0.00
#...
·
 |
|---|
|
Hi all. Whilst randomly browsing images in AstroBin I happened upon this one - https://astrob.in/agsyir/0/. I thought it might be worth sharing - following the discussion on Monday - as it gives an alternative take on the subject of exposure lengths. Not everybody will like the idea of the number of frames involved though, I'm sure! All the best Tim |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
|
Well, that lot will slow up the PC. Blooming lovely result and shows it’s total integration time that is needed. Being sad I had to work the figures out. Ha 3.3 Hrs L 2.1 Hrs RGB 0.5 Hr each In rough numbers. 1.5 & 2 sec subs. No guiding needed. Didn’t see where it was taken. |
|
0.00
#...
·
|
|---|
| And presumably the short exposures would mean that a quite (very?) rough and ready polar alignment would suffice. Although a decently solid mount and an ability to track the target reasonably well would still be important. Does it offer you anything to chew on Keith?? |
2.61
#...
·
|
|---|
|
This guy was using a "Nauris Mirrage 600 mm f 3,8 Dobson" this scope is not capable of accurate tracking so he was forced to use very short exposures to avoid star elongation / trails. Interestingly he used a Pegasus rotator to avoid field rotation. The total integration time for this image was 8 hours and the quality is relatively poor for this amount of time. There are clear photoshop halos round the main image. See this image  with the same camera using only 3 hours and in Bortle 8 skies. Max |
