Jump to content

Banner.jpg.5ed196c1e70861ebc79109e023c96067.jpg

M82


Rodd
 Share

Recommended Posts

This one is not completed.  I collected about 6 hours of Ha with the C11Edge then the weather turned.  With nothing else to do I decided to see if my TOA 130 data could be used in combination with the C11Edge data.  Since I binned the c11 data the pixel scales were almost the same (.77 arcsec/pix TOA and .8 arcsec/pix C11).  Processing was straight forward-HaLRGB, with 15 hours Ha and  about 12 hours of RGB (about 4 each).  I never liked my processing of the TOA data--cartoonish--hypersaturated.  Adding the Ha from the C11Edge made it easier to keep the saturation levels of the Ha reasonable (but I need much more data as most was collected during bright Moon and very poor conditions).  So I am not sure if the improvements to the image are due to better processing alone, or processing and adding Ha data.  What I am coming to realize is unless conditions are very good--the C11Edge does not produce any better images than the TOA 130.  In fact--inferior, because the C11 is much more affected by seeing.  When the seeing is good, it definitely does beat the TOA, but  I so rarely get decent seeing, I am tempted to switch OTAs and forget about the C11.  For deep sky there doesn't seem to be much point in my sky.  I guess the final test will be seeing what a full C11Edge data set looks like for this target

AB-298d.thumb.jpg.55707c296de123b351e2563148e59557.jpg

 

  • Like 33
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gorann said:

Nice Rodd, a lot of detail in the galaxy! When you are seeing limited large aperture combined with short FL is worth considering, so a RASA or a Tak Epsilon.

Yes… but my scope buying days are over. A 5” refractor at f5.38 will have to do.  Might be getting an asi2600 soon.  If I can swing it that camera will use more photons and it should be an improvement 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

As good as any I have seen, lovely detail in there. C11 not easy to work with I am told, I keep looking at my Meade 12 inch which I even bought mounting rails for but so far have resisted

Alan

Thanks Alan.  Actually, the scope is pretty easy. Collocation holds well and if you put in a focuser and lock down the mirror, it’s very refractor like.  Seeing is the issue.  When it is 3/5 or better it’s awesome.  The problem is it’s usually bad.  I would give the Meade a try

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rodd said:

Thanks Alan.  Actually, the scope is pretty easy. Collocation holds well and if you put in a focuser and lock down the mirror, it’s very refractor like.  Seeing is the issue.  When it is 3/5 or better it’s awesome.  The problem is it’s usually bad.  I would give the Meade a try

Been think about it Rodd, I even have the reducer to take it down to1980mm and F6.3 which I imagine would help as I only have a CEM 60, the weight would be a tad over the limit, maybe a big tad. I started out doing 15 sec subs on the normal LX200 mount ans actually got a result at 3048mm, the Ring was the target and someone commented wow what a shot in the competitions some time back, then I realised I was breaking the rules having shot it some year before the limits of time.

Seeing here though will always better the UK I would think, I'm lucky with that, though it is a bit dull and damp lately.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, alan potts said:

1980mm and F6.3 which I imagine would help

That definitely will help.  One option is to get decent polar alignment and shoot unguided, provided you use a CMOS camera that is designed for shot subs.  20-30 sec is all you need, especially on brighter targets.  I produced 5-6 images like this before I got an OAG--and I was shooting at F10 (2800 mm).  Drift was my problem.  If I corrected for drift (obly a small slew--like 1/2 the diameter of the ring nebula) ervery 30-45 min, all was well, especially shooting a galaxy that could accomodate a small crop.  It was a lot of work though.  Guiding is much less toilsome.  The results were pretty good when seeing was good, as there were no guide errors.  Like you, I was very hesitant.  Now, I love it.  When seeing is good it is amazing.

  • Like 1
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
 Share

×
×
  • 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.