"Richard Crisp" wrote
...
I ended up concentrating on the "tadpoles" in IC410, continuing on an
object that I had taken a few test exposures of the prior night.

Great image Richard!!


I used the very nice "suburban friendly" Custom Scientific 3nm FWHM Halpha
filter.........

"suburban friendly"?? It's approved by home owers' associations???


......... I still haven't yet tested the new 7nm Baader but am excited to
see a nice $300 solution for 50mm.......

Sounds like my kinda filter! I'll be very interested in what results you
get from the Baader filter if you get it. My only experience with h-a
filters is my Astronimik II 1.25" filter. However, I'd like to get at least
an h-a in 2-inch. As for CS, I use to use their 1.25" color imaging filters
until one broke, and then changed to the Astronomik's. I also have CS's
UBVRI photometric filters in 1.25" and of their color imaging filters in 2".


The Dream Machine's big 24 x 24 micron back-illuminated pixels.........

I've still had no luck getting Jim M, co-owner of FLI to drive 4 miles and
hook his cameras on our 20RC. He'd rather fool around in his backyard with a
10" SCT. Actually, I don't think Jim has that much time for astronomy now -
one of the bad parts of starting an astronomy related business. I've always
liked the idea of using big pixel back-illum chips at the 20RC's 161-inch
focal length. The 20 micron pixels of the ST-9 works OK, and on many nights
the 16 micron pixels of the 1301 are a little small, given our usual poor
seeing. The images you are getting are fine. Have you compared FWHM of a
very short exposure with and without the filter? It would be interesting to
see if it has an impact.

George Normandin