|
Krill Nye posted:Are the Bushnell 10x50 Binoculars in the OP still the recommended newbie purchase? I think it's time I dive into Astronomy and Binoc chat here has convinced me to go that route. I'd like to get a pair that I won't want to replace anytime soon (with other binoculars that is) and I'll definitely pick up Turn Left at Orion as well. 10x50's are the default size for astronomy. For Binos the first number is zoom. so 10x which is right around where you want it, nice feild of view and the more zoom=more shaking. Second number is aperature. so bigger=more light gathering but also heavier. So the trade off comes between weight and comfortably being able to hold them steady and light gathering. 10x50 is middleground best of both worlds. I personally use http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-SkyMaster-Binoculars-Tripod-Adapter/dp/B00008Y0VN/ Celestron 15x70 These guys, they are heavier but I've never had a problem with them, I hold them near the front and find the weight helps me to steady them. My wife and kids think they are too heavy though and I probably want to get a nice pair of 10x50's as well. If you have an outdoors shop like Cabela's or even a sporting good store they probably have the different sizes so you can judge the weight for yourself. I think 10x50's and a good starter book are the way to go.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
I finally got round to spending a few hours with reasonably clear skies the other night, which at least gave me a chance to test out some of my new toys from Astrofest. I picked up a TS monorail focuser, to deal with some flexure issues I was having, and from Gerd Neumann I purchased an Aurora flat field panel and a 2" UHC filter for nebula imaging. I've also now got a TS off-axis guider which I'm not quite ready to make use of, I need another adapter for that. Anyway, a couple of very quick and dirty images, around 9x600s each I think. The Jellyfish nebula, showing strongly in the HA through the UHC filter, almost nothing to be seen of it on the other channels.  IC443 by tmarkuk, on Flickr pk164.31, this is very faint, very challenging processing to pull it out of the background noise.  pk164.31 by tmarkuk, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
I love this thread  I've got a birthday ending in a zero coming up soon and I've decided that I'd like to splash out and treat myself to a telescope upgrade. I currently have a definite beginner telescope (Konus Digimax 90) which has been good for getting me up to speed on the sky at night. I've wanted to start with some astrophtography, however the mount isn't up to the job of connecting my DSLR to it as it can't hold the scope and the camera attached at relatively high angles (Jupiter the last few nights has been a massive problem, and that's one I'm excited about imaging). Basically, I have about £1,000 to spend - a little over is OK and I'd like this thread's advice on what to get. I've been reading reviews and I like the idea of the Skywatched Explorer 200P with the HEQ5 Pro goto mount. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
That Skywatcher is a nice setup that'll serve you well for years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2013 02:49
|
|
|
Just popping in with binocular chat. I've been wanting to get more seriously into stars and now that I've actually read around this issue, I'm also starting to think a pair would do me well, since it would also help for me being interested in birds as well. I might be able to wrangle a second hand post war japanese pair of 7x50's if I try really hard. Should I bother with something like that, or just a decent pair of modern ones?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:Just popping in with binocular chat. I've been wanting to get more seriously into stars and now that I've actually read around this issue, I'm also starting to think a pair would do me well, since it would also help for me being interested in birds as well. I might be able to wrangle a second hand post war japanese pair of 7x50's if I try really hard. Should I bother with something like that, or just a decent pair of modern ones? Meh. Depends on how far post-war you're talking about. Immediately post-war? Avoid. Something from the 70s through 90s in good condition? Now we're talking. To be honest though, a lot of the cheaper stuff coming from China these days is really good and you're probably better off buying new where binoculars are concerned. Also, with used vintage binoculars it's often hard to find out what type of optical glass is used for the prisms, and that can make a big difference in light throughput and image quality. Try to get binos with BAK-4 (Barium Crown) prisms. This pair is really good: http://www.telescope.com/Binoculars/Astronomy-Binoculars/Orion-Scenix-7x50-Binoculars/pc/-1/c/5/sc/72/p/9332.uts Also, to hone your binocular observing skills, the Astronomical League has a number of binocular observing programs. Check them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
If you're interested in birds as well, a pair of modern waterproof fully multi-coated binoculars like the Pentax PCF 8x40 can be bought for less than $100. They'll last a lifetime and outperform any post-war glass.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
I hope you don't mind me asking again, but I'd really like some advice about bringing this old telescope back to life.GWBBQ posted:I recently dug out my dad's old Meade 826. The tube and mirrors are pristine, but the mount is rusty and it looks like the gears on the tracking mechanism are frozen up (can't expect perfection from a guy who worked on the Hubble Space Telescope, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:10
|
|
) Cleaning up the gears and motor shouldn't be a problem, although I have my doubts about the clutch surviving the 20 or so years since it was last used. I want to get it to usable condition for sentimental value as much as practical, it was my dad's college graduation gift from my mom, and I fondly remember being 4 or 5 and my dad holding me up to the eyepiece to see Saturn and Jupiter.
|
Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but if you're on the US west coast there's a comet called PANSTARRS that will be visible tonight, shortly after sunset. It's reaching its brightest tonight but should still be somewhat visible going forward. http://earthsky.org/space/comet-panstarrs-possibly-visible-to-eye-in-march-2013 Comet ISON might be putting on a show later in the year but this one is visible now! Naked-eye comets are quite a sight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
Cool thanks for the help. It feels like on the internet it's a lot of grognards who invariably end up asserting that if don't buy 2000$ zeiss optics I might as well be looking through a toilet paper roll and play pretend. So essentially the word with binoculars is: -I get back what I put in for money -I should really expect to spend around the price point of those binoculars for something that performs alright. -I should be looking at something in the ballpark of a 7x50 with leeway either way for both parameters and ideally porros with bak4 prisms?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:Surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet, but if you're on the US west coast there's a comet called PANSTARRS that will be visible tonight, shortly after sunset. It's reaching its brightest tonight but should still be somewhat visible going forward. Saw it tonight from a friend's observatory (12" LX200). Not easy to see with the naked eye, that's for drat sure. Relatively easy with binoculars. Spectacular in the scope.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Trambopaline posted:Cool thanks for the help. It feels like on the internet it's a lot of grognards who invariably end up asserting that if don't buy 2000$ zeiss optics I might as well be looking through a toilet paper roll and play pretend. I'm a birder/astronomer and loving love binoculars, so bide with me... I would say $100-200 would be the best price/performance type for Porro (the classic style) binoculars, while $200-300 would be the best price / performance for Roof (the slim H-style) binos. For that price, you're getting sharp fully-multicoated optics and solid waterproof construction. You can often find a great deal used for ~50-70% retail. Search the cloudynights classifieds or birdforum. I recommended the Pentax 8x40 based on personal experience with them. They've exceptional optics, are built like a brick shithouse and are water-proof with a life-time no-fault warranty. Drop them? Run over them with a truck? Melt them in a terrible binocular fire? Pentax will replace and repair them for you, no questions asked. http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-65807-8x40-PCF-Binocular/dp/B00076QVPU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362980332&sr=8-1&keywords=pentax+pcf+8x40 For ROOF bins, you want something called PHASE COATINGS, which is a fancy coating that makes ROOF bins much clearer. I have personal experience with the Nikon Monarch 5. Again, excellent bins for the money. Many birders have them. I dropped a pair and one of the eye-cups broke and came off. Nikon fixed it for me asking only a small shipping/handling fee. http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Optics-...Nikon+Monarch+5 The Bushnell Legend Ultra HD 8x42 is also well regarded, though no personal experience. It has "HD" glass, which the Monarch 5 does not have. HD (also known as ED) reduces chromatic aberration - purple fringing at the edges of things like tree branches shillouheted against the sky. http://www.amazon.com/Bushnell-Lege...hnell+legend+hd Can you spend less? Sure, though I would recommend saving by buying a used version of one of the above. Because they're built tough and waterproof, as long as there's no scratches on the lenses, they'll function as new for years to come. Otherwise, the cheaper binoculars will skimp on coatings, optical sharpness, and build quality. Can you spend more? Of course you can. With extra monies, you get even better coatings (brighter/more contrast) and sharper images at the edge of the field. With a $250 binocular like the Nikon Monarch, you'll get a nice sharp image at the middle, but it often drops considerably at the edge of the field. With a $2500 Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV, it will stay crisp and sharp right up to the edge. The question you have to ask yourself is, is that worth it to me right now? In terms of pricier binoculars, I've owned the Zen ED3 8x43 ($400) and the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42 ($1000). I've also looked through a pair of Swarovski 8.5x42 EL SV ($2500). In my non-scientific subjective ratings completely made up on the spot from experiences I had months / years ago: Pentax = Nikon: 90% Center, 50% Edge Zen: 95% Center, 60% Edge Zeiss: 98% Center, 80% Edge Swarovski: 99% Center, 95% Edge. I would recommend 8x40 / 8x42 for hand-held astronomy and birding. I've tried 10x50 but you get too much shake handholding for longer periods of time. They'll really need a tripod for astronomy use and at that point you'd be better off with a small telescope. 10x50 is pretty impractical for field carrying - just imagine carrying your binocular while hiking for miles on difficult terrain. 7x50 is a very specialized optic. It's a favorite of nautical use because it's brighter at night (for finding icebergs) and easier to hold steady on a rocking boat because of the lower magnification. Just as bulky as a 10x50, so not so great for birding, and the increased brightness actually worsens light pollution when viewing stars. (The stars are pin-points so they'll be just as bright, but the background will be brighter, thus reducing overall contrast.) INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 06:52
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:10x50's are the default size for astronomy. I took a gamble and ordered the 20x80 version. I have a spare ball-head that I will be mounting it to. They should be here wednesday. Reviews seemed mixed, but if the worst has me doing the collimation myself I can deal. Aperture is king and I figured if 70 is good, 80 is better. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
AstroZamboni posted:Saw it tonight from a friend's observatory (12" LX200). Not easy to see with the naked eye, that's for drat sure. Relatively easy with binoculars. Spectacular in the scope. It's going to be visible for at least a few days yet. It's getting further from the sun, so even though it's darker there won't be as much twilight when it's visible. I'm told Tuesday should be the sweet spot before it starts getting less noticeable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I took a gamble and ordered the 20x80 version. I have a spare ball-head that I will be mounting it to. They should be here wednesday. Reviews seemed mixed, but if the worst has me doing the collimation myself I can deal. Aperture is king and I figured if 70 is good, 80 is better. Been reading more and more horror stories about the skymasters. I am prepped to put them right back in the box for refund the moment I pull them out and notice any collimation issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:Been reading more and more horror stories about the skymasters. I am prepped to put them right back in the box for refund the moment I pull them out and notice any collimation issues. I collimated mine when they arrived, took about 5 minutes. I've never looked through a pair of binos as perfectly collimated as I got them in that short amount of time. For context, I'm in the Coast Guard and have looked through far too many binos in my day. Its really really simple. Don't be scarred to do it yourself. If your looking to get into telescopes, you cannot be scarred to collimate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:I collimated mine when they arrived, took about 5 minutes. I've never looked through a pair of binos as perfectly collimated as I got them in that short amount of time. For context, I'm in the Coast Guard and have looked through far too many binos in my day. I am confident I can do it (I own 2 dobs that I've collimated), I'd just rather not crack it open and void the warranty. Besides, Amazon is great with returns/exchanges. May as well juggle till I get a decent sample.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I am confident I can do it (I own 2 dobs that I've collimated), I'd just rather not crack it open and void the warranty. Besides, Amazon is great with returns/exchanges. May as well juggle till I get a decent sample. You don't open anything. Theres screws on the outside hidden just under a rubber grip (collimating does not hurt the grip) No opening anything required. http://www.oberwerk.com/support/collimate.htm Different brand, but same thing, theres pics there of how non-invasive it is to do. Much less then a dob. Its more like collimating a laser collimater, but much easier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:You don't open anything. Theres screws on the outside hidden just under a rubber grip (collimating does not hurt the grip) No opening anything required. The pics I saw of the internals of the skymaster looked like an entire section of the grips was removed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:The pics I saw of the internals of the skymaster looked like an entire section of the grips was removed. That's weird. You don't have to do that at all. Maybe it was an informative thing? You just pull back the grip a tiny bit. Its not glued down, nor is there glue in the set screws. From what I read rough shipping can knock them out of collimation. So send back works if you get lucky on shipping. Some guys on amazon reviews reshipped 3 times and kept getting "DOA" ones. So damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:That's weird. You don't have to do that at all. Maybe it was an informative thing? You just pull back the grip a tiny bit. Its not glued down, nor is there glue in the set screws. A ton of the reviews I have seen on the interwebs were samples from when the price was double what Amazon is currently selling them. I am wondering if any changes to manufacturing have happened since. For better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:A ton of the reviews I have seen on the interwebs were samples from when the price was double what Amazon is currently selling them. I am wondering if any changes to manufacturing have happened since. For better or worse. I got mine 3 months ago. The price has actually gone up since then so who knows!
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Well, just arrived. Right out of the box they are horribly out of kilter. edit: OK, If I lift the rear edge (top) of the rubber forward, I see one screw head. Could you baby step me through how you adjusted yours? I imagine only one side should be adjusted. Is there only the one screw to adjust on each side? edit/edit: gently caress it, I am going to make use of the exchange policy until they get it right. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Mar 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
PANSTARRS status: it's still visible in binoculars and will be for a few more days. It's really easy to spot in the twilight after sunset. Last night was probably the best night to attempt to see it naked eye and it was visible but only in averted vision as a faint angular glow. Looking forward to ISON!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
I love Amazon's exchange policy. The second attempt at a decent sample should be here tomorrow. Now to research an attachment for my tripod that will allow me to recline in a zero gravity chair and have the binos held for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 16:06
|
|
Here's a fun thing I did last weekend. I piggybacked my Nikon D800 on my 6" Celestron and had it shooting timelapse frames while I was observing. The results are pretty cool, although shooting under actually dark skies would be enormously helpful. It's okay though, I did this really just as a proof-of-concept test. I've got a more involved and longer video planned for this summer's Golden State Star Party. Doing a timelapse like this under the skies out there should be loving amazing.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R91duZCVds4
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:Here's a fun thing I did last weekend. I piggybacked my Nikon D800 on my 6" Celestron and had it shooting timelapse frames while I was observing. The results are pretty cool, although shooting under actually dark skies would be enormously helpful. It's okay though, I did this really just as a proof-of-concept test. I've got a more involved and longer video planned for this summer's Golden State Star Party. Doing a timelapse like this under the skies out there should be loving amazing. Man, you should do a messier marathon time lapse video like that. That would be loving hardcore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Dude! Yeah, that would be pretty awesome. I might steal your idea and actually do that at some point. (I just noticed I misspelled "beehive". Dammit.  )
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
Second sample is here. Took time to read the "manual".Celestron Note on Collimation/Alignment of Optics: posted:With high powers (15x and greater), the collimation may be slightly off and this is normal as exactness of collimation is made more difficult due to the high powers.  So basically, it boils down to "we are not good at high power binoculars because high powers are hard, welp!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Just want to put out the word to any astronomer goons from Colorado or surrounding states. In June, my club (Colorado Springs Astronomical Society) will be hosting our big annual star party, the Rocky Mountain Star Stare. Attendance is usually in the 300 range, and we have pristine dark skies on our land near Gardner, CO. I'll be giving a talk this year on the history of eyepiece technology. Of course, I'm also the opening act for Michael Bicay, science director of NASA's Ames research center. That's more than a little nerve wracking and intimidating, I tell you what. The event is 5 days total and a grand time is had by all. http://www.rmss.org
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 04:04
|
|
|
So, going back to the binocular-chat for a bit, I'd just like to express my insane love for my newish (2 months old) 15x63 Orion's. For the money they're probably the best astronomy-related investment I've ever made. With them I managed to see two things tonight that I figured were impossible from light-polluted skies even with a decent telescope, much less binocs. (I live in the red-zone that is the San Francisco Bay Area, so I'm used to being disappointed when trying to find stuff.) The first was Ceres, which Stellarium was putting at around magnitude 8 tonight. It kind of flickered in and out with direct vision, but held pretty steady with averted. I had never seen it before, so that got me pretty jazzed. The second was when I turned to look at Saturn. I'd never seen Saturn through this particular pair of binoculars before, and was quite surprised that the rings were actually visible. No detail on them of course, but I wasn't expecting to be able to see them at all. While looking at Saturn I kept seeing this flickering little dot to its lower-left. I wasn't sure if I was actually seeing something or if my mind was playing tricks on me, so I checked Stellarium when I got home. It was Titan, which was marked as being at magnitude 9 tonight. So yeah, two difficult targets in red-zone skies with freaking binoculars. This was a successful night.  EDIT: Re-reading this post this morning I realize it kinda reads like an awful Penthouse letter. "Dear Sky & Telescope, I seriously never thought that anything like this could ever happen to me..." That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:PANSTARRS status: it's still visible in binoculars and will be for a few more days. It's really easy to spot in the twilight after sunset. Last night was probably the best night to attempt to see it naked eye and it was visible but only in averted vision as a faint angular glow. Looking forward to ISON! There were bands of clouds extending just high enough on the western horizon here (Sacramento, CA area) on Tuesday to block any view I might have been able to get. I was out in an area that offered good visibility out over the horizon and quickly spotted the glow of the young waxing crescent moon right as it tucked itself behind the clouds. Stupid clouds.  The moon looked awesome though!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:So, going back to the binocular-chat for a bit, Alrighty. I feel I might have collimated the celestrons adequately (or my eyes are crossed sufficiently). I may make a couple modifications to them. First off cutting back the rubber around the collimation screws and coming up with a removable plug of some sort to cover them. Secondly, I need to figure out how to comfortably get my nose between the eyepieces when viewing. My eyes are toward the minimal spread of the adjustment span, and my nose seems to get in the way. Chromatic aberration is really apparent when looking at high contrast (bits of snow on hillside, white patch on cow, that sort of thing) objects, but oddly enough it wasn't all that noticeable when viewing the moon last night. I was pleasantly surprised when looking at the moon, that the part in shadow was visible. I expected my eyeballs to be scorched by the brightness of the lit crescent, what with the 80mms. Even saw what I imagine was a star right over the edge of the "dark side" of the moon. Clearly visible even with the contrasting crescent in the view. Really gave me confidence that these will work out nicely. I have them mounted to an old heavy duty ballhead, with a nice large lever to free up the ball. I am sort of tempted to mount a mini red-dot on the setup for quick locating. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 15:37 on Mar 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Topoisomerase posted:There were bands of clouds extending just high enough on the western horizon here (Sacramento, CA area) on Tuesday to block any view I might have been able to get. I was out in an area that offered good visibility out over the horizon and quickly spotted the glow of the young waxing crescent moon right as it tucked itself behind the clouds. Stupid clouds. I saw it Wednesday in the Rancho Cordova area with binoculars but still couldn't make it out naked-eye knowing where to look. Fingers crossed for some photos tonight.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Eegah posted:I saw it Wednesday in the Rancho Cordova area with binoculars but still couldn't make it out naked-eye knowing where to look. Fingers crossed for some photos tonight. Oh, I'm in Davis. Nobody here could see it Tuesday but a couple people said they could Wednesday with binoculars as well. I haven't had a chance to get back out at the right time since Tuesday unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
It is nice space weather here
Wolf on Air fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Mar 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
We just got back from a great time at the University of Texas McDonald Observatory. We brought our own scope and got to help out by letting guests look at the entire Sword of Orion through it. We had a blast! Here is a link to our Flickr album. I highly recommend the trip out there. http://www.flickr.com/photos/habilis/sets/72157633053647913/
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Anybody know the guy in charge of determining the apparent magnitude of stuff? Because I'd like to smack him around a bit. Seriously, how do they come up with some of these numbers? They have to be one of the most inconsistent methods of measurement around. For example, last night I looked at two magnitude 10.0 targets - the "double star" M40 and Saturn's moon Rhea. M40 was dim, but easily made out. Rhea was barely visible even with averted vision. Or how about NGC 2024 (Flame Nebula)? Everywhere online says its a magnitude 2.0, making it 6.25 times brighter than the magnitude 4.0 Orion Nebula. The Orion Nebula is easily seen naked eye even in my light-polluted skies, yet I can't get the Flame Nebula with a 150mm f6.3 telescope.  I'm not really all that mad about it, I realize that it's all very subjective and dependent on circumstances, but some of them really do make no sense.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
There are two things at work here, and I assure you there's nothing arbitrary or inconsistent about the magnitude system. First of all, both objects you had trouble seeing are close to much brighter objects. When there's a bright object like Saturn or Zeta Orionis in the field of view, much dimmer objects like Rhea or the flame nebula (I'll get to the nebula in just a second) are more difficult to see than an equally bright point source in an otherwise mostly dark field. Second, nebulae and galaxies are diffuse objects. When you look at a measurement of magnitude, the number given is for combined total surface brightness. Thus, a +2 magnitude nebula is going to appear MUCH dimmer than a +2 magnitude star. The closer an object of a given magnitude is to being a point source, the easier it will be to see. This combined with the apparent brightness difference between the Flame and Zeta orionis leads to it being a very difficult object to see. The best way to see the Flame is with a UHC filter. It's a dichroic filter that allows light from the spectral lines H-beta, H-alpha and OIII to come through but blocks a large percentage of everything else. A UHC filter will dim the light from Zeta Orionis (which, being a star, has a continuous spectrum) while allowing the light from the Flame (which primarily emits in only a handful of spectral lines) to pass through. It will also increase contrast between the nebula and the sky background.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Got it. I kind of figured the "being next to a brighter object" might have something to do with it, I guess I just didn't realize it could really make that huge of a difference. And the magnitude of diffuse objects I thought was an average brightness rather than a total added brightness. Makes sense now. Thanks! EDIT: So to further clarify and make sure I'm getting this right - you could have a hypothetical object up there where any given point on it could be, say, magnitude 14.0, but if it were substantially large enough it could have a measured magnitude of 2.0? So that would make the magnitude system strictly a measurement of total brightness, which is not necessarily the same as its visibility. I think that's where I was messed up before. I assumed that an object with a lower magnitude meant it was more visible. That 70s Shirt fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 01:09
|
|