#1
|
|||
|
|||
NGC2261 1946-2006
I found this photo on the web. It's the first official photo of the
200". Unfortunately it was printed backwards so I had to reverse it. I've marked one star HPM. It shows a high proper motion over the 46+ years between the two pictures, moving south quite a bit. As you see this nebula changing a lot over only one year I was surprised how similar it looks over the long run. Fine details have been lost in this version of the 200" shot unfortunately. Palomar does have far better seeing than I do See: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/palomar/hvn.html for the original 200" shot used here. 14" LX200R@f/10, 6x5 binned 2x2, STL-11000M quarter frame, 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". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NGC2261 1946-2006
"Rick Johnson" wrote
.......I've marked one star HPM. It shows a high proper motion over the 46+ years between the two pictures, moving south quite a bit. As you see this nebula changing a lot over only one year I was surprised how similar it looks over the long run. Fine details have been lost in this version of the 200" shot unfortunately. Palomar does have far better seeing than I do Rick, Hey that's pretty neat! There is also a difference in response to the stars between the images. Do you use a Lum filter? If not the difference is probably IR response in your CCD that the film didn't have. I'm sure that you have darker skies than Palomar. However you can see how transparent the sky is there even during the day time. When I've shown friends pictures I took there they accuse me of using a polarizing filter, but I didn't. The sky is just "cobalt blue" from that mountain. George N |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NGC2261 1946-2006
George Normandin wrote: "Rick Johnson" wrote .......I've marked one star HPM. It shows a high proper motion over the 46+ years between the two pictures, moving south quite a bit. As you see this nebula changing a lot over only one year I was surprised how similar it looks over the long run. Fine details have been lost in this version of the 200" shot unfortunately. Palomar does have far better seeing than I do Rick, Hey that's pretty neat! There is also a difference in response to the stars between the images. Do you use a Lum filter? If not the difference is probably IR response in your CCD that the film didn't have. I'm sure that you have darker skies than Palomar. However you can see how transparent the sky is there even during the day time. When I've shown friends pictures I took there they accuse me of using a polarizing filter, but I didn't. The sky is just "cobalt blue" from that mountain. George N I did use a lum filter so IR isn't the difference. But Hubble may have used either a red or blue sensitive film for that image which might be the difference. 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". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CFP: The 2006 IAENG International Workshop on Imaging Engineering (in IMECS 2006) | [email protected] | CCD Imaging | 0 | January 19th 06 03:55 PM |
Call For Papers: 2006 PDPTA, ICAI, SERP + more (28 joint conferences); Las Vegas, USA, June 2006 | A. M. G. Solo | Science | 0 | November 20th 05 02:07 AM |
Call For Papers: 2006 PDPTA, ICAI, SERP + more (28 joint conferences); Las Vegas, USA, June 2006 | A. M. G. Solo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 19th 05 06:07 PM |
NASA PDF - On the Frontier: Flight Research at Dryden 1946-1981 | Rusty | History | 6 | August 13th 05 02:42 AM |
EBAY: Robert Goddard's book - Rockets - 1946 - 1st edition | Rusty B | History | 0 | August 14th 03 09:05 PM |