ASTRO: M101 50% version

Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:

I've been playing with this one for 2 weeks now. Time to give up. When
I reduced the file size I lost detail, especially the HII regions so I
left it full size. First time I've posted a full frame, full size
STL-11000 image. If it is too much let me know and I'll post a half
size version.

Much of the data for this was taken the same night as NGC 2805 with the
observatory lights on so it had the same gradient problem. In fact I
took this first waiting for NGC 2805 to get out of some trees that block
a couple hours either side of the meridian near the pole. They keep a
ton of snow off the observatory roof or else I'd cut them down.

Even though the STL-11000's frame is 35mm size the whole galaxy didn't
fit on it. I should have moved it farther west (right) but I saw that
little galaxy over there and didn't see that M101 was going off frame to
the east so framed it to pick up that western galaxy. It wasn't until I
stacked the images and removed the gradient I realized I shouldn't have
done that. Top and bottom are also both cut off as well though I knew
that was happening. This is one tore up galaxy. Getting the faint
stuff without blowing out the nucleus was difficult and resulted in a
flatter image than I'd like. My processing skills have a ways to go
yet. Still I like how it turned out.

14" LX200R@F/10, L=6x20' binned 1x1 RGB=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME

--
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 in message
...
Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:

Wow. My scope wants to be like yours when it grows up!

George

George wrote:

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:


Wow. My scope wants to be like yours when it grows up!

George

Thanks.

From my experience it is the mount that is mostly responsible for a
good picture. The scope, as long as it is in focus and somewhat
collimated (mine's way out thanks to the wide daily temperature swings
this winter) most any scope will take a darned good deep sky shot.

If the clouds ever part here, 8 days of mist and counting, I'll fix that
collimation problem. Assuming the moss this mist is bringing doesn't
seal the observatory roof shut.

Rick

extremely nice Rick

The full rez version isn't coming through on my server but the half rez one
looks spectacular

I can only imagine how nice the full rez version is.

nice job!


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:

I've been playing with this one for 2 weeks now. Time to give up. When
I reduced the file size I lost detail, especially the HII regions so I
left it full size. First time I've posted a full frame, full size
STL-11000 image. If it is too much let me know and I'll post a half
size version.

Much of the data for this was taken the same night as NGC 2805 with the
observatory lights on so it had the same gradient problem. In fact I
took this first waiting for NGC 2805 to get out of some trees that block
a couple hours either side of the meridian near the pole. They keep a
ton of snow off the observatory roof or else I'd cut them down.

Even though the STL-11000's frame is 35mm size the whole galaxy didn't
fit on it. I should have moved it farther west (right) but I saw that
little galaxy over there and didn't see that M101 was going off frame to
the east so framed it to pick up that western galaxy. It wasn't until I
stacked the images and removed the gradient I realized I shouldn't have
done that. Top and bottom are also both cut off as well though I knew
that was happening. This is one tore up galaxy. Getting the faint
stuff without blowing out the nucleus was difficult and resulted in a
flatter image than I'd like. My processing skills have a ways to go
yet. Still I like how it turned out.

14" LX200R@F/10, L=6x20' binned 1x1 RGB=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME

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

Since my 75% images have at least hit
http://www.usenet-replayer.com/webrings/astro.html I'm posting that size
for those who want it. If it doesn't hit your server try the above
link but that updates only once a day so might not show for 24 hours.

The full size never hit that either. Just too big apparently. Though
some servers picked it up.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:

extremely nice Rick

The full rez version isn't coming through on my server but the half rez one
looks spectacular

I can only imagine how nice the full rez version is.

nice job!


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:

I've been playing with this one for 2 weeks now. Time to give up. When
I reduced the file size I lost detail, especially the HII regions so I
left it full size. First time I've posted a full frame, full size
STL-11000 image. If it is too much let me know and I'll post a half
size version.

Much of the data for this was taken the same night as NGC 2805 with the
observatory lights on so it had the same gradient problem. In fact I
took this first waiting for NGC 2805 to get out of some trees that block
a couple hours either side of the meridian near the pole. They keep a
ton of snow off the observatory roof or else I'd cut them down.

Even though the STL-11000's frame is 35mm size the whole galaxy didn't
fit on it. I should have moved it farther west (right) but I saw that
little galaxy over there and didn't see that M101 was going off frame to
the east so framed it to pick up that western galaxy. It wasn't until I
stacked the images and removed the gradient I realized I shouldn't have
done that. Top and bottom are also both cut off as well though I knew
that was happening. This is one tore up galaxy. Getting the faint
stuff without blowing out the nucleus was difficult and resulted in a
flatter image than I'd like. My processing skills have a ways to go
yet. Still I like how it turned out.

14" LX200R@F/10, L=6x20' binned 1x1 RGB=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME

--
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 in message
...


George wrote:

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:


Wow. My scope wants to be like yours when it grows up!

George
Thanks.

From my experience it is the mount that is mostly responsible for a good
picture. The scope, as long as it is in focus and somewhat collimated
(mine's way out thanks to the wide daily temperature swings this winter)
most any scope will take a darned good deep sky shot.

If the clouds ever part here, 8 days of mist and counting, I'll fix that
collimation problem. Assuming the moss this mist is bringing doesn't
seal the observatory roof shut.

Rick

That's true, which is why you don't see me posting very many images. My
mount is pretty cheap, and I don't have a guidescope or any other hardware
needed to take good time lapsed images. Some day...

George

George wrote:

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


George wrote:


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:


Wow. My scope wants to be like yours when it grows up!

George

Thanks.

From my experience it is the mount that is mostly responsible for a good
picture. The scope, as long as it is in focus and somewhat collimated
(mine's way out thanks to the wide daily temperature swings this winter)
most any scope will take a darned good deep sky shot.

If the clouds ever part here, 8 days of mist and counting, I'll fix that
collimation problem. Assuming the moss this mist is bringing doesn't
seal the observatory roof shut.

Rick


That's true, which is why you don't see me posting very many images. My
mount is pretty cheap, and I don't have a guidescope or any other hardware
needed to take good time lapsed images. Some day...

George

There's always Track and Accumulate. Some in our club started that way
with results they liked. With a low read noise camera and a mount that
can track for 30 seconds you can do quite a bit, especially clusters,
globular and open as well as brighter planetary nebula. Biggest problem
is they accumulate bad frames as well as good but you can do your own
after the fact stacking and thus throw out the bad frames, wind shook
the mount, worm gear glitch, mirror flopped, neighbor kid leans against
the scope and asks "Whatcha doin'?" (That happened to me in my film days
-- I then saved his life by not killing him), etc.

Rick

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


George wrote:

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


George wrote:


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
m...


Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up
the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:


Wow. My scope wants to be like yours when it grows up!

George

Thanks.

From my experience it is the mount that is mostly responsible for a good
picture. The scope, as long as it is in focus and somewhat collimated
(mine's way out thanks to the wide daily temperature swings this winter)
most any scope will take a darned good deep sky shot.

If the clouds ever part here, 8 days of mist and counting, I'll fix that
collimation problem. Assuming the moss this mist is bringing doesn't
seal the observatory roof shut.

Rick


That's true, which is why you don't see me posting very many images. My
mount is pretty cheap, and I don't have a guidescope or any other
hardware needed to take good time lapsed images. Some day...

George
There's always Track and Accumulate. Some in our club started that way
with results they liked. With a low read noise camera and a mount that
can track for 30 seconds you can do quite a bit, especially clusters,
globular and open as well as brighter planetary nebula. Biggest problem
is they accumulate bad frames as well as good but you can do your own
after the fact stacking and thus throw out the bad frames, wind shook the
mount, worm gear glitch, mirror flopped, neighbor kid leans against the
scope and asks "Whatcha doin'?" (That happened to me in my film days -- I
then saved his life by not killing him), etc.

Rick

Lol. I've done some of that, and will likely try to do more, but it is
time consuming.

George

"Rick Johnson" wrote
....
Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time........

Wonderful picture Rick!

Why not post sections of the full rez image? If you do some overlap those
who want can mosaic it together, and in any event we can see the details.

George N

Rick,

that's an exceptionally good image, both detail and colours.

Stefan

"Rick Johnson" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Several who emailed me and one post indicates many servers picked up the
text message about the post but apparently not the full size image I
posted at the same time -- twice because I picked up the wrong one the
first time. Here it is at half size. Maybe it will get through the
maze that is Usenet. Many of the HII regions now look like stars and
faint detail is not visible, to my eyes anyway. But it does fit on a
monitor better!

Below is the text from the large image:

I've been playing with this one for 2 weeks now. Time to give up. When
I reduced the file size I lost detail, especially the HII regions so I
left it full size. First time I've posted a full frame, full size
STL-11000 image. If it is too much let me know and I'll post a half
size version.

Much of the data for this was taken the same night as NGC 2805 with the
observatory lights on so it had the same gradient problem. In fact I
took this first waiting for NGC 2805 to get out of some trees that block
a couple hours either side of the meridian near the pole. They keep a
ton of snow off the observatory roof or else I'd cut them down.

Even though the STL-11000's frame is 35mm size the whole galaxy didn't
fit on it. I should have moved it farther west (right) but I saw that
little galaxy over there and didn't see that M101 was going off frame to
the east so framed it to pick up that western galaxy. It wasn't until I
stacked the images and removed the gradient I realized I shouldn't have
done that. Top and bottom are also both cut off as well though I knew
that was happening. This is one tore up galaxy. Getting the faint
stuff without blowing out the nucleus was difficult and resulted in a
flatter image than I'd like. My processing skills have a ways to go
yet. Still I like how it turned out.

14" LX200R@F/10, L=6x20' binned 1x1 RGB=2x10' binned 2x2, STL-11000XM,
Paramount ME

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