Another reminder of winter - The California Nebula

[Big Dipper]

Took this last month but thought I'd post it anyway. In all I took nine 5-minute each subs with my modified 350D on my AstroTrac with a 135mm lens set at f3.5. A Kenko 'Halpha' filter was also used and this colour version made with Noel Carboni's astronomy tools. However although I could find nothing wrong from a tracking point of view, both DSS & Registack refused to combine them all! Anyway, this is a composite of four of the frames - alas I forgotabout a few dark frames to counteract hot pixels. Never mind - there'll be other times!

[Paul]

Very good work Andy - NGC1499 is pretty faint - I managed to get a just about visible frame of it when 17P/Holmes was passing by and once before, but really I'd need to get to a darker site to get the contrast you've got there - or of course a filter like yours!

P. 

[brianb]

I'd need to get to a darker site to get the contrast you've got there - or of course a filter like yours!

And a sensor with an anti-alias filter that lets most of the Ha through helps!

[martinastro]

That's impressive Andy!. Has anyone seen this nebula visually?. I know it has been seen, but has anyone on here done so?

[Paul]

And a sensor with an anti-alias filter that lets most of the Ha through helps!

Yes, my Sony and my slightly mental KM 5D are quite good at this, letting at least some of the Ha light through. It seems the Canons tend to block most of it out hence the market in "modded" cameras.

P.

[brianb]

Has anyone seen this nebula visually?. I know it has been seen

My catalogue gives the mag as 4.05 but as that's integrated over an area of 145' by 40' the surface brightness is very low - a bit like Comet Holmes got. Incidentally I see 17P/Holmes is still around mag 7.5 but it's so diffuse I don't think there's much chance of seeing it.

Probably the best bet with the California Nebula is with bins and a narrow band light pollution filter. Plus a good dark site & exceptionally transparent air. Even then I'd expect it to be hard to see more than a hint of contrast at the harder edges.

I was just able to see M33 (Triangulum) with NE last night, but it was a lot clearer with bins. However it's invisible in any size scope with more than about x10 per inch, though the brighter star clusters in the spiral arms show up with sufficient aperture.

[martinastro]

I must have a go for it some these nights before dawn when that area is high in the sky. I've never tried for it visually before. M33 could be seen with the naked eye and looked impressive in the 8.5" scope resting at the centre of the 3 degree FOV. Quite a nice object despite its low surface brightness. Funnily enough I couldn't see M74 nearby.

[Big Dipper]

Has anyone seen this nebula visually?. I know it has been seen

My catalogue gives the mag as 4.05 but as that's integrated over an area of 145' by 40' the surface brightness is very low - a bit like Comet Holmes got. Incidentally I see 17P/Holmes is still around mag 7.5 but it's so diffuse I don't think there's much chance of seeing it.

Probably the best bet with the California Nebula is with bins and a narrow band light pollution filter. Plus a good dark site & exceptionally transparent air. Even then I'd expect it to be hard to see more than a hint of contrast at the harder edges.

Firstly thanks for the nice comments Paul/Martin.

Regarding actually observing this nebula, my site is out of the question. Also, driving to a dark site location is also out as I no longer have a car! 

Brian's post (quoted above) sets the conditions that I have been brought up to believe are required to view this object - plus other large nebulae such as the Rosette (though the cluster is easy with my 10X50 binoculars) and the North America Nebula.

Regarding filters, out of the various narrowand ones on the market, I believe that a Hydrogen-Beta Filter is supposed to work best on NGC1499. Trouble is that they are pretty expensive (if bought from Lumicon, anyway).