[AZ-Observing] Re: (no subject)
- From: "Bernard Miller" <bgmiller011@xxxxxxx>
- To: <az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 18:47:23 -0700
Eric,
I just figured out Albert is imaging at 1.77 arcseconds per pixel and his
FOV is 117 arcminutes by 78 arcminutes, which is just short of 4X the area
of my FOV.
Bernard
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Steinberg
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 6:07 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: (no subject)
Thanks, Bernard - that makes a lot of sense. Looking at both, your FOV
appears smaller by like 4x. Depending on the resolution of the sensors that
would do it...
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bernard Miller
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 5:43 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: (no subject)
Eric,
The main factor in the difference between Albert's version and mine is the
plate scale. I am imaging at 1.1 arcseconds per pixel, and I am sure Albert
is much higher than that. This would explain why I am able to get better
detail than Albert. Albert, what is your plate scale on this image. To get
an idea of how much the plate scale affects the image, look at my uncropped
image
http://azstarman.net/M101_UNCROP.htm
then compare it to Albert's. I generally tend not to bother with objects
less than 10 arcminutes in diameter since they will be too small for my
plate scale and FOV. My FOV is 60 arcminutes by 40 arcminutes, so anything
less than 10 arcminutes will be a tiny part of the FOV and it will be very
difficult to get any detail.
Bernard
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Steinberg
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 2:59 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] Re: (no subject)
First, I am regularly amazed at the images both of you post and always look
forward to them. Both of these are excellent and beautiful. I do see
greater contrast and some more granular detail in Bernard's. You both tend
to post similar kinds of images - I was basically wondering if there's a
particular factor in approach or equipment that leads to one result vs.
another.
If it's mostly processing, that would indeed be an interesting experiment to
have him do the same data set....
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:az-observing-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Albert Barr
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 2:38 PM
To: az-observing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AZ-Observing] (no subject)
Thanks Dan and David. I think this is probably more time than I've ever put
on a single image.
Eric I am not sure if significant difference means better or worse :) But I
think Bernard is much more adept at image processing that I am. Actually I
would love to give Bernard all this data and let him have a go at it. Having
said that everything you mention would make a difference plus I added a
significant amount of time using a Hydrogen Alpha filter as there is a lot
of Ha in this galaxy.
Albert
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please
send personal replies to the author, not the list.
Other related posts:
