Kinch

21 minutes ago, JOC said:

FWIW I think I prefer Port

I prefer that one also......and that is why I posted that one. My wife prefers the other.......what more can I say (apart from her being on the opposite side of the boat from me 🤣 )

Here is one that is not imaged too often........I can understand why ......it was far from easy coming up with a final image and at that, did not get the colours that I was initially trying for. Settled for two completely different finishes (Port & Starboard 😆). One is shown here.....both, with all the details, can be seen on my website: http://www.kinchastro.com/sh2-232.html

Quote

-its just a bit psychedelic for my taste

I felt exactly the same about my image and ended up toning it down completely. Having said that, I don't actually mind the colours you ended up with.....at times it is really nice to look at things in a completely different perspective. 👍

Thanks for the report. I am not actually getting a MESU but my next mount will have SiTech control.....hence my interest. Best of luck as you continue to explore and use the new mount. Clear skies too   🙂

For those that prefer less green.....

Just a closer look in at SH2-284 (Hubble Palette)

👍

Hi Stuart.....I did a quick run at it this afternoon. There were some artifacts in the OIII, but I ploughed on and just ignored them - really only looking to see what the data gave me......not trying to make an APOD 🙂

For a start you can see that we have completely different approaches to NB data.....there is no comparison on the final colours. However there is underlying detail that is there to be brought out no matter which way one goes about it. I mixed Ha, SII & OIII to make a Lum layer which then went back in to make a final LSHO. The second image is HaSHO - again a quick effort just to look at possibilities and not a fully finished image.

I am sorry if my colours hurt your eyes....it is just the way I work with NB data. (Obviously I cropped the final images also - again for me, that is how I would finish them).

Regards.

it is hard to call a halt on processing something because it is "not very interesting".  I have found the same at time....head off on a long data acquisition run only to be a little underwhelmed by what the final image is throwing up. Still.....worth finishing this one I think.....just a general search on the internet throws up some OK images. Thanks for putting the stacked images up. I have a bad weather week in front of me....don't mind if I do play with the data....and I will let you know how it turns out in due course. 👍

Especially for those of us who prefer "traditional" NB colouring  (closer to Hubble palette than the last post). Like Rodd - I would be interested in any remarks comparing the two approaches. See both together at http://www.kinchastro.com/sh2-284.html

51 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

Isn't retirement great!

....as long as the nights stay clear   😄

Thanks for that - and good luck with hunting it down. Good thing I am retired - I spent 8 hours almost just playing with the processing today. At least I got a picture at the end of it all....I was not too sure for a while though. 😏

I found it quite difficult to get a half decent image out of this....and it is 20 hours in total! The signal is reasonable (but not great) in Ha but weak in OIII and even weaker in SII. (In fact I can hardly see 6 hours of SII on my screen). My intention was to try for an SHO image but did not like what I was getting. Then opted for HOO, but again was not too happy. This is actually a combination of the two. (Ha: 8 hours and 6 hours each OIII & SII).  Not often imaged - there are very few examples to check against on the net  - so hope you enjoy looking in on SH2-284. (I will have higher res up on my web site later tonight - Jan 17th).

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

But I do expect the top one to be the more "correct" image. 

To be honest....spending most of my time working with NB data - I could not say which is more "correct"...... but on my monitor, the top one is more natural....if I can put it that way.

NB.....working on images for a year or more can be dangerous for your mental health!   🤔

Of the two.....I prefer the top image. 👍

For me the 0.73x worked very well - I really liked it (Still do but have not used it on the 106ED for a while now). The extender also worked OK but the conditions really need to be excellent for the extender....as does your tracking.

Either one requires that the back focus is spot on - the 3rd diagram on this page might help:  http://www.kinchastro.com/connection-diagrams---hardware.html

The other thing to check is how much your imaging changes - the field of view and the ArcSec/Pix. (CCDCalc is good for this). If you like what you see in that regard - then go for it......I think it is a good piece of kit that will give variation in your final images.

This is just two nights of data capture - not nearly enough for this object.....but I have already moved on. Total 12.5 hours (ha 5, OIII 4 & SII 3.5 hours). Full info on my web site....if interested.

Since it is not imaged very often....I guess a little is better than none at all. (I do hope I can come back and add to this....but it won't be anytime soon). It is quite noisy - but I will blame the moon for that 😏

Thanks guys.....yes, 1.9 AS/Pix works a treat for me as the seeing is most likely only rarely any better than that and it makes it very forgiving for the guiding. I am usually guiding at 0.6 AS/Pix give or take but at times it can wander over 1 when the relative humidity is somewhat bad......but it never affects the final image.. 

5 hours ago, old_eyes said:

How long was the capture?

This is the same image data as my previous post (Rosette) which shows the full FoV (almost). It is a total of 16 hours: 5 each Ha & OIII with 6 hours SII.

Tonight I reworked my Rosette Nebula image - my intention was to leave a lot more green in the final image. Rather than putting that full image up again - I just thought I would show the centre of the Rosette (still bue though). I am quite pleased with the detail that comes through from a 5" scope - albeit a premium 5" Tak FSQ. As Rodd brought up in a previous post - it is great when one can do a wide view image, yet zoom in to a cropped section to make an equally interesting image from just part of the 'whole'. This is full resolution - but just a small section - to show some detail. The stars have not been reduced by any software process - but carefull attention was paid to maintaining focus during capture. The resolution here is 1.9 ArcSec/Pix.

Some people like strong colours - but I almost always tend to be a bit more consevative. Several people have mentioned the tiny stars - keeping focus through the night is paramount for that - but I am lucky that the FSQ 130 always gives me small stars. I generally do not have to reduce them - but in this instance I did in the SII & OIII to help get rid of the magenta fringe. One way or the other (no matter how you do it) - I personally think it is always desireable to have small stars in Nebula shots - otherwise attention is drawn away from the nebulaosity that we are trying to capture.

Thanks Rodd.  Here is the core at full resolution...

Rosette Nebula: Total 16 hours HaSHO with FLI ML16200 on Tak FSQ 130ED.

Thanks Carole. Just looking at it again...I think it looks better turned 90°- more like a Rosette 🙂. In any case - just playing tonight as the clouds rolled in after just two hours.....next time I hope I will have a finished colour image to put up here.

After several months of "Nothing" due to work , Christmas, travel but mostly Weather.....I finally got two hours of Ha data tonight with FLI ML6200 on Tak FSQ130. Well....it's a start 🤨

It shows up on my effort of almost a year ago....I would have to look back through the data to be sure where it actually came through.

http://www.kinchastro.com/m1-crab-nebula.html