M86/87 plus many other Galaxies.

[dire wolf]

This is very cool and I will get more data when the weather isnt abominable. This is only 2 hours of exposure.

[zealous quail]

Damn only 2hr

[dense apex]

wowwww nice dust lanes! I really like NGC4435, so sharp!

[polar pebble]

Nice

[dire wolf]

Yes sir, honestly conditions really late into the night are usually exceptional. This was recorded from 3:38 to 5:45. 53 - 120 second exposures. So just shy of two hours.

[dire wolf]

Thanks! Honestly the seeing was sorta poop I would have been able to get better resolution if I could magically teleport to the moon and become the first MOON ASTRONOMER!

[lucid otter]

this is insane for 2 hours

what gear and bortle did you shoot with/in?

[zealous quail]

Wdym you had a seeing of 0.8 arcsecond ±0.2

Unless that data was blurx

[dire wolf]

Blurex

[zealous quail]

Then its closer to 1.3 or 1.5

Which is mid

Not the worst but not the best either

Also what scope are you using

[dire wolf]

what about this one? I used blurex on this one as well but even on how it looks, I can tell it was nicer conditions

[dire wolf]

8inch 800mm focal length

newtonian

[dire wolf]

for reference this image was 2 hours of exposure as well

[zealous quail]

Nice

[zealous quail]

Around 1.5 arcseconds

Comparison

[dire wolf]

interesting, how are you calculating this?

[zealous quail]

Using hubble

As a baseline

[dire wolf]

please elaborate! thats very interesting

[zealous quail]

the way i did it is simple i crossed referenced the image with hubble and i compressed the hubble image until the details look somewhat alike then figure out the X factor and the multiply that by 0.07 which is the resolution of hubble

[dire wolf]

so this only works if theres a hubble image of the target

[zealous quail]

In this case the final resolution was 187 and the original was 3903
3903÷187=20.8
20.87×0.07=1.46

[zealous quail]

There always is one

[lucid otter]

doesn't astronomy.net give you the resolution if you upload the picture?

[zealous quail]

Thats arcsecond per pixel not your seeing condition

Its how much of the sky each pixel covers

[lucid otter]

but how can you calculate the seeing condition by comparing it to hubble? bc the hubble doesn't have the same imaging resolution as him right?

[dire wolf]

thats very useful, because I normally measure the FWHM of my stars before I use blurex to measure the seeing and normally thats decently accurate but I am not always sure.

[lucid otter]

or did you downsample hubbles image?

[zealous quail]

Yes

[lucid otter]

pretty cool way to calculate it

[zealous quail]

I down sampled until the details some what look alike

[lucid otter]

it would be better if you can downsample it exactly to the same res as stellarviews's res

[zealous quail]

I can