Some photos

Xelasnave.1947 said:
Now here is something I bet you don't know...what is represented by the angle between the Celestial South Pole and the Horizon? And if you do ..when did you find that out?
Thanks again.
Alex
Click to expand...
No I'm not sure of what you mean Alex...what star system? Or terminology like Zenith or nadir?
Over to you. :)
 
paddoboy said:
No I'm not sure of what you mean Alex...what star system? Or terminology like Zenith or nadir?
Over to you. :)
Click to expand...
The angle between the Celestial South Pole and the horizon is your latitude.
So the next time you are cruising the Pacific you don't need a sextant just two pieces of wood with a hinge and a portractor.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
So the next time you are cruising the Pacific you don't need a sextant just two pieces of wood with a hinge and a portractor.
Alex
Click to expand...
Actually any specific sextant calculation only gives you a "fix" or a position somewhere along a meridian...three or four of these are taken before the Noon sighting, and reproducing all the previous fixes according to the distances travelled, then gives you a EP [estimated position] and latitude.....roughly speaking and from my sailing days 45 years ago!

I've often thought of getting myself a sextant...they are an incredibly beautiful instrument. I have come across a Ship's Chandler at the Rocks in Sydney that have some highly precision brass ones.....
br4849g-01.jpg
 
Finding the CSP is what I do first before imaging even before I switch on the mount. Having the polar axis of the mount pointing at CSP is critical when tracking. I have a camera in the mount which goes to the lappy with software to get it spot on. The camera and software is called Polemaster.
So I get a display of the region on screen and you would not believe the number of satellites that appear running across the screen during the alignment process...although now that everything is settling down in the observatory I don't have to polar align every night...but it is good practice to do so as it can go out for various reasons.
Alex
 
if we are in the milky way, and we are so small, how can we take the picture of the whole milky way?
is the picture below fake?

zvtqsxU.jpg
 
Saint said:
if we are in the milky way, and we are so small, how can we take the picture of the whole milky way?
is the picture below fake?

zvtqsxU.jpg
Click to expand...

That is an artist's impression it can not be a photo... we would need to be approx 250,000 light years out in space (approximate guess) to take a photo to look like that.
Alex
 
Another of the Lobster Nebula with more data which required a crop because we data acquired with camera in different position.
Fortunately the stacking software does not mind in fact you can put some frames in upside down and the software lines them up.
But happy with this given its only the 80mm I hope to get the 125 mm onto it before it goes.

I approached the processing I little different as I am trying to make the colours less saturated.
AlexIMG_20200503_153518.jpg
 
I reprocessed the Running Chicken adding a little more data and reorienting it..it won't fit the running Chicken bill but I think having it this way adds to it some way..to me it looks more realistic...however I have been reprocessing and processing for so long over the last few days I have probably lost objectivity.
AlexIMG_20200503_155835.jpg
 
Here is my effort from last night.

I could not find it(NGC 6188) other than taking an exposure where I thought it was in Ha and fortunately I was almost spot on..why not use goto? I tried but it was playing up and I had to do it the old way by looking at the dials on the mount and using a star map.

This is known as the Fighting Dragons and if I had not processed this image so hard it would be easier to see them...but I wanted to see how much detail I could wring out even if the image starts to look a little cartoon like...to me getting the detail is the first thing and I will develop my technique around that approach.

Gear and Software and details.....HEQ 5 unguided mount, 80mm triplet refractor scope, ZWO mono 1600 cooled at -15 degrees centigrade, about 4 hours in only red, blue, green and Hydrogen Alpha..but I did take dark frames which seemed to help when processing the noise in the image.Exposure times 60 seconds.

Software..Deep Sky Stacker, Startools, Photo Shop and Gimp and after I had...ngc6188finalps.jpg about fifteen different end jobs (each a finished item but a whole batch of different applications in photo shop)I combined the lot in Registar and took the output there and merged it with my best final...its probably crook but I will do another process later on...and I plan to get more data tonight if I can stay awake...2-30 am finish last night so I am not real flash.

alex
 
I was not happy with my last image of the Fighting Dragons (NGC 6188) and that may seem odd given the slack earlier stuff with the DSLR but getting to the Dragons was a point of arrival and I expected so much more. Folk here will not realise but I am cursed with an obsession re perfection..the whole reason I try to be casual and don't seem to worry about gramma and spellen is to somehow make it seem unimportant to me..its what I do to manage cause its a problem but I see it so its not...if you see what I mean...anyways this lasy image..I had bad data and not near enough but my result reflected that I had admitted defeat before I started.worse still I wanted to bring something here..why should I care..it annoys me that IU care..about this place ...why? these people here..I don't know who is even real..but it provides a feed back I cant get anywhere else...crazy..anyways talking to myself maybe.
I don't know? I needed much more data but that is no excuse for my piss poor offering..So the last two days I have tried to do better..first..throw out data that was not perfect or at least reasonable//I had poor data in green so I had to work with it but only used green data where I could not avoid it...so stacked again and used 3x drizzle...if its good enough for Hubble well its good enough for me..mmm better...then I had six groups of images ..before I was treating them like part of a bunch..this time I treated each result of a stack as if it were the only image ever..worked on it until it was all it could be///and when I merged two images treated the result the same working it up to as close to perfection as possible before merging it with the next image..and each step was that way///and the final I worked on each square mm as though I would be admitted to heaven on that square mm...so I gave it more than anyone who is sane would have...why? well I was so upset with my last result I was ready to take the axe to my gear and burn down the caravan and the observatory obsessive yes painfully yes yes yes...ok I know the colour needs more consideration but I have that in another compartment,,not a problem...yet... but at least I got everything out of the data,,,I cant do better today but at least I am trying to work up the data I have...and I will understand if you feel this could be better,
alexfinaldragons1a1a1a1a.jpg
 
It is just nothing like what was on my monitor...maybe the reduction?
When each photo comes out of a stack viacDeep Sky Stacked in 3 x drizzle It is 3.5 gig bytes..there are six of them...they look good...then those go down to each about 180 meg for processing..etc etc. So...ending up here at under a meg they certainly seem much different to what I wee on my lappy...
Alex
 
I wonder with such tech like that how much if any could the moon be magnified
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top