Jump to content

Sketches

IC-443 Ha


Rodd

Recommended Posts

Its times like this when I pine for a larger FOV and smaller pixels.

TV np101is, SBIG STT-8300, 5.5 hours 3nm Ha (30 min subs).  There is allot of faint stuff that can only be uncovered with a lot more subs. I might be half way there.  One fortuitous aspect of shooting the Jellyfish Nebula is I do not have to slew to a star to focus, as there are 2 focus stars in the FOV.  I use a Bhatinov mask for focus, and focusing is always a stressful endeavor, as I must reframe the target once focus is achieved (my goto system never pinpoints my FOV--it always takes about 5 minutes of manual slewing to get it perfectly line up, a very long 5 minutes!).

Ha 11 Stand Alone.jpg

  • Like 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pompey Monkey said:

Nice!

Don't you platesolve to your target? ASPS gets me to within a handful of pixels in a couple of minutes.

I don't know how...I am fairly inept when it comes to computers and the interface of devices.  Its the same with autofocus and using pempro or maxpoint to pinpoint my polar alignment.....I can never seem to take clear sky time away from imaging to learn these methods...of which plate solving is one.  I guess I am a dinosaur.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rodd said:

  I guess I am a dinosaur.

So am I! Don't you just get sick of all these mammals on SGL???!!! :angel9:

This is great framing and a fine result. Hey, don't moan about your pixels. We have the FOV but our darned pixels are even bigger. These manufacturers, they do it to test our character...

Olly

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

So am I! Don't you just get sick of all these mammals on SGL???!!! :angel9:

This is great framing and a fine result. Hey, don't moan about your pixels. We have the FOV but our darned pixels are even bigger. These manufacturers, they do it to test our character...

Olly

Thanks Olly--Don't I know it....but that ASI 1600mm cool could be the fix.  I'm watching that one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

Lovely shot. I should at some point try my hand at this DSO imaging. Might give it another shot this winter.

I have a screen grab of this momentous occasion and will not let you wriggle out of it!!!!

:Dlly

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I have a screen grab of this momentous occasion and will not let you wriggle out of it!!!!

:Dlly

Hey, I've been there before.  I have imaged M42 with Fujichrome 1600 using a manually guided C8 with focal reducer in 1995 or thereabouts, and got pretty round stars as well. I exposed for about 20 minutes (in the freezing cold, not like the balmy temperatures in the Provence in summer). I still have the slides upstairs to prove it. Triassic imaging one might say: None of this luxury stuff with computer control, CCD cameras and autoguiders (let alone flats, darks, and photoshop). 

I also had a brief shot at the same target in the winter of 2014-2015 with the APM 80mm, but clouds had other ideas.

At least my venerable old GP mount now has a guide port, I have an ST80 with guide scope rings, and a dual mount bar, so I could start guiding with the APM 80mm, using the ASI174MM as guider and modded Canon EOS 450D for the imaging itself. All I need to invest is time (for now). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

Hey, I've been there before.  I have imaged M42 with Fujichrome 1600 using a manually guided C8 with focal reducer in 1995 or thereabouts, and got pretty round stars as well. I exposed for about 20 minutes (in the freezing cold, not like the balmy temperatures in the Provence in summer). I still have the slides upstairs to prove it. Triassic imaging one might say: None of this luxury stuff with computer control, CCD cameras and autoguiders (let alone flats, darks, and photoshop). 

I also had a brief shot at the same target in the winter of 2014-2015 with the APM 80mm, but clouds had other ideas.

At least my venerable old GP mount now has a guide port, I have an ST80 with guide scope rings, and a dual mount bar, so I could start guiding with the APM 80mm, using the ASI174MM as guider and modded Canon EOS 450D for the imaging itself. All I need to invest is time (for now). 

Sounds like you are there.  have fun!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

Hey, I've been there before.  I have imaged M42 with Fujichrome 1600 using a manually guided C8 with focal reducer in 1995 or thereabouts, and got pretty round stars as well. I exposed for about 20 minutes (in the freezing cold, not like the balmy temperatures in the Provence in summer).

Now even we can't image M42 in the summer, Michael. Balmy Provence, you say? 

OBSERVATORIES-L.jpg

'Barmy' might be the better spelling!

:eek:lly

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ollypenrice said:

Now even we can't image M42 in the summer, Michael. Balmy Provence, you say? 

OBSERVATORIES-L.jpg

'Barmy' might be the better spelling!

:eek:lly

 

Never seen your place other than in summer (piloting a 20" Dob in shorts during the night = bliss). Worst I experienced here (on January 4, 1979, 03:00 AM, watching the Quadrantids) was -27.3 °C. The lake was frozen to such an extent that I cycled across it to school. My mother was worried that the ice was too thin, but as I was overtaken by a car, I think she needn't have worried :D

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

It will be a long time before I get anything like your results. I do have some H-alpha filters as well, but only the 35nm Baader is suitable. The others are a wee bit too narrow (0.3 to 0.7 Å) ;)

I have been hankering to try Solar imaging for a long time--is that what you use them for?  Or are you a physicist or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

I dabble in solar imaging, indeed

sun18072016mosaiccolour.jpgsun18072016mosaicpartinvcolour.jpgSun_164625_g3_ap3936LRcolour.jpg

Nice--I am trying to decide what would be better--a Quark (or 2) with my 4" refractor or C11 Edge, a single stack dedicated scope, or a double stack dedicated scope.  I would like to be able to image close in (flares and surface features).  But I see that your full disc shots become close in zoom shots when the full image is opened and the + key is used.  The best of both worlds I guess.  What is the best method for getting high resolution solar images?  I use my C11Edge for high resolution lunar imaging.  Would that with quark be as good as a 100mm dedicated scope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rodd said:

Its times like this when I pine for a larger FOV and smaller pixels.

TV np101is, SBIG STT-8300, 5.5 hours 3nm Ha (30 min subs).  There is allot of faint stuff that can only be uncovered with a lot more subs. I might be half way there.  One fortuitous aspect of shooting the Jellyfish Nebula is I do not have to slew to a star to focus, as there are 2 focus stars in the FOV.  I use a Bhatinov mask for focus, and focusing is always a stressful endeavor, as I must reframe the target once focus is achieved (my goto system never pinpoints my FOV--it always takes about 5 minutes of manual slewing to get it perfectly line up, a very long 5 minutes!).

Ha 11 Stand Alone.jpg

I plan to have a go at this with my widefield rig - will have to be later when 1) the night sky is clear and 2) when it isn't right next to the moon as I think even 3nm NB filters would struggle.

I have an ASI1600MM-Cool camera and 60s-70s vintage SLR lenses of great quality.  I shall also be using my SW Esprit 80ED Pro telescope with field flattener.  Here are the FOVs of a 135mm f2.5 lens, a 200mm f4 lens and the 400mm f5 scope as screenshot of CdC.

IC 443 02.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Gina said:

I plan to have a go at this with my widefield rig - will have to be later when 1) the night sky is clear and 2) when it isn't right next to the moon as I think even 3nm NB filters would struggle.

I have an ASI1600MM-Cool camera and 60s-70s vintage SLR lenses of great quality.  I shall also be using my SW Esprit 80ED Pro telescope with field flattener.  Here are the FOVs of a 135mm f2.5 lens, a 200mm f4 lens and the 400mm f5 scope as screenshot of CdC.

IC 443 02.PNG

You are definitely correct in that even 3nm Ha filters will struggle with close moonlight.  I shot a few subs of this target with a large moon about 15-20 degrees away--it was pretty close anyway.  The subs came out pale.  I did not keep them.  However, the picture I posted above was shot with a near full Moon but it was more than 90 degrees away (I think about 120) and it was OK.    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

That is a great start with nice framing, one of my favourite targets and this looks super, additional channels will make for a lovely image.

Paddy

14 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

Thanks Paddy--this is one NB nebula that I do not really prefer in the Hubbell Pallet, at least not the ones I've seen.  I am thinking about an HaRGB image-Maybe an Ha(R)G(OIII)B or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

That is a great start with nice framing, one of my favourite targets and this looks super, additional channels will make for a lovely image.

Paddy

Thanks Paddy--this is one nebula that I do not prefer the Hubbell Pallet for.  I don't know--maybe an Ha(R)G(OIII)B--or something.  i would like to keep it red.  The HP images I've seen all seem to have a reduced resolution of the head.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Paddy--this is one nebula that I do not prefer the Hubbell Pallet for.  I don't know--maybe an Ha(R)G(OIII)B--or something.  i would like to keep it red.  The HP images I've seen all seem to have a reduced resolution of the head.  

I prefer in SHO done a few times.  Here is one http://www.astrobin.com/full/237279/0/ think detail is OK and would expect more not less in SHO...

Paddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, PatrickGilliland said:

I prefer in SHO done a few times.  Here is one http://www.astrobin.com/full/237279/0/ think detail is OK and would expect more not less in SHO...

Paddy

Wow....I'm convinced.  That is amazing.  I'm curious why the FOV is smaller than mine when the camera and scopes were about the same.  Is that due to the DSW data (what ever that is).  I am thinking of getting some C11Edge data of the head and combining that with this data to improve resolution.  But the last time I tried that (with the bubble) I could not get the software to register and combine it properly.  Hope I have more luck with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • 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.