Albert, do you use the same data for both L? If so, any old shot can be reprocessed with this technique. Nice work btw. ziggyMessage 1 of 45 , Apr 1, 2004View SourceAlbert, do you use the same data for both L? If so, any old shot can
be reprocessed with this technique. Nice work btw.
--- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Saikaley" <albert.saikaley@c...>
> I usually use the LRGB method (4 images, one unfiltered and 3
> filtered). LLRGB uses the Lum twice as you compose the image. I'll
> use whatever looks best. Here's Gendler's link that decribes the
> --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "John Thompson" <thompsjm@i...> wrote:
> > Amazing shot, Albert. Even the TSP shot is not too shabby, but
> > new one is amazing, especially as taken from a suburban location.
> > Its as good an amateur shot as I have seen anywhere.
> > Pardon my ignorance, but what is LLRGB? I know what LRGB is.
> > rascaljohn
> > --- In OAFs@yahoogroups.com, "Albert Saikaley"
> > wrote:
> > > Here's M51 from last nights adventure. I was looking to grab at
> > > least 2 hrs of Lum and some more colour but dew lost me almost
> > > hours worth of data (damn Mr. Murphy). I did however this time
> > find
> > > a good guide star and was able to use 5 minute sub-frames
> > > with my RGB's from the TSP last spring.
> > >
> > > Details: C11 f/5 ST-7E selfguided LLRGB 70:15:15:15
> > >
> > > http://www3.sympatico.ca/berts/pages/M51.htm
> > >
> > > Last years attempt from the TSP:
> > >
> > > http://www3.sympatico.ca/berts/images/M51TSP.jpg
> > >
> > > This comparison shows that skill is more important than dark
> > skies.
> > > Hopefully I'll get another chance to image under a dark sky! TSP
> > > 2005!
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Albert.
... The images were taken on April 12 and 16. The 16th was best night of seeing I have had since putting up the observatory. I was getting long exposureMessage 45 of 45 , Apr 24, 2005View SourceAlbert Saikaley wrote:
>The images were taken on April 12 and 16. The 16th was best night of
> Very nicely done. It must be tough imaging at that FL. I wish this
> one had 6.5 hrs of exposure. The seeing looks to have been excellent,
> which night did you take this on? Also, the colour balance looks
> bang on. Did you balance by using different exposure times, different
> number of sub-frames but same exposure times or the same number of
> frames/exposure times and "fix" everything later in MaxIm?
seeing I have had since putting up the observatory. I was getting long
exposure FWHMs of about 2". The 12th wasn't quite as good but was
definitely better than average.
I took equal exposures in all frames, and then fixed it later in MaxIm.
I should really be shooting double the blue frames. I'm still getting
the feel for this particular equipment setup.
I actually don't mind the extra focal length; it gives you "room to
play" when processing, and on the really good nights you can push things.