adamphillips

8 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Very nice indeed.

I have couple of suggestions for you if you are up to it.

- Try doing a bit of frequency restoration on your image - using wavelets transform like it's done in planetary imaging. This will make rather noisy image but rate of expansion should be easier to see.

- Maybe do calculation vs measurement on your image?

We have approximate distance to the object and measured expansion rate of 1500m/s - it's rather easy to calculate what sort of angular size difference there would be in 20 years. You can then compare that with measurements from these two images - measure difference in pixels and convert to arc seconds from sampling rate of your system.

yes I do know the calculation for size with known distance and arcseconds. it would be tough to get it perfect but I might try it out. im kinda nerdy like that. im just think it would be pretty approximate based on these two different images. but it will be fun

this is HOO. same data I used for the animation but these are the colors I wanted for the image.

QSI6120wsg-8 astrodon 3nm narrowband filters.

Ha 22x900sec

OIII 17x900sec

I spent a lot of time trying to get the colors to match the original hubble image. it turned out better than I thought it would. the hubble image is from 2000, and the new one is from 2019. almost 20 years of expansion. remember this is expanding at about 1500 meters per second. 

it looks like the most movement you can see is the swirling around of the inside

and by the way, somebaody did an awesome 10 year timelapse of the crab. 1 picture a year with the same equipment. it is really good, its over on astrobin

https://www.astrobin.com/full/327338/0/

thank you very much. that website will help

that is cool, im working on my image of the crab and im going to make an animation from hubbles picture 20 years ago, so you can see the expansion over 20 years. what im curious about is, your animation moves smoothly to the next image, did you use some software to make the transition or did you just make all the individual frames?

Here is the old version. I also used to shy away from the reddish hues in the yellow. I liked yellow better.

one big difference is I used to go crazy with noise reduction giving a way too smooth look, you can only really tell if you zoom way in. but a trick I learned is color noise reduction. you can crank that all the way up in camera raw with PS, and it really smooths out problem areas. I think it bring down saturation just a hair too but it works wonders.

I really like the reddish one. looks way more natural. could even be stretched just a little bit more, but the subtle look is nice

2 hours ago, alan potts said:

Really nice images Adam, rich colours without in my view over doing it.

Alan

yes ive been trying to scale back the intensity of my processing, I do like to pull out faint structures but I used to overdue the brightness of the colors. its a delicate balance. I always see other images that seem to look more natural, processing skills take years to evolve.

my first narrowband image through my new stellarvue 130mm, this is reduced .8 to f/5.25

QSI6120 astrodon 3nm filters

I really wanted to reprocess my data from last year, I loved the old version, but my processing has come very far in a year.

these are all 900 second subs, QSI6120 astrodon 3nm filters

Stellarvue 80mm reduced to f/4.8

wow. I think you've convinced me to do this in narrowband. much of the color looks natural, just with extras added.

are narrowband filters ok to use with a dslr? I have a canon 5d mark ii. orion has a set of all three on sale for 200 dollars I think I want it