Soul revisited

[Rodd]

I posted an early attempt at this comparison and I think it fell a bit short because there was a data imbalance.  Now it is much stronger a statement.  This is a direct comparison of a C11Edge shooting at 1,960 mm (102 300sec subs) and an FSQ 106 shooting at 318 mm (120 300sec subs).  The FSQ image has been registered to the C11 Image (after a huge crop and upsizing).  Nothing has been done to either image--just edge crop DBE for gradient removal (was none to speak of in either), and screen stretch (SFT).  The question to be posed is...."why use a large aperture scope in average to below average seeing?"  For me, the answer is obvious. Well, because the stars are a bit smaller in the C11 image, I suppose one does have to take into account the fact that the C11 image took about 5x longer to complete due to conditions limiting imaging time and having to cull copious subs.  The FSQ image includes about 90% of subs collected.

I am surprised to see the C11 image is a bit cleaner (serious pixel peeping required to see it.

The stars are smaller in the C11 image, but the FSQ stars are certainly respectable--there is separation in the triple system just right of the pillar structure at left.   Besides, stars are manipulated in processing.  I think if these imnages were fully processed as stand alone mono images, the difference would be even smallere.

FSQ Image

 

C11 Image

[ollypenrice]

There's precious little in it, as you say. Broadband might be a harder test for the small scope. Still, your findings match my own.

Olly

 

[Rodd]

52 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

There's precious little in it, as you say. Broadband might be a harder test for the small scope. Still, your findings match my own.

Olly

 

Your right Olly, of course.  Unfortunately, the only broadband images from the c11 that came out halfway decently are galaxies—probably not something I will want to pursue at 328 mm.  I do have the wizard and bubble that could be used. We’ll see.  I do like broadband nebulae.