Isn't that the scene of Xandir's anal defloration ("Drawn Together")?
Speaking of...
As imgur disallowed bitcointalk, i decided to upload a fresh pic of one of my favorite deep space targets to talkimg.
NGC 2244 aka. Rosette Nebula (More, but maybe boring details below)
This time i used the new Autofocus, resulting in some more details and less blur in the original data. I also followed a EAA (Electronically Assisted Astronomy) approach of cranking up the camera's gain, which allows the total imaging time to stay low while collecting the same amount of light as in regular astrophotography. This results in more noise and shorter single frame exposure times. The two major caveats are reduction of dynamic, so stars are saturated earlier, as well as the very faint sky background structures (radiations) don't get through, because they drown in the increased noise levels. SNR and dynamics vs. convenience. This works well with bright targets and star structures, without much nebulosity in the background. I had to stay down to 30 seconds of single frame exposure time, while 20 would have produced nicer stars, also the power plug of the telescope mount fell out, because the cable got caught by an adjustment screw mid session, i recognized it 35 minutes later, stopped the session and threw away 71 of 236 frames. Total image count should have been 240, i decided to increase the amount of images because the night was so clear, when i discovered the accident. Still, the level of (foreground) detail in the processed result is about the same as in a high-definition astrophotography session of about 4-5 hours in duration. The target is of medium brightness, at the edge of being suitable for the high-gain/short exposure EAA approach. A major difference is the relatively higher amount of shorter wavelengths (non red-ish) compared to imaging at unity-gain, which is most likely a result of the shorter exposures, too.
Enuff of the blah, have a nice day
EDIT: So why did i go the EAA route? Because my current astro camera is a bit of a unicorn when it comes to calibrate out nasty artifacts, but only when using it the standard (high-dynamic) way. It originally was designed as an EAA camera, and has many fans in the EAA community. So it seemed logical that processing data in an EAA-kind-of-way might deliver better results in terms of less artifacts, which turned out to be the case here. However, i will buy a good camera for classic astrophotography, but i'll need a better PC to process the data (already ordered), since the images are 4 times the size in bytes, from the IMX 571 sensors, which are currently "good standard". Also the Xeon E5 CPU i'm using for number-crunching is no more supported by a growing number of data processing software vendors. Staying on the EAA side of things will also result in having to process about 4 times more image files, which takes a heck of times longer, too. New system performance should be 3x CPU, 10x I/O compared to the old PC.
And i can't wait to process galaxy pics using EAA, with 5 second exposures for crisp results by combining more than 1000 images.