ASTRO: M92 is not just Hercules' other globular

From the brightest to dimmest stars there's a difference of about
150,000, far beyond my 60,000 range of the CCD. Then shoehorning that
into the 256 levels of a monitor and still leaving a few levels for a
grey background, I've not found a way around it. If I'm willing to lose
those 22nd mag stars then I can give it a gentler look to the faint
stars. I'm sure someone with more skill at it can manage it, I'm just
not there yet. I checked the data and there was a 3/4 full moon in the
sky about an hour from setting when the lum was taken. That didn't help
as I'm lousy with moon gradients as yet. I'd never manage anything from
your skies. I'm too ham handed with the processing as yet. Then I hate
to waste a photon. By not digging so deep the moon isn't a problem and
processing is easier. But knowing there's more there drives me nuts so
I go digging for it. I do need to get the plug in for gradients for
photoshop. That would help once I figure it out.

The small stars are due to the best seeing I've had for an image. I've
never seen that before or since. I could have benefited from 1x1
binning I'm sure. I've tried to find anything else taken that night but
dummy used some untried free program to help reorganize the drive. It
did work as it was supposed to but redated all files with the current
date! Now I have to look at the FITS header to find out when something
was taken. The date stamp is worthless! I pitched that one fast but
the harm was already done. I thought maybe my M13 was taken the same
night but it was taken nearly a week before when there was no moon
problem -- it was thin and had already set. That night, though, was my
second best night of seeing. So far I've found nothing else taken that
night. Since I started this one with less than 2 hours to dawn I must
have done something else that night. Maybe seeing suddenly improved. I
can't remember. I need to keep a detailed log.

Rick


Stefan Lilge wrote:

Rick, I just compared that one to my pictures of M92, and your picture
is really amazing. The cluster almost fills my screen and still stars
are nice small. Somehow the fainter stars look a bit "flat", as if their
brightest parts have been cut off, but that's a minor issue.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

I'm now up to the top end of the M list cleaning out the hard drive. I
was shocked to find this unprocessed set of M92 frames from last summer.
How I forgot these I don't know as this appears to be the best seeing
I've ever had! In any case it processed into my best globular photo to
date. I think I set this up then went to bed. I took 3 in each RGB
color then 6 lum frames then repeated this. By the time the second set
of Lum frames was being taken the sun rose so the first lum of the
second set showed some fogging and by the third it was white. I must
have looked at that when I got up and figured something went wrong. At
least I didn't delete them. The second round of RGB were fine so this
left me with 6, 5 minute frames in RGB as well as Lum. I found that
extra RGB did make processing go easier much to my surprise. Anyway
here's the result. I know there are more lost files to be found but I
doubt any will equal this one.

14" LX200R @ f/10, LRGB all 6x5' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

WOW!

Mr Andrew R Green BSc(Hons) FRAS
Fellow Royal Astronomical Society
Director & Resident Astronomer, StarDome,
Director Anglo-Australian Astro Education Partnership

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
I'm now up to the top end of the M list cleaning out the hard drive. I
was shocked to find this unprocessed set of M92 frames from last summer.
How I forgot these I don't know as this appears to be the best seeing
I've ever had! In any case it processed into my best globular photo to
date. I think I set this up then went to bed. I took 3 in each RGB
color then 6 lum frames then repeated this. By the time the second set
of Lum frames was being taken the sun rose so the first lum of the
second set showed some fogging and by the third it was white. I must
have looked at that when I got up and figured something went wrong. At
least I didn't delete them. The second round of RGB were fine so this
left me with 6, 5 minute frames in RGB as well as Lum. I found that
extra RGB did make processing go easier much to my surprise. Anyway
here's the result. I know there are more lost files to be found but I
doubt any will equal this one.

14" LX200R @ f/10, LRGB all 6x5' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

Heck of a shot there Rick!

Rick Johnson wrote:
I'm now up to the top end of the M list cleaning out the hard drive. I
was shocked to find this unprocessed set of M92 frames from last summer.
How I forgot these I don't know as this appears to be the best seeing
I've ever had! In any case it processed into my best globular photo to
date. I think I set this up then went to bed. I took 3 in each RGB
color then 6 lum frames then repeated this. By the time the second set
of Lum frames was being taken the sun rose so the first lum of the
second set showed some fogging and by the third it was white. I must
have looked at that when I got up and figured something went wrong. At
least I didn't delete them. The second round of RGB were fine so this
left me with 6, 5 minute frames in RGB as well as Lum. I found that
extra RGB did make processing go easier much to my surprise. Anyway
here's the result. I know there are more lost files to be found but I
doubt any will equal this one.

14" LX200R @ f/10, LRGB all 6x5' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick

------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
John N. Gretchen III
N5JNG NCS304
http://www.tisd.net/~jng3

Stefan Lilge wrote:

Rick, I just compared that one to my pictures of M92, and your picture
is really amazing. The cluster almost fills my screen and still stars
are nice small. Somehow the fainter stars look a bit "flat", as if their
brightest parts have been cut off, but that's a minor issue.

Stefan

I went back and looked at the FWHM and find it is running from 1.2" to
1.6" of arc. Since I sampled at 1" this is under sampled. The best
seeing I've had prior to this was M13 and that came in at 2.1" FWHM! A
big difference. This under sampling may have something to do with the
faint stars looking flat as well. I've never had conditions allow for
that to happen before! I wish I'd used 1x1 binning that night! Many
nights it is 3.5" and worse. Checking individual stars I'd hit a few
that were 3" to 4". I assume those were really distant galaxies. If so
there are at least 100 in the shot. A close double star might do the same.

Rick

--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".