A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Astro Pictures
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

M1 with FLT100



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 08, 05:15 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Fabio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default M1 with FLT100

Hi to all,

Saturday night i had a beautiful night, even if the moon at first quarter
was disturbing a lot.

I did some Moon shots and later a DSO image of M1.
I used the SXVF-H9C on the W.O. FLT110 F7 guided with SXV on Televue Pronto
plus a Losmandy GM11 with Gemini.
The night was first a little windy then it was good, +3°C at 600m altitude.
Unusual for the period, usually temperature is varying between -1 to -3.

http://www.fabioh2o.it/Images/DeepSky/deep80.htm

Comments are appreciated.

Regards
Fabio

  #2  
Old December 8th 08, 08:52 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Stefan Lilge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,269
Default M1 with FLT100

Fabio, that's a lot of detail for a small telescope. It must give very sharp
pictures to get this level of detail at only 770mm focal length.

Stefan

"Fabio" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Hi to all,

Saturday night i had a beautiful night, even if the moon at first quarter
was disturbing a lot.

I did some Moon shots and later a DSO image of M1.
I used the SXVF-H9C on the W.O. FLT110 F7 guided with SXV on Televue
Pronto plus a Losmandy GM11 with Gemini.
The night was first a little windy then it was good, +3°C at 600m
altitude. Unusual for the period, usually temperature is varying
between -1 to -3.

http://www.fabioh2o.it/Images/DeepSky/deep80.htm

Comments are appreciated.

Regards
Fabio



  #3  
Old December 8th 08, 09:16 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Rick Johnson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,085
Default M1 with FLT100



Fabio wrote:
Hi to all,

Saturday night i had a beautiful night, even if the moon at first
quarter was disturbing a lot.

I did some Moon shots and later a DSO image of M1.
I used the SXVF-H9C on the W.O. FLT110 F7 guided with SXV on Televue
Pronto plus a Losmandy GM11 with Gemini.
The night was first a little windy then it was good, +3°C at 600m
altitude. Unusual for the period, usually temperature is varying between
-1 to -3.

http://www.fabioh2o.it/Images/DeepSky/deep80.htm

Comments are appreciated.

Regards
Fabio


Excellent. I can't get much at all with a half moon except with narrow
band filters. Your image looks as if there was no moon in the sky.

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".

  #4  
Old December 8th 08, 10:37 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Fabio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default M1 with FLT100

Thank you Rick and Stefan,,

this time i am impressed too and also the friend that was with me. The
details are very good, and the camera worked very well.
I forgot to mention that i used an IDAS LPS filter.

The scope it is very good, or better it has a very high Quality/price
rate.
Here you can find ( In Italian) a test of my scope ...also you can see
me. http://www.telescopedoctor.com/main....ori/wo-110-flt

Anyway, this time the conditions (sky) was good for the setup even if moon
and some turbolence...


Thank you very much for comments.

Regards
Fabio


"Fabio" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Hi to all,

Saturday night i had a beautiful night, even if the moon at first quarter
was disturbing a lot.

I did some Moon shots and later a DSO image of M1.
I used the SXVF-H9C on the W.O. FLT110 F7 guided with SXV on Televue
Pronto plus a Losmandy GM11 with Gemini.
The night was first a little windy then it was good, +3°C at 600m
altitude. Unusual for the period, usually temperature is varying
between -1 to -3.

http://www.fabioh2o.it/Images/DeepSky/deep80.htm

Comments are appreciated.

Regards
Fabio


  #5  
Old December 8th 08, 11:44 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Milton Aupperle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default M1 with FLT100

In article , Fabio
wrote:

Thank you Rick and Stefan,,

this time i am impressed too and also the friend that was with me. The
details are very good, and the camera worked very well.
I forgot to mention that i used an IDAS LPS filter.


Very nice M1 image Fabio.

I also use an IDAS LPS filter which really helps a lot in suppressing
light pollution in urban Calgary.

Here is a comparison between no filter and IDAS LPR filter taken with a
C8 from urban Calgary Alberta.

http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImag...PRFiltered.jpg

My skies were about Mag 3.5 at the time it was taken, which is a bit
better than average. I have a mix of mercury, sodium and incandescent
light sources, which make my skies a uniform darkish gray color.

What I found was I'm losing about 1.4 times the star light because of
the LPR Filter, however my background light pollution was cut by 2.3
times (compare backgrounds of Fig 1 versus Fig 2) with the filter.

Figures 4 and 5 show what sort of cutoff I would need to do to get the
backgrounds equal between unfiltered (34,000) and filtered (7,500)
images. However that pushes the contrast and star bloat up in the
unfiltered image dramatically.

I could expose the CCD for an extra 40% to compensate for the star
light lost, and would still have darker backgrounds due to light
pollution than without the filter. So in my skies situation the LPR
helps more than it hurts.

HTH..

Milton Aupperle
http://www.outcastsoft.com
http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImages/AstroIndex.html
  #6  
Old December 9th 08, 10:19 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Stefan Lilge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,269
Default M1 with FLT100

Milton,

for emission line objects like M27 it is true that LPR filters give better
contrast. Of course for M27 a narrower UHC filter (e.g. the Astronomik UHC)
would give even better images. I have attached a comparison I did in 2004
showing M27 under Berlin skies unfiltered, with Astronomik CLS and with
Astronomik UHC.

For broadband objects (galaxies) I have found that my LPR filters
(Astronomik CLS, Lumicon Deep Sky, Baader Skyglow) dim the "useful" light by
a similar amount as the sky background. Maybe the IDAS ist better than the
filters I mentioned, but if both the object and the light pollution are
broadband it seems logical that a filter affects them similarly.

My conclusion (which took me several years of testing) is that LPS filters
are not really useful under broadband light pollution because they don't
really help with galaxies and while they are useful for emission objects
there are filters that are even better for this purpose.

Of course the situation changes if the light pollution is "narrow band",
e.g. if the light pollution comes from a single type of streetlights. If the
LPS filter blocks the light of these streetlights it can make a big
difference even for galaxies.

Stefan





Very nice M1 image Fabio.

I also use an IDAS LPS filter which really helps a lot in suppressing
light pollution in urban Calgary.

Here is a comparison between no filter and IDAS LPR filter taken with a
C8 from urban Calgary Alberta.

http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImag...PRFiltered.jpg

My skies were about Mag 3.5 at the time it was taken, which is a bit
better than average. I have a mix of mercury, sodium and incandescent
light sources, which make my skies a uniform darkish gray color.

What I found was I'm losing about 1.4 times the star light because of
the LPR Filter, however my background light pollution was cut by 2.3
times (compare backgrounds of Fig 1 versus Fig 2) with the filter.

Figures 4 and 5 show what sort of cutoff I would need to do to get the
backgrounds equal between unfiltered (34,000) and filtered (7,500)
images. However that pushes the contrast and star bloat up in the
unfiltered image dramatically.

I could expose the CCD for an extra 40% to compensate for the star
light lost, and would still have darker backgrounds due to light
pollution than without the filter. So in my skies situation the LPR
helps more than it hurts.

HTH..

Milton Aupperle
http://www.outcastsoft.com
http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImages/AstroIndex.html





Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	M27comp.jpg
Views:	178
Size:	76.2 KB
ID:	2275  
  #7  
Old December 9th 08, 11:55 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Fabio
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default M1 with FLT100

I aggree Stefan,

after my tests i can say that for Galaxies it is better to avoid the LPS,
IDAS in my case...

Regards
Fabio

"Stefan Lilge" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
Milton,

for emission line objects like M27 it is true that LPR filters give better
contrast. Of course for M27 a narrower UHC filter (e.g. the Astronomik
UHC) would give even better images. I have attached a comparison I did in
2004 showing M27 under Berlin skies unfiltered, with Astronomik CLS and
with Astronomik UHC.

For broadband objects (galaxies) I have found that my LPR filters
(Astronomik CLS, Lumicon Deep Sky, Baader Skyglow) dim the "useful" light
by a similar amount as the sky background. Maybe the IDAS ist better than
the filters I mentioned, but if both the object and the light pollution
are broadband it seems logical that a filter affects them similarly.

My conclusion (which took me several years of testing) is that LPS filters
are not really useful under broadband light pollution because they don't
really help with galaxies and while they are useful for emission objects
there are filters that are even better for this purpose.

Of course the situation changes if the light pollution is "narrow band",
e.g. if the light pollution comes from a single type of streetlights. If
the LPS filter blocks the light of these streetlights it can make a big
difference even for galaxies.

Stefan





Very nice M1 image Fabio.

I also use an IDAS LPS filter which really helps a lot in suppressing
light pollution in urban Calgary.

Here is a comparison between no filter and IDAS LPR filter taken with a
C8 from urban Calgary Alberta.

http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImag...PRFiltered.jpg

My skies were about Mag 3.5 at the time it was taken, which is a bit
better than average. I have a mix of mercury, sodium and incandescent
light sources, which make my skies a uniform darkish gray color.

What I found was I'm losing about 1.4 times the star light because of
the LPR Filter, however my background light pollution was cut by 2.3
times (compare backgrounds of Fig 1 versus Fig 2) with the filter.

Figures 4 and 5 show what sort of cutoff I would need to do to get the
backgrounds equal between unfiltered (34,000) and filtered (7,500)
images. However that pushes the contrast and star bloat up in the
unfiltered image dramatically.

I could expose the CCD for an extra 40% to compensate for the star
light lost, and would still have darker backgrounds due to light
pollution than without the filter. So in my skies situation the LPR
helps more than it hurts.

HTH..

Milton Aupperle
http://www.outcastsoft.com
http://www.outcastsoft.com/AstroImages/AstroIndex.html





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New images with W.O.FLT100 Fabio Astro Pictures 4 September 10th 08 07:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.