff.

[Uranium235]

No need to feel bad if there is an element of truth

I did have to throttle the data slightly to get what I wanted. Hmmmm, Im thinking the 130 would have spanked this one if given a similar amount of exposure. There may also be an element of compression in there too, as in the fullsize image the stars are ok(ish).

[PhotoGav]

Thats another Uranium cracker! It certainly has the razor sharp look of one of your images.

Surely this need some colour. Go on, demand it of that little 80ED when this bright blob of a moon moves on...

[Uranium235]

Blob of a moon? Your'e not wrong there!

Im just about to bring the gear in, the sky has taken a turn for the worse (massive lunar halo). But im not sure about getting colour for this, because getting the Ha was hard enough - perhaps a blast from the 130 might do it (taking into account the loss of FOV).