Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size
Many amateurs shoot luminosity unbinned and color exposures binned 2X2. The luminosity gives precise definition to the object and the color shows just as well if it has that small binning. With binning you use shorter exposures, leaving more time for the important exposures, the luminosity. I agree with Chuck that a tiny object would be a waste of aperture. But I don't like nebulae as much as galaxies. One is a gas cloud and the other is a star city -- -in my strong opinion, the star city has intelligent inhabitants. ------------------------------ On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 8:19 AM MST Chuck Hards wrote:
Thanks Rodger. That's a great combination for emission nebulae. Any idea what the pixel size is and if any capture binning is being used? Someone was asking about how small an object could be imaged and knowing that would help narrow down targets. Of course, if people are going for "wow" factor, going as big as the FOV permits is the best bet.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> wrote:
Chuck
The Faulkes imaging session will be done using a filtered monochrome camera using multiple exposures of various filter options (RGB, OIII, Halpha, and others). Last time we used 16 images with the various filters stacked. We also took luminescence (unfiltered) and will do the same this time.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Too big of an object would be a bigger waste, I would keep the object size at about 80% of the field of view.
Many amateurs shoot luminosity unbinned and color exposures binned 2X2. The luminosity gives precise definition to the object and the color shows just as well if it has that small binning. With binning you use shorter exposures, leaving more time for the important exposures, the luminosity. I agree with Chuck that a tiny object would be a waste of aperture. But I don't like nebulae as much as galaxies. One is a gas cloud and the other is a star city -- -in my strong opinion, the star city has intelligent inhabitants.
------------------------------ On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 8:19 AM MST Chuck Hards wrote:
Thanks Rodger. That's a great combination for emission nebulae. Any idea what the pixel size is and if any capture binning is being used? Someone was asking about how small an object could be imaged and knowing that would help narrow down targets. Of course, if people are going for "wow" factor, going as big as the FOV permits is the best bet.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> wrote:
Chuck
The Faulkes imaging session will be done using a filtered monochrome camera using multiple exposures of various filter options (RGB, OIII, Halpha, and others). Last time we used 16 images with the various filters stacked. We also took luminescence (unfiltered) and will do the same this time.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Well, to be fair, one's target does not necessarily have to accommodate artistic sensibilities...for example a target could be a galactic nucleus, close-up of a spiral arm, or central portion or otherwise interesting morphological feature of a largish nebula. The "Pillars of Creation" in M16 is a good example. Matching the image scale on the chip to what you want to see is the most important aspect. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
Too big of an object would be a bigger waste, I would keep the object size at about 80% of the field of view.
This might be of interest to those coming up with target ideas for the Faulkes session: http://resources.faulkes-telescope.com/file.php/12/ obsv_tel_advice_2011-ebook.pdf It's the Observing Advice Booklet put out by LCOGT.net/Faulkes. Also the RTI (Real Time Interface) demo may be of use at: http://www.faulkes-telescope.com/support/rti_demo Dave Bennett On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Well, to be fair, one's target does not necessarily have to accommodate artistic sensibilities...for example a target could be a galactic nucleus, close-up of a spiral arm, or central portion or otherwise interesting morphological feature of a largish nebula. The "Pillars of Creation" in M16 is a good example. Matching the image scale on the chip to what you want to see is the most important aspect. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
Too big of an object would be a bigger waste, I would keep the object size at about 80% of the field of view.
It really gets down to that its not much different than just searching images on the internet.
This might be of interest to those coming up with target ideas for
the Faulkes session:
http://resources.faulkes-telescope.com/file.php/12/ obsv_tel_advice_2011-ebook.pdf
It's the Observing Advice Booklet put out by LCOGT.net/Faulkes.
Also the RTI (Real Time Interface) demo may be of use at:
http://www.faulkes-telescope.com/support/rti_demo
Dave Bennett
On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Chuck Hards wrote:
Well, to be fair, one's target does not necessarily have to accommodate artistic sensibilities...for example a target could be a galactic nucleus, close-up of a spiral arm, or central portion or otherwise interesting morphological feature of a largish nebula. The "Pillars of Creation" in M16 is a good example. Matching the image scale on the chip to what you want to see is the most important aspect. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
Too big of an object would be a bigger waste, I would keep the object size at about 80% of the field of view.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Chuck is right, in my opinion: the object could fill the field without any loss of interest, such as views I've seen of the center of the Crab. -- Joe ________________________________ From: "erikhansen@thebluezone.net" <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size
Too big of an object would be a bigger waste, I would keep the object size at about 80% of the field of view.
Many amateurs shoot luminosity unbinned and color exposures binned 2X2. The luminosity gives precise definition to the object and the color shows just as well if it has that small binning. With binning you use shorter exposures, leaving more time for the important exposures, the luminosity. I agree with Chuck that a tiny object would be a waste of aperture. But I don't like nebulae as much as galaxies. One is a gas cloud and the other is a star city -- -in my strong opinion, the star city has intelligent inhabitants.
------------------------------ On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 8:19 AM MST Chuck Hards wrote:
Thanks Rodger. That's a great combination for emission nebulae. Any idea what the pixel size is and if any capture binning is being used? Someone was asking about how small an object could be imaged and knowing that would help narrow down targets. Of course, if people are going for "wow" factor, going as big as the FOV permits is the best bet.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> wrote:
Chuck
The Faulkes imaging session will be done using a filtered monochrome camera using multiple exposures of various filter options (RGB, OIII, Halpha, and others). Last time we used 16 images with the various filters stacked. We also took luminescence (unfiltered) and will do the same this time.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy
Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com
The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club.
To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
My point, Joe is just that it depends on what you're after. All other things being equal, a pretty picture depends on the subject as well as composition. Specific details of interest depend a lot on the image scale, not necessarily composition. But I get the feeling that a "pretty picture" is more what the group is thinking about. This doesn't seem to be a science shoot or taking data in any way, it's nature photography. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Joe Bauman <josephmbauman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chuck is right, in my opinion: the object could fill the field without any loss of interest, such as views I've seen of the center of the Crab. --
participants (4)
-
Chuck Hards -
Dave Bennett -
erikhansen＠thebluezone.net -
Joe Bauman