M31, dust lanes

[ashen burrow]

Playing around between the clouds. Inverted Lum, starless. 80x300 s.

[indigo anvil]

wish i could take 300s lum

[granite rock]

my god

[placid owl]

If you set up your equipment properly, any length exposure time shouldn't be an issue.

[indigo anvil]

light pollution just pushes the black point of the histogram up to like halfway on 180s subs, so i guess it works

[twilit hedge]

man

holy cow

Give me that scope

[brittle moss]

right but this just isn’t true

mechanics in certain type of equipment literally cannot achieve certain levels of accuracy

Also light pollution is a major factor

[placid owl]

Ah, yeah I forget about that sometimes.

[placid owl]

?????? I think you missed my point.

But I also didn't think about LP in my response to him....

[ashen burrow]

https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1416402720679530597/1416870145841823815/image.png?ex=68c86aa6&is=68c71926&hm=c173104907c870521112b960b02b77fb66eb40315efd55b97084ddcace5d9ef4&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=2637&height=1713

I think Ill hang on to it for a while 😉

[twilit hedge]

:{

[brittle moss]

Could you please clarify your point then

because from what you’ve said i’m hearing that with any equipment, if it’s set up correctly, any exposure time is viable.

[small parrot]

Which isn’t true, i agree with you

[ivory wasp]

its not that serious

awesome image btw

[brittle moss]

wym

[placid owl]

Any equipment, as in... a mount with a properly sized scope on top of it, within its weight rating, and also matching image scale to the tracking and guiding accuracy of the mount.

We are ignoring light pollution in this case, since it was not considered in my point.

[brittle moss]

Right but that’s not what you said 😅, i was disagreeing with the initial statement

[placid owl]

That's kinda exactly what I was implying. Building a proper setup.

[brittle moss]

this wasn’t implying that at all icl

[placid owl]

what did you think I was implying?

[brittle moss]

.

[placid owl]

What, are you thinking that if a EQM-35 is set up properly it can handle an Esprit 150?

[placid owl]

If that's the case, then you simply misunderstood what I meant by 'proper'

[brittle moss]

so you say “if you set up your equipment properly” meaning the equipment, no matter what it is, is setup up with little to no faults, it should be able to bang out hour long subs

[placid owl]

That is exactly what I'm saying, but I feel like you're trying to ignore limits in this case.

I guess I need clarification, or theres just a disconnect between our thoughts here.

Most people when they say "I wish I could do 300 second subs" or "Man 20 minute subs?! How?!" are 9 times out of 10 having issues with guiding/tracking.

So this has become my standard response.

[brittle moss]

some equipment literally does not have the mechanical precision for hour long subs lol, it’s literally the type of system they use, even when performing to their max performance

[brittle moss]

i wouldn’t say any exposure time

it’s just not realistic

[placid owl]

Name one? I can probably guess where you're going with this. A Celestron CGX for example. No matter what we did with that mount, was not capable of 1 arc second guiding. The slop in the drive train was unbearable. So we know this is an issue. My take is your image scale should be about 30-40% larger than your mounts performance. The Celestron mounts are so bad to start with that I'd never use them...

But knowing this information, the mount can certainly guide under 2 arc second all day. So in this case, you put something like a Meade Quad on the mount, which samples around 2.2 arc second with 3.7um px. Voila. A properly built system. The CGX can guide like shit all day but it's still not going to be noticable while imaging with a Meade Quad.

This is what I mean by properly built system.

[brittle moss]

you didn’t say properly built system, you said set up equipment properly lol, meaning the user hasn’t control of what the system is, only of how to use it

also the AVXs are truly ass aren’t they holy crap

[placid owl]

Now we're just digging into semantics.

It was a misunderstanding, no biggy. My point is valid. Maybe just misunderstood.

[brittle moss]

cool

[placid owl]

@ashen burrow very neat btw. We got off track heh. Maybe a tad crunchy in the details, but I think you could make something really cool out of this.

I'm actually kinda surprised you weren't blown out with 5 min subs

[ashen burrow]

Yeah, the very core might be, but I have quite low gain, 125.

And yeah, a bit overcooked. 🫣

[vocal hound]

get some Ha and do a continuum subtraction to get this

[tall garden]

Tree gaming… is this you?

[vocal hound]

Who? 😂

[twilit hedge]

I don't think you have to explain him

[vocal hound]

just sayin

[empty cobalt]

Is this with the ONTC?

[twilit hedge]

@ashen burrow I had to. But it surprisingly still looks amazing

[ashen burrow]

Yes and no, half of the data is but that data had to be upscaled to match the other half from the Bresser. I would say the longer FL of Bresser is an advantage. Not that the ONTC data was from an excellent seeing condition but the Bresser was half crappy, winds, moon and even rain that night. I would say at the M31 target the Bresser (with CC) wins.

Surprisingly…

[narrow jacinth]

I've got a powerful air blower... will clean those dust lanes out nicely :D!

[narrow jacinth]

Makes me wanna get the Z4 set back up !!! and I don't do galaxies haha!

[ashen burrow]

Broadband data is also nice. I still need more NB though.

[ashen burrow]

HST vs 8 incher.

Not meant to compete with HST, more to check if the details are real.

[twilit hedge]

Crazy that you resolved some of these tiny stars

[twilit hedge]

Is that the Ontc or the bresser?

[ashen burrow]

It is both.