Weather forced reprocessing...

The original is he
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/dso/M31-2005.html

and the revised one he
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/dso/M31-2006.html

Thanks for the comments everyone. A new, larger, version has been
appended to the http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/dso/M31-2006.html page.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk


Startling image from an avergae quality 80ED. Did you do that afocally
with
the focal reducer?

Prime focus with the focal reducer. There's a lot of processing
involved to pull out the detail to be honest. If you compare the
original frames with the finished result you'd be quite forgiven in
not believing it was possible to get from one to the other (in fact I
felt the same way just yesterday!). However, fortunately I have kept a
lot of the intermediate stages - like in real life, I don't throw much
away; a fact that drives my wife nuts ;-). It's possible to see how
the image has evolved over time.


I didn't know you can use the 6.3 FR with refractors. They always specify
SCT's.
Is the visual FOV a lot better?

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 17:52:29 GMT, "Mike Thomas"
wrote:



The original is he
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/dso/M31-2005.html

and the revised one he
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/dso/M31-2006.html

Thanks for the comments everyone. A new, larger, version has been
appended to the http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/dso/M31-2006.html page.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk


Startling image from an avergae quality 80ED. Did you do that afocally
with
the focal reducer?

Prime focus with the focal reducer. There's a lot of processing
involved to pull out the detail to be honest. If you compare the
original frames with the finished result you'd be quite forgiven in
not believing it was possible to get from one to the other (in fact I
felt the same way just yesterday!). However, fortunately I have kept a
lot of the intermediate stages - like in real life, I don't throw much
away; a fact that drives my wife nuts ;-). It's possible to see how
the image has evolved over time.


I didn't know you can use the 6.3 FR with refractors. They always specify
SCT's.
Is the visual FOV a lot better?

Now that's embarassing because I haven't looked through the scope with
the 0.63 focal reducer visually. Actually, the coupling I currently
doesn't actually allow it.

--
Pete Lawrence
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk
Last updated 4th February 2006

Hi Mike

Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk


Thanks for sharing your hard earned images. Too bad there wasn't a lot
more
like you.

I'm trying:- www.astronomy.ndo.co.uk/faoalwyn.htm

In fact, Mum says "I'm very trying" :-(

Neil

Startling image from an avergae quality 80ED. Did you do that afocally
with
the focal reducer?

Prime focus with the focal reducer. There's a lot of processing
involved to pull out the detail to be honest. If you compare the
original frames with the finished result you'd be quite forgiven in
not believing it was possible to get from one to the other (in fact I
felt the same way just yesterday!). However, fortunately I have kept a
lot of the intermediate stages - like in real life, I don't throw much
away; a fact that drives my wife nuts ;-). It's possible to see how
the image has evolved over time.


I didn't know you can use the 6.3 FR with refractors. They always specify
SCT's.
Is the visual FOV a lot better?

Now that's embarassing because I haven't looked through the scope with
the 0.63 focal reducer visually. Actually, the coupling I currently
doesn't actually allow it.

Why do you keep saying 0.63 FR'er? Isn't it the meade 6.3?

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:38:02 GMT, "Mike Thomas"
wrote:




Startling image from an avergae quality 80ED. Did you do that afocally
with
the focal reducer?

Prime focus with the focal reducer. There's a lot of processing
involved to pull out the detail to be honest. If you compare the
original frames with the finished result you'd be quite forgiven in
not believing it was possible to get from one to the other (in fact I
felt the same way just yesterday!). However, fortunately I have kept a
lot of the intermediate stages - like in real life, I don't throw much
away; a fact that drives my wife nuts ;-). It's possible to see how
the image has evolved over time.


I didn't know you can use the 6.3 FR with refractors. They always specify
SCT's.
Is the visual FOV a lot better?

Now that's embarassing because I haven't looked through the scope with
the 0.63 focal reducer visually. Actually, the coupling I currently
doesn't actually allow it.

Why do you keep saying 0.63 FR'er? Isn't it the meade 6.3?

It's actually called the Meade f/6.3 focal reducer/field flattener.
This is because it changes an f/10 Meade SCT from f/10 to f/6.3 - i.e.
it works as a 0.63x focal reducer.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

I didn't know you can use the 6.3 FR with refractors. They always
specify
SCT's.
Is the visual FOV a lot better?

Now that's embarassing because I haven't looked through the scope with
the 0.63 focal reducer visually. Actually, the coupling I currently
doesn't actually allow it.

Why do you keep saying 0.63 FR'er? Isn't it the meade 6.3?

It's actually called the Meade f/6.3 focal reducer/field flattener.
This is because it changes an f/10 Meade SCT from f/10 to f/6.3 - i.e.
it works as a 0.63x focal reducer.
--
Pete
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk


Ah! good arithmetic.