Re: (IAAC) Obj: IC 1296 - Inst: 200mm Newt F5
Kim Gowney wrote:
>You are right there Steve, but it was worth a look and a mention because
>of the S&T article, strange thing with photo's and galaxies, the galaxy
>in this instance has a nucleus that appears about the same brightness as
>a nearby star maybe a little fainter, so the tendancy is to think that
>it may just be visible...
That was a worthwhile attempt anyway.
I can't seem to find the SB of IC 1296 myself, but it must be pretty
dim. On the image I described in my last e-mail, I had to do a good bit
of image processing to keep M57 from burning out of the image, so the
brightness of M57 is reduced. The IC object should be about right with
respect to the rest of the field.
Don't know what to say about the S&T article. I brushed past it I
guess. Strange things can be done with photos, but even in my photo,
the nucleus looks about as bright as the nearby star, maybe a little
dimmer, but remember, the nucleus, even in the image is an extended
object. The photons were collected over a 60 second period. This is a
feat no eyeball can do.
Where I live, I would never even attempt to visually detect that
one. I have an 18" and I wouldn't. Our skies are really streetlights
on steroids. For this reason, I use an 18" equatorial and a CCD camera
with a good image processor to do whatever I can do. I have a C8 which
I really like, but it just doesn't have the grasp under these
conditions. I live right outside of Washington DC.
I didn't do a comprehensive study on it, but I also have a 3.5 inch
Questar. I took it on a trip once and spent a weekend atop a mountain
in California. The skies were really dark there. I think I saw about
as much with the Questar as I can from home with the 18 visually. Sad.
Our grandkids won't even be able to understand the relevance of a
planetarium when they grow up. When they want night, they'll have to
pull the curtains.
Clear Dark Skies
To stop receiving all 'netastrocatalog' lists, use the Web form at: