M63 - 13/03/2007

Sorry Mike...my quotes are all over the place..... :oops:

No worries - was able to follow.

So, when can I borrow your elephant - as it happens, I could do with a counterweight!

Have fun,

Ok...I didn't know that it was actual ''Strings'' physically put across
the plate...it thought it was something 'added' in photoshop....
Ok so to answer your question....
As far as I'm concerned,...
If you put an elephant at the business end of your scope and
you get a certian image....fine...

Its either strings or photoshop. Elephants are probably a bit extreme for diffraction tricks! , but you could get an interesting effect by say putting chicken wire over the aperture of the dew shield. Thats probably art? Or spectroscopy? Or is it just a novel Hartmann mask?

www.zodiaclight.com/equipment/chickenWireMask.htm

I'm just afraid now that we're going to get images with fancy star crosses caused by lace/curatins/tights/oven-grills/etc. now !

Cheers,
~Al

We have all seen the IR or Ha captures of this and that...
sorry...last time i checked I didnt see like that.

Frank,

Personally, I don't own those sort of filters, at least not yet anyway. Some people believe that these filters help to try and reveal what is "really" there - whilst our eyes are amazing imaging devices, they are limited. These filters can reveal detail which is really there, but can't be seen by our eyes.

What would be your take on that viewpoint?

you could get an interesting effect by say putting chicken wire over the aperture of the dew shield. Thats probably art? Or spectroscopy? Or is it just a novel Hartmann mask?

www.zodiaclight.com/equipment/chickenWireMask.htm

I'm just afraid now that we're going to get images with fancy star crosses caused by lace/curatins/tights/oven-grills/etc. now !

Cheers,
~Al

I've seen it all now! Where do these people get these ideas?

Next time I'm outside imaging, I'm going for the BBQ effect!

We have all seen the IR or Ha captures of this and that...
sorry...last time i checked I didnt see like that.

Frank,

Personally, I don't own those sort of filters, at least not yet anyway. Some people believe that these filters help to try and reveal what is "really" there - whilst our eyes are amazing imaging devices, they are limited. These filters can reveal detail which is really there, but can't be seen by our eyes.

What would be your take on that viewpoint?

Mike, If you mean what is my viewpoint on people using filters to reveal
detail the eyes can't see on thier own then my answer would be,
again, answered by a question.
What are you trying to photograph?

If you are trying to image something that looks like something we can
actually 'see' thats one thing....
If you are trying to photograph a bunch of stuff we couldn't see natuarlly
then thats another......

AND...
as we've seen done before....
a mix of 'visual light' and Ir as the like as in this pic...


Then again that is yet another thing,
and in my opinon as valid as a picture you guys post up here night after
night.....

you see, I believe that the image (any image) that is created to
approximate what we might visually see is, well, a nice thing...
But why stop there?
There is no possable way you can 'see' that in reality....right?
Have I not seen / heard a million times people telling novices not
to expect to see the images they see in magazines through thier
telescopes?

Therefore....
The images you guys create are again 'approximations' of what we like to
think we might actually 'see'
(maybe if we were in a spaceship a few hundred thousand LY away with the subject well lit externally!)

and also therefore...
the images that show all the different aspects of light or radiation,
alone or in combinaion are just as valid.

How you capture them is up to you....
elephants with lace curtians as filters or whatnot.....it dont matter.....
its what you do with the captured light is what counts,
and as far as I'm concerned....no rules apply.

Now that the spikes are taken out of the image, I had a good look at the star points agains, I would guess that the scope is not collimated.
Michael it is worth taking a number of out of focus shots with the camera on a star and see what it looks like. The stars to the upper right look worse then the ones to the left,

BTW, if you want spikes, buy some fishing line and put it on the front of the scope. To me alot of astro imaging is ART, its not like you're going to discover the meaning of life doing this stuff, except for discovering a supernova or plotting asteroids.