Great video Jason. It's true you learn something new everyday. I didn't know that if you were comparing images you could drag the tab over to get the field of view of the one picture you were looking at that you wanted to compare.
Thanks for posting this Jason! FYI, your video was NOT boring! I just chowed down on a couple of peanut butter & banana sandwiches (sorry, not PB & Jelly...lol..) & followed along! It was really interesting to see the differences, and I really enjoyed seeing your final SHO combined images too! A few thoughts: (1) Yes, the differences between the three SHO sets were easy to see. YT didn't mess things up all that much in this video. 👍 (2) I wonder if your 6 hour exposures from home were negatively affected even more by i/ significant variations in atmospheric turbulence ("seeing") during the 6 hrs of subs, ii/ urban haze & dust in the air, not just light pollution, iii/ greater temperature variation due to urban areas being better 'heat sinks' than desert soil, and iv/ having to start and/or finish the 6 hrs of subs for each filter when the objects were lower in the sky than they ever were when you shot them in the desert.....therefore spending more time in the worst of the urban light pollution (near the horizon) in the city than time spent in the worst of the light pollution (near the horizon) in the desert. v. Dust kicked up by LOLA & NINA as they engaged in combat to decide who gets to be used by you.😉 (3) One of the times you identified a bad gradient on a image taken at home, it almost looked like a problem with applying flats.🤔 (4) A question: What are the band passes of your SHO filters? 3nm? (5) Wishing you & your family a Happy Thanksgiving!🙂
My Daughter loves PB & Banana! 2. Very true that the 6 hours probably had more variations since changes fluctuate through out the whole night. Not to mention moisture, etc. I do also think that my Dome may have attributed a bit possible at home. I think I was almost clipping the top at times because of the position of the mount inside. and you are absolutely right on, when imaging all night at home. I have to deal with the Light pollution from all my normal culprits. 3. So in regards to the gradient. I used the same flats for each session both at home and from the desert, so not sure about that. 4. 4.5nm Antlia filters used at both locations. 5. Thanks for taking the time to watch and commenting & Happy Thanksgiving back to you and your family even if it is a little late.
@@AZ4Runner Oh, yes! I never thought of the dome! The edge of the dome could have blocked a bit of the frame, and/or the edge could have reflected some of the light pollution (and moonlight?) into the frame?🤔Nice to know that PB&B is also highly regarded.👍Thanks for info & the HT wishes Jason.👍
Thanks for sharing your results. I really expected more of a difference but feel heartened that 6 hours for each channel is doable from a Bortle 6 area, it's just going to take longer as a project. Cheers.
I kinda felt the same. I think the most notable difference was in O3 but I think with enough integration time it is definatley doable from Higher Bortle skies.
Hi Jason, Great comparison video. It shows several things ... that is, you CAN image from a moderate light pollution area almost as well as a dark area, but it takes more time, but that gives us hope. Also, I am wondering (the meteorologist in me) if while shooting from home if you had variations in the jet stream high overhead. I am finding that stronger winds aloft will ruffle up the atmosphere and over longer exposure times, could end up with blurred stars. Another good reason to shoot from dark areas if possible (fewer variations). Another thing, that was very obvious to me, was the difference in the O3 data, since that wavelength is more suspectable to light pollution versus HA & S2.
Yes Pat, there very well may have been atmospheric variations from my home site vs remote. even between the 3 nights I imaged. The O3 is like you said the most notable difference. CS
Great video comparison. Probably the smallest difference was in the Ha filter but that is to be expected. Differences were quite significant I think for the SII and Oiii filters, especially given the quite different integration times so I think we all need to move out to the desert.
great comparison Jason the data from Alpha Scorpii did look better to my eye at least, funnily enough I'm imaging this target as I type this but with the Moon being so bright I don't think it will even come close to yours. Clear skies
Thank you.
Thank you for watching CS!
Great video Jason. It's true you learn something new everyday. I didn't know that if you were comparing images you could drag the tab over to get the field of view of the one picture you were looking at that you wanted to compare.
I think I saw @lukomatico do it in a video or two. comes in very useful. CS
Thanks for posting this Jason! FYI, your video was NOT boring! I just chowed down on a couple of peanut butter & banana sandwiches (sorry, not PB & Jelly...lol..) & followed along! It was really interesting to see the differences, and I really enjoyed seeing your final SHO combined images too! A few thoughts:
(1) Yes, the differences between the three SHO sets were easy to see. YT didn't mess things up all that much in this video. 👍
(2) I wonder if your 6 hour exposures from home were negatively affected even more by
i/ significant variations in atmospheric turbulence ("seeing") during the 6 hrs of subs,
ii/ urban haze & dust in the air, not just light pollution,
iii/ greater temperature variation due to urban areas being better 'heat sinks' than desert soil, and
iv/ having to start and/or finish the 6 hrs of subs for each filter when the objects were lower in the sky than they ever were when you shot them in the desert.....therefore spending more time in the worst of the urban light pollution (near the horizon) in the city than time spent in the worst of the light pollution (near the horizon) in the desert.
v. Dust kicked up by LOLA & NINA as they engaged in combat to decide who gets to be used by you.😉
(3) One of the times you identified a bad gradient on a image taken at home, it almost looked like a problem with applying flats.🤔
(4) A question: What are the band passes of your SHO filters? 3nm?
(5) Wishing you & your family a Happy Thanksgiving!🙂
My Daughter loves PB & Banana!
2. Very true that the 6 hours probably had more variations since changes fluctuate through out the whole night. Not to mention moisture, etc. I do also think that my Dome may have attributed a bit possible at home. I think I was almost clipping the top at times because of the position of the mount inside. and you are absolutely right on, when imaging all night at home. I have to deal with the Light pollution from all my normal culprits.
3. So in regards to the gradient. I used the same flats for each session both at home and from the desert, so not sure about that.
4. 4.5nm Antlia filters used at both locations.
5. Thanks for taking the time to watch and commenting & Happy Thanksgiving back to you and your family even if it is a little late.
@@AZ4Runner Oh, yes! I never thought of the dome! The edge of the dome could have blocked a bit of the frame, and/or the edge could have reflected some of the light pollution (and moonlight?) into the frame?🤔Nice to know that PB&B is also highly regarded.👍Thanks for info & the HT wishes Jason.👍
Thanks for sharing your results. I really expected more of a difference but feel heartened that 6 hours for each channel is doable from a Bortle 6 area, it's just going to take longer as a project. Cheers.
I kinda felt the same. I think the most notable difference was in O3 but I think with enough integration time it is definatley doable from Higher Bortle skies.
Hi Jason,
Great comparison video. It shows several things ... that is, you CAN image from a moderate light pollution area almost as well as a dark area, but it takes more time, but that gives us hope. Also, I am wondering (the meteorologist in me) if while shooting from home if you had variations in the jet stream high overhead. I am finding that stronger winds aloft will ruffle up the atmosphere and over longer exposure times, could end up with blurred stars. Another good reason to shoot from dark areas if possible (fewer variations). Another thing, that was very obvious to me, was the difference in the O3 data, since that wavelength is more suspectable to light pollution versus HA & S2.
Yes Pat, there very well may have been atmospheric variations from my home site vs remote. even between the 3 nights I imaged. The O3 is like you said the most notable difference. CS
Ye could definitely see some difference and of course the Broadband stuff will just be loads better !!
sound like another comparison video! CS
Great video comparison. Probably the smallest difference was in the Ha filter but that is to be expected. Differences were quite significant I think for the SII and Oiii filters, especially given the quite different integration times so I think we all need to move out to the desert.
or bring the darker desert skies to our observatories! CS
great comparison Jason the data from Alpha Scorpii did look better to my eye at least, funnily enough I'm imaging this target as I type this but with the Moon being so bright I don't think it will even come close to yours.
Clear skies
Maybe I was looking at the data way too long.. it started to blur all together. can't wait to see your image. hope u r getting lotsa clear skies!