are the pictures real?

[Stu]

19 hours ago, JOC said:

I don't think I'll ever get to grips with these photo's.  If an iphone is held up to the EP, surely it is seeing what the eye sees?  Or will Stu have zoomed in using software.

Olly is of course right that as soon as you take an image, the concept of magnification goes out of the window. That being said, I believe the eyepiece used was giving around x180 when I took the image which is around where I get the best results normally visually on Jupiter.

The image is a bit of a crop and has been processed a little using PSExpress on my phone, but is still a pale imitation of the actual view. When the seeing steadies for a second or so every now and then, the detail is lovely.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

19 hours ago, JOC said:

I don't think I'll ever get to grips with these photo's.  If an iphone is held up to the EP, surely it is seeing what the eye sees?  Or will Stu have zoomed in using software.

The phone sees roughly what the eye sees for a split second. In practice, the eye will see a constantly changing image due to seeing fluctuations. There are split seconds in which the image is MUCH sharper. Our brain can remember these short instances, and you start interpreting what you see as this sharp image overlaid by a turbulent atmosphere. Only if you were lucky enough to press the shutter of the iPhone at exactly such a moment of perfect seeing would you get sharp detail. This is how planetary imaging works: Take a huge stack of images, pick out the best, and stack these into an image with good signal-to-noise ratio, so you can further sharpen the result.

Most of all, remember that the longer you stay at the EP, the more you learn to see. Initally Jupiter just shows two belts, and no clear colour. As you stay at the EP, colour and more detail slowly become evident. With more practice, spotting the subtler details becomes second nature.

[JOC]

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

Most of all, remember that the longer you stay at the EP, the more you learn to see. Initally Jupiter just shows two belts, and no clear colour. As you stay at the EP, colour and more detail slowly become evident. With more practice, spotting the subtler details becomes second nature

Perhaps I've never sat at the EP for long enough.  2 clear bands is about all I've ever seen, though I think on one night I did see a very clear dark point apparently on the surface which SGL regulars later confirmed was probably the passage of a moon.  I've certainly, visually,  never got close the level of detail shown in Stu's iPhone photo on the other page.  So at approx. x180, I'd need to be using approx. a 6-7mm EP in my set-up to see what Stu was seeing with his eyes - 1200/180=6.7mm  I shouldn't therefore have been a huge amount out with my favoured Meade 4000 15mm in a x2 Barlow which should give me about x160.  Perhaps I just didn't get decent 'seeing' conditions this year.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Just now, JOC said:

Perhaps I've never sat at the EP for long enough.  2 clear bands is about all I've ever seen, though I think on one night I did see a very clear dark point apparently on the surface which SGL regulars later confirmed was probably the passage of a moon.  I've certainly, visually,  never got close the level of detail shown in Stu's iPhone photo on the other page.  So at approx. x180, I'd need to be using approx. a 6-7mm EP in my set-up to see what Stu was seeing with his eyes - 1200/180=6.7mm  I shouldn't therefore have been a huge amount out with my favoured Meade 4000 15mm in a x2 Barlow which should give me about x160.  Perhaps I just didn't get decent 'seeing' conditions this year.

Staying at the EP really helps (and letting the scope cool enough!). I have at times had others look through the scope at Jupiter and after a short period of remarks along the lines of "Oh, that's nice", suddenly gasp or say "wow" in a hushed voice. The same for H-alpha viewing of the sun. The pure monochromatic light is hard to interpret for the brain, and I frequently have people saying "it's just a red ball" just before going "WOW!!"

[IanL]

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

Staying at the EP really helps (and letting the scope cool enough!). I have at times had others look through the scope at Jupiter and after a short period of remarks along the lines of "Oh, that's nice", suddenly gasp or say "wow" in a hushed voice. The same for H-alpha viewing of the sun. The pure monochromatic light is hard to interpret for the brain, and I frequently have people saying "it's just a red ball" just before going "WOW!!"

Yes I get the latter all the time when doing solar outreach. I say "Can you see such and such at the four o'clock position?" and for a minute or two the response will be "No it's just a red ball." and then suddenly that "WOW!" moment when they get their eye in and all the details suddenly become apparent.  Similar with lunar and planetary viewing, the more and the longer you look, the more you will see.

[newbie alert]

I might try using a UHC filter but again thought that was filtering the oiii...

My reference was looking at the target just through a ep you're not going to see anything..

[John]

This is an interesting comparison of the visual view v's the imaged object. The visual observer here (Jeremy Perez) used an 8" scope without a filter but under a dark sky:

[Stu]

16 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

My reference was looking at the target just through a ep you're not going to see anything..

I still don't get these comments newbie. Clearly there is plenty to see visually otherwise we wouldn't bother doing it! John's post illustrates just how much there is to see in M42, it is far from being just a grey blob, plenty of detail visible provided you have a dark sky.

[Moonshane]

Jupiter will be small but with concentration and patience you can sketch some reasonable detail. Here's one I did a while ago. I am like John and Stu among others and find visual observing and sketching satisfies me completely.  

 

 

[Moonshane]

Ps the actual planet was about the size of the great red spot assuming the whole eyepiece field was the size of the whole planet.

[newbie alert]

31 minutes ago, Stu said:

I still don't get these comments newbie. Clearly there is plenty to see visually otherwise we wouldn't bother doing it! John's post illustrates just how much there is to see in M42, it is far from being just a grey blob, plenty of detail visible provided you have a dark sky.

Visually throu a ep without using a filter what do you see on rosette and NA

[Moonshane]

It totally depends on the sky quality. 

I cannot work out if this was with a filter or not but why not use one if it enhances an object?

http://www.deepskywatch.com/Astrosketches/north-america-nebula-sketch.html

[spaceboy]

I found when observing the rosette in a 10" scope, using an OIII was like turning a light on and off. I could see the neb with the filter and only the satellite cluster with out.

[Stu]

1 hour ago, newbie alert said:

Visually throu a ep without using a filter what do you see on rosette and NA

These are some attempts to simulate the visual view of the NAN and Veil through a 4" scope under a dark site, transparent sky using an OIII filter. Not exact but a good indication.

[newbie alert]

That's good..ive seen the veil through a 16 inch dob at a very dark sky location..with Oiii filter..

[Stu]

19 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

That's good..ive seen the veil through a 16 inch dob at a very dark sky location..with Oiii filter..

With a 16" you will see only part of it at a time but in much more detail.

I assume you have not seen the NAN?

[newbie alert]

Not seen the north American as yet as it's a huge target..in the dob I'm sure it was the eastern veil..

[Stu]

1 hour ago, newbie alert said:

Not seen the north American as yet as it's a huge target..in the dob I'm sure it was the eastern veil..

Depends on the f ratio of your scope to a degree, but say at f4, with some careful framing you should catch the Gulf of Mexico region with say a 30mm 82 degree eyepiece. Parts of the Veil in a large scope look amazing, photographic with an OIII and dark skies.

[newbie alert]

I'm more on the imaging side of things Stu but thanks for your input

[Stu]

3 minutes ago, newbie alert said:

I'm more on the imaging side of things Stu but thanks for your input

No problem. Really just making sure that people know these targets are visible visually if you do it right  

[newbie alert]

2 minutes ago, Stu said:

No problem. Really just making sure that people know these targets are visible visually if you do it right  

As in with the correct filters and skies!

I will try next time I'm out so thankyou

[JOC]

15 hours ago, Moonshane said:

Ps the actual planet was about the size of the great red spot assuming the whole eyepiece field was the size of the whole planet

This^^^ is the useful bit of information.  Taking that into account I think perhaps my view of Jupiter was not that visually big as I don't think I would have been able to see that level of detail even if I had of sat looking at it for a long time. 

As I think I've mentioned elsewhere I have been mostly unsuccessful at most FGF's (faint grey fuzzies).  I think because there is so much of it there I am aware of the nebulosity of M42 - it's location with the trapezium is dead easy to find and totally unmistakeable.  Interestingly I have tried looking at it with all my filters and I actually think I see more of M42 without any of them.  Such an observation doesn't really help when I'm trying to find other FGF's, esp. when I have no real ideal of the scale of the object I am looking for - i.e. is it that big that I'll miss it if I get closer than a 20mm EP or even if I put in a 6mm I'm still looking for a pea in a large saucepan.  It is very easy to believe that I've got the location wrong and then you sort of think, well if I am not sure I'm in the right place anyway, I don't know the scale of what I'm searching for, and if I am not 100% sure if it's see-able without filter X in place anyway its very easy to give up try and find an interesting star instead!

[aser hisham]

 @spaceboy I think it wasn't because a lot of people said that they saw at least one of the bands albeit faintly but I will see what the new one will do.