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".

"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

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".