M81 M82, 60 hours mosaic cdk17

[ManuelJ]

Hi,

Details inside the web, don't forget to view the image in original format!

http://www.manuelj.com/Astronomy/Galaxy/M81-M82

Regards,
Manuel.

[Yuriy Toropin]

Wow!
Nicely looking image, thanks for sharing! 60 hours makes difference!

[Harry page]

Hi

Now that is a wow image , one of the best I havwe ever seen

Huge well done    8)

Harry

[Lex]

Manuel,

Bombastic, simply incredible!!!

Huge Respect!!

[kwalker]

Other than totally spectacular I am at a loss for words
Very well done.

[jeffweiss9]

Absolutely off-scale image.  Just incredibly good.
-Jeff

[viktorbravo]

Very nice image Manuel.  I will have a similar set up in the next few months, CDK 17 and 16803 camera.  Do you find that you need excellent seeing to image with this set up or does fair seeing produce a decent image?

Thanks, Vince

[gvanhau]

Hello
The image is outstanding.

The only question, is it 60 hours? I counted 60*1800sec -> 30 hours or am I missing something?

Regards
Geert

[ManuelJ]

Very nice image Manuel.  I will have a similar set up in the next few months, CDK 17 and 16803 camera.  Do you find that you need excellent seeing to image with this set up or does fair seeing produce a decent image?

Thanks, Vince

I usually have a 2" FWHM seeing, sometimes it goes a little bit up, and a little bit down. Going to 1,5" does not add much detail, but going up it hurts a lot the image. I have seen a lot of people with 3"-4" seeing with this combo, and it's just terrible.

You need very good skies if you don't want blurry images. I have mine in a mountain top with 21.8 skies.

gvanhau: 30 hours per mosaic pane

[Mike Reid]

Manuel,

I don'f often comment on images anymore because there really are so many good ones these days but this is in a class by itself.  Congratulations!

Mike

[viktorbravo]

I usually have a 2" FWHM seeing, sometimes it goes a little bit up, and a little bit down. Going to 1,5" does not add much detail, but going up it hurts a lot the image. I have seen a lot of people with 3"-4" seeing with this combo, and it's just terrible.

You need very good skies if you don't want blurry images. I have mine in a mountain top with 21.8 skies.

Thanks Manuel.  Looks like I will have to invest in a focal reducer.

[ManuelJ]

I usually have a 2" FWHM seeing, sometimes it goes a little bit up, and a little bit down. Going to 1,5" does not add much detail, but going up it hurts a lot the image. I have seen a lot of people with 3"-4" seeing with this combo, and it's just terrible.

You need very good skies if you don't want blurry images. I have mine in a mountain top with 21.8 skies.

Thanks Manuel.  Looks like I will have to invest in a focal reducer.

Focal reducer with 16803 chip?. Bad idea

[viktorbravo]

The reducer is optimized for a 6303 chip.  So I'll have to crop the image to 3072 X 3072, or about 25%.  Its either that or not be able to image more than a couple nights a month.

[ManuelJ]

The reducer is optimized for a 6303 chip.  So I'll have to crop the image to 3072 X 3072, or about 25%.  Its either that or not be able to image more than a couple nights a month.

I'd like to see that results!. Expect heavy vignetting (it's already certainly big with standard config).