Kinch

5 minutes ago, Craig a said:

That’s a really interesting image

Indeed - I can't  recall seeing a similar nebula - but then again, such events do indeed throw out many shapes that are all very interesting.

Description by Sakib Rasool: (From the internet)

This nebula was first discovered by the astronomer Stewart Sharpless in 1959 who included it in his catalogue of HII regions under the name of Sh2-200. His catalogue was compiled after analysing photographic plates taken at the Palomar Observatory. The misidentification of HDW 2 (or Sh2-200) arose from the criteria of assembling the catalogue, which compared the separate red and blue photographic plates of the same region. If a nebula was more prominently visible on the red plate, it was deduced that it was more likely to be an ionized nebula. The other criteria was the presence of bright stars in the vicinity, which might be the source of ionization.

In 1983, Sh2-200 was included in the HDW catalogue of possible planetary nebulae by the astronomers Herbert Hartl, Johann Dengel and Ronald Weinberger. However it wasn't confirmed to be a true genuine planetary nebula until 2017 when spectra was taken as part of professional observations. In 1987, further narrowband observations by Herbert Hartl and Ronald Weinberger detected a large faint outer halo extending further than the central shell.

Despite being very old and highly evolved, low surface brightness planetary nebulae such as SH2-200 (or HDW 2 as it is also known) contain very hot and energetic central stars, which are the remnant cores of the progenitor star that died and ejected its outer gaseous layers. The energy output of some planetary nebula central stars is so prodigious that it is capable of ionizing unrelated gas in the surrounding vicinity causing it to glow. 

Higher res image and capture details are on my website.

We will all be in for some treats when you get going in ernest with it.....🤩

👍

Martin.....if you like green in the images (I saw your comment on another post)....you might like the middle image on my web page : https://www.kinchastro.com/sh2-284.html

Thanks Martin. I actually may go back and try it again myself. I had problems with the data I was working with for this rendition - related to the darks on my ML16200 camera. With cleaner data - I would love to (try) improve on this. 

Looking good in Ha. I have found this area very difficult to finish in a colour image ....but sound like you won't have to worry about that until next year. 😏

I sometimes end up with the same dilemma. I do a first run, then decide that the image needs this and that to make it better and then do a second version. I now have two renditions - can't decide which I like best.....so I may just mix the two. (Quite easy in PixInsight - not sure how that would work for you). Of the above....my inclination would be to mix the top and middle images (50/50 to start with)....just to see  👀. I like the top one best....but I would like to see just a hint of green in it.

This is one I put some time in on AGAIN last night. I may be expecting too much out of the data I have (since January this year) but, since it is not imaged all that often....I thought I would put up my latest effort. It may give someone an idea for a 'new' target as we move into 2021.

17 minutes ago, Rodd said:

Nonsense.....I find the PI method pretty easy.  granted I have only ever done 2 panel mosaics--this will be my first where panels will have to be attached along 2 borders.  It would be a lot easier to image with a 50100 camera (even a full frame with the FSQ 106 at F3 would only need 1 frame to get this--2 at most)

It is not so much stitching them together but - trying to process all to look the same hue and depth. It took me from 26 Nov to 15 Dec to gather the data....lots of different conditions over the period. If I remember correctly I used APP to do the whole job.....it does well with mosaics. Anyway.....Good Luck with the project. I am glad it is you and not me 🤣🤣

1 minute ago, Rodd said:

bout time for another! 

I may have been put off them....FOR LIFE 🤣

Hi Rodd - this is one I always wanted under my belt - and finally did it in 2018 when I got a large chip camera. (https://www.kinchastro.com/simeis-147.html). I wanted it in good detail and like you, ended up doing a 4 panel mosaic rather than well reduced. Mind you - it put me off mosaics.......I have not done one since (It was a work up). 🙄

I never had much luck with this one.....🙄. You have used your gear well....can't believe how little time there is in this!

Well done Rodd - lovely processing. 

1 hour ago, Allinthehead said:

Thanks Brendan, hope all's good with you.

Apart from cloudy skies every other night and high humidity when the skies are clear......things couldn't be better   ☹️

12 hours ago, Laurin Dave said:

normal for that sensor

Wow!....Wish I had known that much earlier. Like you, I have been working with this chip for some time and was scratching my head over what I saw. Now that I know for sure (apparently), there will be no problem taking new Darks every so often. Thanks for that info - now that I have a remedy (I hope), all is good with the world again. 😏

3 hours ago, Laurin Dave said:

I seem to remember Brendan reporting that he'd seen something similar with his 16200 camera

Dave:   Yes - I found that a problem I had was overcome with new Darks....and.....that the problem seemed to be resurfacing some time later again. (I cannot expand on what "some time later" actually means - I am not sure). I did not continue and follow up to pinpoint the problem (I changed camera for an unrelated reason - and have not yet put the 16200 camera back on). I suspected at the time (for lack of another explanation) that perhaps the ambient temp. was the root cause - i.e. the differing loads on the TEC. I hope I don't have to do DARKS every two/three months.....but if that keeps things OK....then I will. However, perhaps a set for a particular temp. range can be used for more than just one 2/3 month period.........depending on the ambient temperature.

Obviously a lot of effort for you but it has paid off  👍 - even if you think this is still a WIP. I remember trying it once and just 'walked away' from it .  (I would need an extender and extremely good conditions to even think about it again).

Fantastic - looks lovely from afar OR close in. (It ticks all the boxes).

3 hours ago, Allinthehead said:

I'm eagerly awaiting the newly redesigned Tak Epsilon 160

👍 Good move I would think.....hope the delivery goes smooth. Looking forward to even more fantastic images from you over the coming months. (No pressure 🤣)

1 hour ago, MartinB said:

your image is an absolute corker

WoW! - thanks for that Martin. Wide field images, if the resolution & data is good enough, are great value..... sometimes two for the price of one 😁

11 minutes ago, John Nodding said:

Lovely image Kinch!

Thanks so much for the comment Noddy 👍

1 hour ago, souls33k3r said:

We were speaking on Facebook regarding my NGC1491

Ahmed.....now I am able to find your NGC1491 on Astrobin.....I was looking for it but without  "souls33k3r" I could not pinpoint it. Well done again on that one - you are getting a good positive response on it. I used to be on Astrobin years ago - then opted out when it was still free - but not working too well (when it was: "I'll like your image if you like mine").  Now - I just don't feel like paying to store/show images there. 

Thanks for your comment on this one - as I said elsewhere, it was nice to have good data so that a crop, looking close in at a section of a wider image, worked out OK for resolution.

27 minutes ago, Adreneline said:

Very nice Brendan- really like the colours.

Adrian 

Thanks Adrian. I always find that an image I produce on my home computer does not always show up EXACTLY the same online. It looks a bit brighter here.....but probably no harm 🤓

26 minutes ago, Eris said:

That is a stunning image.  You didn't borrow Hubble for a few hours did you?

ha ha 🤣   Eris....I wish I could.......that REALLY would be fun!   (It is just a small part from a previous image).