I had been observing for a number of years before I even realised that the constellation of Monoceros existed. It was several more years before I realised that one of the most attractive targets for the owner of a wide-field scope could be found there.
With a CCD and a wide field scope I discovered that it was easy to obtain an attractive image of the Rosette Nebula. The only significant problem to overcome was the neighbour's roof! This was overcome by moving all my observing to a remote scope based in New Mexico.
> I had been observing for a number of years before I even realised that > the constellation of Monoceros existed. It was several more years > before I realised that one of the most attractive targets for the > owner of a wide-field scope could be found there.
> With a CCD and a wide field scope I discovered that it was easy to > obtain an attractive image of the Rosette Nebula. The only significant > problem to overcome was the neighbour's roof! This was overcome by > moving all my observing to a remote scope based in New Mexico.
Yep the Rosette is a great object and an easy target from a dark sky location. A few years ago I decided to try finding it using my 20x80 binoculars from my "camp" in NY's Adirondack Mts (very dark). I thought that it would be difficult, but it turned out to be easy.
Over the past weekend at Stellafane in Vermont I mentioned all of this to a friend who wants to take a CCD image using his 6" F/4 Newt. He said "Well lets look at it in your Obsession 20!" I thought that it would not fit in my field of view, but it did just fit in my 26mm Nagler on the 20-inch F/5. Needless to say it was an easy object in a scope that size, but my friend then claimed that he could see it in his 40mm binoculars.
ukastronomy wrote: > The Rosette Nebula in Monoceros
> I had been observing for a number of years before I even realised that > the constellation of Monoceros existed. It was several more years > before I realised that one of the most attractive targets for the > owner of a wide-field scope could be found there.
> With a CCD and a wide field scope I discovered that it was easy to > obtain an attractive image of the Rosette Nebula. The only significant > problem to overcome was the neighbour's roof! This was overcome by > moving all my observing to a remote scope based in New Mexico.
Martin,
Seems to me that there should be a *lot* more data there than is seen in your image. New Mexico Skies is up pretty high ......
Here are two images taken from my extremely light polluted back yard:
William R. Mattil wrote: > ukastronomy wrote: >> The Rosette Nebula in Monoceros
> Martin,
> Seems to me that there should be a *lot* more data there than is seen in > your image. New Mexico Skies is up pretty high ......
Yes, five minute exposures are way too short for our skies unless the moon is up.
I think you are wasting your time. This guy spams various forums with links to his web site but seldom seems interested in discussing his posts or anything else. In my experience criticism, no matter how well intended or constructive, is wasted on him.
> William R. Mattil wrote: >> ukastronomy wrote: >>> The Rosette Nebula in Monoceros
>> Martin,
>> Seems to me that there should be a *lot* more data there than is seen >> in your image. New Mexico Skies is up pretty high ......
> Yes, five minute exposures are way too short for our skies unless the > moon is up.
> I think you are wasting your time. This guy spams various forums with > links to his web site but seldom seems interested in discussing his > posts or anything else. In my experience criticism, no matter how well > intended or constructive, is wasted on him.
Hi Greg,
FWIW I agree. You can lead a horse to water but it's not that easy to get him up on ski's.
Both of your images are exceptional with tons of fine detail. I have an ST-10XME on the way and I will be sure to tackle this gem with both my AP160 and Tak FSQ.
Anthony.
On 5 Áýã, 22:31, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 5 Aug, 21:29, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<Cut>
Sadly I can only implement your advice about imaging methods for images taken subsequent to the advice being posted! When, for example, Monoceros comes around again I can take exposures using the suggested methodology, until then it is old images or nothing.
I would have thought any astronomical postings to astronomical usenet groups would have been encouraged - given most of the garbage usually posted here - but it appears not.
> Both of your images are exceptional with tons of fine detail. I have > an ST-10XME on the way and I will be sure to tackle this gem with both > my AP160 and Tak FSQ.
> "ukastronomy" <> wrote > ... >> The Rosette Nebula in Monoceros.......... >> Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.
> Martin,
> Yep the Rosette is a great object...........
Oh, Oh....... I see that I got the Rosette confused with the Helix, which is what my comments really refer to. That's what happens when you drive 600 miles in one week and do three all-nighter's of observing, and attend daytime presentations, and play a round of golf, and attend a hot air balloon rally and...... I gotta slow down! :)
> I had been observing for a number of years before I even realised that > the constellation of Monoceros existed. It was several more years > before I realised that one of the most attractive targets for the > owner of a wide-field scope could be found there.
> With a CCD and a wide field scope I discovered that it was easy to > obtain an attractive image of the Rosette Nebula. The only significant > problem to overcome was the neighbour's roof! This was overcome by > moving all my observing to a remote scope based in New Mexico.
I think what they're saying is that the quality of CCD cameras and scopes today is so good that you should be able to far surpass the level of performance with the equipment that you have. When CCDs first came out, the images produced by amateurs were very poor, and did not come anywhere close to what you could gte with film. The rapid development of cameras and the subsequent improvements in amateur optics to better match these cameras has resulted in some stunning amateur images. These now rival or surpass what we used to get from Mount Palomar back in the film days. Here's an example taken with a 12" aperture telescope in a heavily light polluted industrial park just 1/2 mile from car dealerships and mega box stores:
So, now if you want to promote remote imaging in some pristine area with your telescopes, or whatever, then you need to be able to equal or exceed this level of performance.
> On Jul 19, 4:16 am, ukastronomy <martin_piers_nichol...@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote:
> > The Rosette Nebula in Monoceros
> > I had been observing for a number of years before I even realised that > > the constellation of Monoceros existed. It was several more years > > before I realised that one of the most attractive targets for the > > owner of a wide-field scope could be found there.
> > With a CCD and a wide field scope I discovered that it was easy to > > obtain an attractive image of the Rosette Nebula. The only significant > > problem to overcome was the neighbour's roof! This was overcome by > > moving all my observing to a remote scope based in New Mexico.
> I think what they're saying is that the quality of CCD cameras and > scopes today is so good that you should be able to far surpass the > level of performance with the equipment that you have. When CCDs first > came out, the images produced by amateurs were very poor, and did not > come anywhere close to what you could gte with film. The rapid > development of cameras and the subsequent improvements in amateur > optics to better match these cameras has resulted in some stunning > amateur images. These now rival or surpass what we used to get from > Mount Palomar back in the film days. Here's an example taken with a > 12" aperture telescope in a heavily light polluted industrial park > just 1/2 mile from car dealerships and mega box stores:
> So, now if you want to promote remote imaging in some pristine area > with your telescopes, or whatever, then you need to be able to equal > or exceed this level of performance.
> Rolando- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
No, not quite.
I took the image not to show the best possible image that could (reasonably) have been obtained but to give an idea of the sort of work it is possible to do with even quite limited exposures. The Messier 10 minute challenge was another manifestation of this.
It goes without saying that longer exposures (both in total and in terms of individual sub exposures) would give improved results but the rate of improvement in not linear. It is not "double your money double your quality" (nor even close)
> > > I had been observing for a number of years before I even realised that > > > the constellation of Monoceros existed. It was several more years > > > before I realised that one of the most attractive targets for the > > > owner of a wide-field scope could be found there.
> > > With a CCD and a wide field scope I discovered that it was easy to > > > obtain an attractive image of the Rosette Nebula. The only significant > > > problem to overcome was the neighbour's roof! This was overcome by > > > moving all my observing to a remote scope based in New Mexico.
