the ultra low end of video astronomy
Posted 11 March 2013 - 12:58 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:31 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:23 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:33 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 09:32 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:07 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 10:11 AM
Nice image, and taken alongside Mike Harveys "what does it really look like" posts helps folks visualize what an object might really look like through an eyepiece of larger scopes under different conditions.
Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:44 AM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 11:58 AM
Among extended objects, only the pretty bright stuff would seen to be accessible. Perhaps the eye can better see the fainter parts through an eyepiece on the same scope. If so, from this standpoint this is a step backward, at least for so-called 'live' viewing.
I have never seen that field of view and that much detail through a 90mm scope with an eye piece.
Posted 11 March 2013 - 02:58 PM
Posted 11 March 2013 - 06:42 PM
Of course, the long f/ratio is a serious impediment, and coupling to a fast scope will show much more. Please do try that; I'd love to see what the camera is capable of when there is a brighter image illuminating the detector. Then we may have a chance to surpass visual performance.
In this area of testing low light performance, low end cams should be pointed toward visually challenge objects, such as the Cave nebula (Sh2-155), or if that proves too difficult due to light pollution, perhaps the Rosette or North America. The latter two have surface brightness around 24 mag/arcsec^2, which is 10 magnitudes, or 10,000 times fainter than the brightest core of M42.
Images of such visually bright fare as the ever popular M42, M27 and m57 hardly constitute test objects for video camera performance. I sit up and take notice when a cheap camera can at least come close to revealing what can be seen by eye at the sky glow limit.
Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:58 PM
Well, on my screen only the very brightest parts of the nebulosity is seen. 50mm binos readily show the full spherical bubble of the outer parts of M42. My comment was not concerned with the detail revealed in the brighter parts, but the absence of the fainter bits which are readily seen in small apertures.
Alright...I find the overuse of sens up a bit messy looking, but last night I did a redo at 96x sens up with a 90mm C90 gated to f6. It is a bit messy for my taste, but here it is.
Posted 12 March 2013 - 09:34 PM
I've been put well and truly in my place; cheers!
Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:55 AM
Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:18 AM
Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:47 AM
Posted 17 March 2013 - 03:31 PM
Posted 17 March 2013 - 05:20 PM
Thank you, Kasey
Posted 17 March 2013 - 06:16 PM
Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:50 PM
Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:41 PM
Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:17 AM
Stacking constitutes 'imaging' which is another section in Cloudy nights.
The images people want to see in here are ones that show what the camera sees 'Live' (or what is actually Semi-Live).
That way they can see how a Camera performs in a 'Live' viewing situation.
Imagine having an electronic eye to look in your telescope with. That's what we show in here.
The rule is probably buried a couple of hundred threads back
EDIT: This will give you an idea: http://www.cloudynig...4232772/page...
Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:38 AM