#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |