1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO.AMATEUR

  • We are seeing the results of everyone owning rinky-dink little refracto

    From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 28 14:03:30 2023
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 28 16:17:24 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are
    readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to RichA on Fri Jul 28 22:02:13 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 2:03:32 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    It depends on exposure time!
    I knew a guy, had a 90 mm Tak refractor, but he was taking very long exposures, no stacking.
    Of course, he had a super accurate Tak mount too!
    He said, he's done up to 1.5 hrs one shot images!
    Longer the exposure, the more light is collected!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to StarDust on Fri Jul 28 22:13:37 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:02:15 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 2:03:32 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    It depends on exposure time!
    I knew a guy, had a 90 mm Tak refractor, but he was taking very long exposures, no stacking.
    Of course, he had a super accurate T of a satellite ruining that whole batch!ak mount too!
    He said, he's done up to 1.5 hrs one shot images!
    Longer the exposure, the more light is collected!

    I don't know much about this subject matter, but I do believe that most astrophotographers these days take lots and lots of short exposures and just stack them up. Safety in numbers and they don't run the risk of a satellite ruining a single long
    exposure.

    I'll wager that you will get a lot of feedback about this...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to palsing on Fri Jul 28 22:30:00 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:13:39 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:02:15 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 2:03:32 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    It depends on exposure time!
    I knew a guy, had a 90 mm Tak refractor, but he was taking very long exposures, no stacking.
    Of course, he had a super accurate T of a satellite ruining that whole batch!ak mount too!
    He said, he's done up to 1.5 hrs one shot images!
    Longer the exposure, the more light is collected!
    I don't know much about this subject matter, but I do believe that most astrophotographers these days take lots and lots of short exposures and just stack them up. Safety in numbers and they don't run the risk of a satellite ruining a single long
    exposure.

    I'll wager that you will get a lot of feedback about this...

    That's the point, he didn't want to spend time stacking images!
    Also, he wanted a very portable set up and the Tak 90 was the key!
    I've seen his images, very nice!
    Well, this was maybe 20 years ago!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 29 07:37:14 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 22:02:13 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 2:03:32?PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    It depends on exposure time!
    I knew a guy, had a 90 mm Tak refractor, but he was taking very long exposures, no stacking.
    Of course, he had a super accurate Tak mount too!
    He said, he's done up to 1.5 hrs one shot images!

    That is just stupid. There is no advantage to one exposure over a set
    of them adding up to the same total time, other than a slight total
    time saving because you don't lose time during image downloads (which
    are typically very fast with modern cameras). But there are many
    disadvantages. A single exposure will saturate many of the stars
    because you reach the dynamic range limit of the sensor. Multiple
    images extends your dynamic range. And, of course, a stack makes you
    largely immune to the impact of planes, satellites, cosmic ray strikes
    and all other things that can create artifacts on an image.

    The typical exposure time that HST imagers use is 9 minutes, even
    though many of its images are hours long in total.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 29 07:40:05 2023
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 22:30:00 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:13:39?PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 10:02:15?PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 2:03:32?PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    It depends on exposure time!
    I knew a guy, had a 90 mm Tak refractor, but he was taking very long exposures, no stacking.
    Of course, he had a super accurate T of a satellite ruining that whole batch!ak mount too!
    He said, he's done up to 1.5 hrs one shot images!
    Longer the exposure, the more light is collected!
    I don't know much about this subject matter, but I do believe that most astrophotographers these days take lots and lots of short exposures and just stack them up. Safety in numbers and they don't run the risk of a satellite ruining a single long
    exposure.

    I'll wager that you will get a lot of feedback about this...

    That's the point, he didn't want to spend time stacking images!
    Also, he wanted a very portable set up and the Tak 90 was the key!
    I've seen his images, very nice!
    Well, this was maybe 20 years ago!

    Today, the process of stacking is integrated right into the other
    required steps of calibration. It was a little more work 20 years ago,
    but not much. And back then, cameras had higher readout noise, which
    meant that optimal subexposure times were longer than today. But not
    that long. Under dark skies, not using narrowband filters, 10-minute
    exposures were about right.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AB@21:1/5 to RichA on Sun Jul 30 04:15:42 2023
    On 7/28/23 5:03 PM, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    "Rinky-dink little refractors" might be all that's left after the
    worldwide economic collapse. Besides, small aperture scopes can do
    quite well under dark skies with multiple images of the DSO that are
    later stacked. Besides, how do you know, for certain, that all of the exposures were single ones of long duration? Some folks list the total exposure only without mention of sub-stacks or the duration.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Sun Jul 30 15:47:16 2023
    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AB@21:1/5 to RichA on Mon Jul 31 00:20:35 2023
    On 7/30/23 6:47 PM, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are
    readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.

    Irrelevant. That's what items like focal reducers are for, or the
    software savvy can simply image each small area and then create a
    composite later.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to RichA on Mon Jul 31 06:51:47 2023
    On Friday, July 28, 2023 at 5:03:32 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    Did you take any pictures of this event?

    How many pictures would be enough?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 31 07:34:25 2023
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are
    readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.

    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AB@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon Jul 31 11:13:42 2023
    On 7/31/23 9:34 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are
    readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.

    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.

    He either "purposefully" misunderstands astronomical and imaging
    concepts to suit his own ego, or really doesn't understand. Based on
    his posting history, I think it's the former.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon Jul 31 19:42:08 2023
    On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 09:34:32 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are
    readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.
    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.

    STFU D.B.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 31 19:47:16 2023
    On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 11:13:46 UTC-4, AB wrote:
    On 7/31/23 9:34 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are >>> readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.

    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.
    He either "purposefully" misunderstands astronomical and imaging
    concepts to suit his own ego, or really doesn't understand. Based on
    his posting history, I think it's the former.

    There are lots of reason for using small refractors with short focal lengths. Fast photographic speed, non-taxing on the mount and drive, cheap. But the absurdity is that the majority of objects are not represented well by what amount to camera-lens
    sized instruments. I have vastly more respect for the poor bastards that used to guide by hand for an hour with LARGE scopes using awful film that the "fire and forget" wide field stuff being done today. It makes even LESS sense when you consider
    camera lenses at 400-600mm of high quality are probably better suited to the task than the telescopes, especially considering they are stopped down (and therefore perform well) 1 to 2 stops and achieve the same focal ratio as many of these small
    telescopes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to RichA on Mon Jul 31 21:02:14 2023
    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 17:03:32 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    The ultimate result of the race to the bottom in telescope imaging: https://www.unistellar.com/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 1 06:31:25 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 19:42:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 09:34:32 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are
    readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.
    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.

    STFU D.B.

    You make my point.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Tue Aug 1 06:32:22 2023
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 21:02:14 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 17:03:32 UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/

    The ultimate result of the race to the bottom in telescope imaging: >https://www.unistellar.com/


    It outperforms anything you have ever done, or are capable of.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AB@21:1/5 to RichA on Tue Aug 1 08:25:16 2023
    On 7/31/23 10:47 PM, RichA wrote:
    On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 11:13:46 UTC-4, AB wrote:
    On 7/31/23 9:34 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are >>>>> readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.

    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.
    He either "purposefully" misunderstands astronomical and imaging
    concepts to suit his own ego, or really doesn't understand. Based on
    his posting history, I think it's the former.

    There are lots of reason for using small refractors with short focal lengths. Fast photographic speed, non-taxing on the mount and drive, cheap. But the absurdity is that the majority of objects are not represented well by what amount to camera-lens
    sized instruments. I have vastly more respect for the poor bastards that used to guide by hand for an hour with LARGE scopes using awful film that the "fire and forget" wide field stuff being done today. It makes even LESS sense when you consider
    camera lenses at 400-600mm of high quality are probably better suited to the task than the telescopes, especially considering they are stopped down (and therefore perform well) 1 to 2 stops and achieve the same focal ratio as many of these small
    telescopes.

    If it's truly the image scale you are concerned about, and again your
    knowledge may be lacking here, there are these days AI capable image enlargement algorithms, especially for specialized astronomy uses, that
    permit significant enlargement of images both without sacrificing
    quality or creating image artifacts. This technology has advanced by
    leaps and bounds over the last decade especially. Some of the most
    basic algorithms are found online and allow an individual to upload
    their image and then specify the amount of enlargement desired. In a
    short time, an enlarged image is presented for download. Keep in mind
    that the online ones are not nearly as sophisticated as the offline
    software based ones. In the coming years, commercial algorithms will be utilized making it nearly impossible to tell that an image was enlarged
    at all. It's almost at that point now with some software. You really
    need to do some research before rattling off at many times
    insignificant, and most of the time negative, posts here.

    AB

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AB@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Tue Aug 1 08:40:39 2023
    On 8/1/23 8:31 AM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 19:42:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, 31 July 2023 at 09:34:32 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:47:16 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, 28 July 2023 at 18:17:39 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
    If people still had a lot of large aperture scopes, there would be a lot more images of this event:

    https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/885223-m101-pinwheel-with-supernova-sn2023ixf/
    Bad example. This object in general, and this event in particular, are >>>>> readily imaged with decent results from the most light polluted
    places.

    But with ZERO image scale, owing to the short focal lengths of small (6 inches and under) refractors. For that subject, you need RC's or SCTs of ample aperture to get good images.
    We see images being posted all the time with TINY little representations of galaxies and nebula, globular clusters. Not only are the subjects done a disservice by the effort, there is
    often no photographic "rule-following" because the subjects occupy such small amounts of the frame.
    How absurd. We have somebody with a mid-size telescope who used it to
    take a nice image of an interesting transient astronomical event,
    which he appears to be quite happy with, and you still find a way to
    bitch and moan.

    What a sick asshole.

    STFU D.B.

    You make my point.

    What the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make
    the horse drink? In this case, the knowledge is out there for those who
    want to learn it, but you can't make them do so.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)