Re: STUNNING image of M51


Magnum wrote:
> "atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx" <atasselli@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:1113552123.291654.23630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >
> > Magnum wrote:
> >> >> rounder stars.
> >> >
> >> > Oh, my! Of course they have rounder stars, they oversample the
PSF!
> >> > Even the very small amongst my stars have a FWHM of 2.8. The
> > reduction,
> >> > if any, is just due to the LR deconvolution.
>
> >
> > Look, you know nothing about image processing, don't you? Learn
> > something then come back.
> Does anyone here consider you an imaging guru?

No AFAIK, but I don't give it a damn. Never claimed I was, however.

> Your image is overprocessed then, producing oddly shaped stars and
noisy
> background.

Oh, well. Again, what you think is quite different from what you can
prove and so far nothing has come that way.

>
>
> >> Drizzle is fine for space imaging but on earth with the usual
seeing
> > and
> >> pointing errors its not done. And 300% more exposure time to get
2x2
> > more
> >> resolution, well in theory only -- not a happy tradoff.
> >
> > It's being done even down here.
> Try supporting that statement. Who (amateur) regularly uses drizzle
since
> you didn't?

I do. And I know of at least another two who did/do.

>
> I know of drizzle years ago but abandon the concept for
impracticality.
>
> You could learn something too from here:
> http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/us/spe9/lrgb22.htm
>
> Resolution gain only 2 yet we must take 10 images for every L, R, G,
B?
> Is your mount and pointing precise for all that exposure time?

Yawn.... Yes, it is.

>
>
> >> > You don't know what you're talking about. Yes, they may visit
WSP
> > or
> >> > TSP or whatever and may do some imaging but the core of their
> > images is
> >> > taken from where the hell they have permanently installed their
> >> > instrumentation. I don't see Adam Block globetrotting the world
> > around
> >> > hauling the 20" RC and all the other stuff, do you?
> >> Adam Block did happen to take M51 at Kitts Peak.
> >
> > Adam Block works there. But who cares, his scope is 20"!
> But yes the most serious ones live near the best locations to do
their
> trade.
>
>
> >> I do know a few serious astrophotograhers who go to better sites
> > nearby
> >> every clear new moon, and occasional vacation in Australia, Chile,
> > etc.
> >> They own apos and large SCT's for transportability. Some even take
> > their
> >> 18" dob.
> >
> > I don't so can you name them? Top notch AA that routinely go around
> > places (not just somewhere nearby) in the world around every new
moon!

> Maybe not in Europe where fuel is expensive.
> Most serious AA choose to live where they can best do their
> observing/imaging. many live near Mt. Wilson, others in Florida,
Arizona,
> etc. Its then a short drive in SUV. They need not be famous or known
> outside their observing group.

Well, that's not exactly what you stated in a previous post, isn't it?

>
> I won't drop names without proper notification, but a famous one like

> Jack Newton already lives in Florida.

How, my! An imager who lives in FL. That must be a real white fly.

>
>
>
> >> Your pixel size is not same since you used compressor.
> >
> > My pixel size is the same as it has always been.
> >
> >> Does a newpaper print and print from 120 film look the same to
you
> > if
> >> same size and field of view?
> >
> > You keep mixing up pixel count with resolution. The two can and
indeed
> > are different. What counts resolution-wise is the pixel scale. It
is so
> > hard a concept to grasp?

> Not at all hard. If you keep the same pixel scale as Roland then we
will
> only see half the galaxy.

I see you haven't grasped it yet.

>
>
>
> >> Doesn't matter who made optics, sercondary size and baffle should
be
> > same
> >> as in review.
> >
> > No, they don't need to be.
> Doesn't matter 38% is still much greater than 22% or 0% for apo.

Yes, 38% is bigger than 22% and so forth. And it matters nothing.

>
>
> >> >> We can see it has 40% obstruction here:
> >> >> http://www.kasai-trading.jp/astrosib-rc.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> Off axis at 20mm the stars are bloated. The chip in the ST8E is
> >> > offset by
>
> >> No question a RC has worse off-axis than a Maksutov. That's why
> >> Maksutov's exist.
> >
> > Not really as both are aplanatic designs. Actually, at any given f/
> > ratio the RC should be superior in field correction to a plain MCT.
> In imaging we need flat field too and RC has greater curvature of
field.
> if chip is large or offset this is a great concern.

The only thing of great concern (to you) is your serious lack of
knowledge of optics. Try to make a compact f/8 MCT and see how much
different is the field curvature. BTW, that RC doesn't use or need a FF
for quite a large FOV.

>
> >> > You are definitely going (selectively?) blind. Seek urgent
medical
> >> > help! The two pictures have about the same magnitude depth,
maybe I
>
> >> >>
> >> No more facts in your arguments Andrea? Just cheap shots.
> >> I showed how you missed clearly stated facts, ST8E not ST8ME, 40%
> >> obstruction as reviewed for his telescope.
> >
> > You're so easy to take cheap shots at I couldn't resist! I got my
facts
> > right. You, on the other end have no clue whatsoever of what you're
> > talking about.

> I think its a fact your image is not 1st class. Not even close to
> Roland's image in resolution or detail. Your colors are quite
different
> and your blue channel is showing serious abberation.

If I claimed it was 1st class you would be right. But I never claimed
it was. I only said it was better than the other one under several
criteria, most notably resolution and depth.

>
> You don't have a clue what M51 looks like if you can't orientate it
> preoperly.

Orientation in space is arbitrary. And I like it more this way. If you
can't realize where N is in that image well then you're in trouble...

>
> Stay on topic and tell us where your beautifully detailed image is
> located because it certainly isn't the ones you posted.

Look, there is no "us" here, just you.

>
> Your just a hot headed,boastful stereotypical Italian but not mucho.

For all that matters I may come from Venus, but your ethnic slander is
dutifully noted. Thank you for that twat, whatever your orgin may be. I
leave you to that. If you want to continue posting your BS, please do.
Alone.

BTW, ass, where are your images?

Andrea T.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: STUNNING image of M51
    ... Of course they have rounder stars, ... Resolution gain only 2 yet we must take 10 images for every L, R, G, B? ... Jack Newton already lives in Florida. ... >> Your pixel size is not same since you used compressor. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Multi-sampling and "2400x4800 dpi" scanners
    ... even when there is no resolution advantage there is always the ... "appropriate downsampling" when downsampling an image that is made by ... and 1/4 of a pixel vertically. ... Some blurring, up to a quarter of a pixel may be ...
    (comp.periphs.scanners)
  • Re: use of LCD screens in control room
    ... The line reading "the reality might just be less than the representation", ... NOT the VGA d-sub type analog connections. ... mirrors to correct for aberrations) and a system that provided for pixel ... but with a resolution at least 4 times greater than 1080P. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Noise levels as a function of pixel size
    ... with a larger sensor produces the same result as one taken with a smaller sensor. ... >resolution limit has nothing to do with f-number of the fully open>lens. ... It is NOT, however, an acceptable baseline for the extrapolations that you have made and which have resulted in a pixel size which no physical lens could ever resolve. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Any thoughts /news on Foveon sensors?
    ... resolution, 150 dpi of chrominance, 200 dpi of green channel etc. ... the human eye's luminance resolution is about 60 cycles per ... but the problem is that with a Bayer sensor you don't ... The red pixel for instance might be illuminated by yellow or green ...
    (rec.photo.digital)