Jump to content

NLCbanner2024.jpg.2478be509670e60c2d6efd04834b8b47.jpg

You don't need a 200-inch reflector now days.

Cloudwatcher

By Cloudwatcher
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

Cloudwatcher

Cloudwatcher

Posted
Posted

We had a clear out of some of our bookcases over the Bank Holiday and took a ton and a half to the Charity Shop. Not sure they were all that pleased to be honest. :rolleyes:

Anyhow,one of mine that I kept is the 1962 edition of The Observer's Book of Astronomy which makes an interesting read after all these years. Most of the plates are in monochrome and really show the advances that have been made in imaging since the arrival of computers and digital cameras. There is a photograph of the Horse's head Nebular taken using the 200-inch reflector which,when I saw it made me think......"Hang about,that look just like one I took!"

Having delved into the depths of Mrs CW's computer I found the image I had in mind and of course it looks nothing like it at all. :lol: However,whereas I'm no imager, some of the images of the same subject posted by others on the forum are far superior to the one in the book.

I thought I'd post both images anyway and perhaps the imagers among us would like to post their own comparisons which will better illustrate the title of this thread. :)

(click as usual)

Cheers

CW

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kaptain Klevtsov

Kaptain Klevtsov

Posted
Posted

With you there CW. Some of the illustration photos in Burnham's are pants compared to the stuff posted on here.

Maybe we should get a petition up to have a go with the 200"er? Stick MartinB's adaptive optics on it, or SteveL's hyperstar doodah and Bob's your uncle. We could put Rog in charge so everybody takes turns nicely.

Kaptain Klevtsov

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiny

Tiny

Posted
Posted

I read that one of the new super scopes will use a 200 inch secondary!

On the Observer's Book of Astronomy. I was looking out an old map of the moon and found my 1962, 5bob observers book under it. It was with all the others that I still refer to - all except the Norton's then written by a certain Patrick Moore - in those days he was Mr Astronomy to kids like me.

But, like you say CW, it is amazing what we have now to use ourselves compared to them. At that time those books were almost science fiction given what was available for stargazers to use then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
geoff_k

geoff_k

Posted
Posted

Things have moved on. I remember finding this image of Saturn taken in the 1970s at the Catalina Observatory with their diddy 1.5 metre telescope.

I suppose they could do better now, but it is amazing what amateurs can now achieve with what might be regarded as fairly modest kit.

post-13129-133877339521_thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astroman

Astroman

Posted
Posted

Looking at these two images, it's easy to see the difference in resolution between a 200" scope and a smaller one. Sure, the new scope went deeper, but a)that was probably not what the Hale was going for and b)look at the amount of detail in the horsey in the Hale image compared to the smaller scope. Also, take into account how much exposure time between the two, and then add the processing time. Still with me? So, now remember that Hale has been upgraded to include adaptive optics and CCD detectors, and once again, you're talking apples and mangos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astroman

Astroman

Posted
Posted

Beautiful! One hundred ten minutes of exposure. How long to process? What type detector (camera)? Now, try it strapped to the 200" under similar exposure, and see what you get. :)

Love it. 8)

:scratch:

Apple-Mango translater front and centre,quick march! :rolleyes:

CW

I figure a 200" and a 10" is a lot different than apples and oranges, so I tried mangos. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cloudwatcher

Cloudwatcher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here is one I took with my 10" newt.

Difficult conditions last night with the moon and a light mist killing the contrast even in Ha.

11 @ 10 Min's through the 10" newt.

Mike

4766_normal.jpeg

(click to enlarge)

Now that illustrates the point I was trying to make. A backyard astronomer (well one who knows what they are doing) can today,produce images with off the shelf gear that a few years ago was the sole domain of the professionals and at a fraction of the cost thanks to the PC and digital camera.

Wonderful image Mike,missed it first time around.

Cheers

CW

PS My effort by the way is a crop from a widefield taken with the 350D attached,I think, to the ST 150mm achro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MikeD

MikeD

Posted
Posted

Thanks CW.

What type detector (camera)?

Starlight express HX916.

Now, try it strapped to the 200" under similar exposure, and see what you get. :rolleyes:

I agree 100%, Hell strap a HX916 to a 20" scope and see what you get. :)

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astroman

Astroman

Posted
Posted

Your point is exactly right, CW. It wasn't that long ago the pros turned out stuff we'd bin today. Still, the stuff they do from below Earth atmosphere is rivaling what only HST could do in the same time period. It's an active field, and I bet we all look forward to the advances and trickling down of technology.

Great thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted

Interesting to be reminded of MANY things... As I sit here with my (same Edition) "Observers Book of Astronomy". And notleast when "Yoof" was restricted to School Uniform (Like the young lad and "Home-made Telescope"). For, what lay beyond this? (Probably) some Marks & Sparks originals? AND I too probably had an inkling the "old man" wasn't going to buy me a Charles Frank 8.5" reflector either... :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.